Anyone who says humans are "the most resilient species in the world" is shockingly ignorant of the many other species that exist on this world. The amount of infrastructure we depend on to thrive, the fragility of it and the amount of time it takes to build is astounding.
This article gives a list of animals that are far more resilient than humans ever could be. And this doesn't even touch on every species of bacteria or archaea that exists, all exponentially more resilient as a species than humans.
It's worth noting that at the time Hitler was coming to power there was an actual Socialist party that the the Nazis were vehemently opposed to. It is also worth noting that Hitler reportedly loved children and he may have been a vegetarian. And yet loving children and not eating meat are not traits that point to a need to conquer Europe or wipe out an entire race of people.
I don't hate people who are born psychopaths or pedophiles. What I do hate, however, are people who act out on their psychopathy or pedophilia with no concern about the damage it causes other people. That's the point where my sympathy for them dies.
Back when I was doing my Master's Project I used the tool NAUTY extensively to test out isomorphism on graphs I was interested in. Checking around a little bit it looks like NAUTY does a fairly good job in most cases, but there are a few classes of graphs which gives it fits. Something that this new algorithm addresses.
Oh yeah. Smart pointers Reg. Remember what programming used to be like?
Yeah, all right, I'll grant you, zero-cost abstraction and smart pointers are two things that C++ has done.
And the portability.
Well yeah obviously the portability, I mean portability goes without saying, doesn't it? But apart from the zero-cost abstraction, smart pointers and portability...
In my opinion Slashdot is more technology-aligned than science-aligned. Any hint that we'd have to slow down "progress" and (consequently) the rate of releasing new shiny-shiny toys tends to be met with derision.
The point is that you're relying largely on the opinion of lobbyists and activists for your information. They're not reliable because they're inherently biased.
Errrr... no. When I read up on what effects us human have on the environment I keep it to people who study such things for a living, with supporting degrees and hard facts to back up their claims. No need to go on tangents on the Drake Equation or what have you. Just read more into the link I provided with the references to back the claims. No need to judge whether this is a good, bad, or indifferent thing at first. Just get an objective view of what the situation is.
Sorry, but I can't see the person you linked to as a "respectable" authority on the subject. The times I'd find him respectable is when he's giving advice on writing entertaining thrillers, some of which involve dinosaurs.
You're correct that species go instinct all the time, and have been far before we ever arrived on the scene. However all the evidence points to us accelerating the process by our actions. The question then becomes, could we be killing off things making our survival more difficult. Whether we're killing off all of the non-gross, filthy and nasty things isn't a huge concern of mine. But I wouldn't discount the attitude completely. We tend to evolve to see beauty in the things that are beneficial to us.
I don't see how later in your post what you're saying is supposed to raise hair on the back of my neck. Life adapts, and we've bred life to be beneficial to us. It's not exactly a secret. *shrug* If you want to read an excellent account of how life adapts and what impact we've had on the world, try reading The World Without Us sometime. You can see a pretty good excerpt here.
I'm afraid you've highly over-estimated the adaptability of the human race. We really aren't. Our high intelligent may have origins that go back as far as 2 million years. We live among species that have remain unchanged for HUNDREDS OF MILLION OF YEARS. Don't be so uncertain we're here to last. Our timeline is way too short to have any proven track-record, no matter how shiny our gizmos may appear. You want an adaptable life-form? Look to bacteria. Those suckers were the first to appear on this planet, and they'll be the last to leave when it's burnt up by the sun.
You you say we've done bad things? What? I assume this is environmental stuff? That's massively over hyped. To the contrary, the most technologically advanced societies have superior environmental conditions than do more primitive societies.
Well we are in the middle of an extinction event that is largely believed to be caused by humans. This might be notable, yes? Many of the technologically advanced societies have superior environmental conditions because they depend on societies with less stringent regulations so that they can buy stuff on the cheap. You ever wonder what would happen to our economy if all the countries providing materials and services we depended on had the same restrictions we did?
You assumed very very much about what I'm saying and my beliefs based on very very little. Do you think it's even possible that someone can disagree with you without being deluded or insane? I don't believe in the supernatural myself. Not what most would consider "religious". We may or may not stagnate. It is you who are making the assumption that we will continue to progress on a scale that we could genetically engineer all of our problems away. I'm just saying it's a big assumption.
All I'm saying is that it's sometimes a good idea to step back and ask where are we going, what are we doing what's useful, what are we doing that's harmful. Just having a battle cry of "Progress!" (progress to what?) just because it seems really really cool might not be enough. Hardly "the faith of doom and destruction." LOL
As to IQ not being interesting, you're not understanding the impact that stupid people have on society or the benefits of having a society of geniuses.
I think you're missing his point about IQ. Even though we humans may be the only animal capable of rational thought, we actually aren't all that rational. People with high IQs do stupid shit as frequently as those with low IQs. They just have more complex, convoluted arguments to convince themselves they're right in situations where their motivations are actually irrational. It takes a bit of wisdom to step back and see the difference.
Lets look at what our society has accomplished with my mentality
Very rapid change in a short amount of time. Some of it very good, some of it very bad. Throwing them together in the same category and considering anyone who questions if all of them are wise as Luddites who belong in drum circles is more than a little disingenuous.
What you consider inevitablilities are insanely speculative. Life on this planet has been around about 3.5 billion years. Us humans have been around for 250,000 years of it. And just 10,000 years of that since the agricultural revolution. Can the rate of technological advances continue at the same pace as it has since, what, a few hundred years ago? Who knows. Can stable civilizations stay in place at the current pace? Will we find technological solutions to pollutants that are causing a rapid decrease in biodiversity? Will the rapid decline in biodiversity later affect us in ways our civilizations cannot recover from? Who knows. Who knows. Who knows. What you are proposing depends on a long period of human civilizations capable of such advancements that just might not be there.
If you are concerned about "ideological dogma", you might want to step back from what you've been writing, take a deep breath, and re-read it sometime.
So you have no way of knowing what it was like to be uncircumcised, and yet are able to conclude there are zero side effects without anything else to compare circumcision to? I'm guessing you and logic are not close friends.
You might want to read into the functions the foreskin was created through many millions of years of evolution to provide. Or read the opinion on the procedure from countries that do not practice it routinely. Ones unlike the US, which started it to curtail the scourge of excessive masturbation. Being circumcised myself, I'm horrified to have a naturally occurring piece of my body removed without given a choice in the matter.
Interestingly enough, men's rights groups aren't the only ones who are interested in the topic. Some of the strongest anti-circumcision voices I've heard have come from dyed in the wool feminists.
Just because there is a good reason for cats to torment their prey doesn't mean they aren't enjoying it. Hunting is part of their nature, and it does seem that more intelligent animals get joy out of doing what they were born to do.
I mean a household cat doesn't need to hunt to eat, but when left outside it will hunt with gusto. Its joy is inflicting agony and death.
2) Observe that technological progress seems to be accelerating. So, the reach of any predictive models we have today will be even shorter when used tomorrow.
I think LeCun covers this quite well when he quotes, "the first part of a sigmoid looks a lot like an exponential." There's nothing that says the acceleration of technological progress has to continue as it has.
"Is it true that you smoke eight to ten cigars a day?" "That's true." "Is it true that you drink five martinis a day?" "That's true." "Is it true that you still surround yourself with beautiful young women?" "That's true." "What does your doctor say about all of this?" "My doctor is dead."
I don't think that's crackpot speculation - it's not a crazy idea. More like amateur speculation, and a really good one at that imho. Wish I had some mod points for you.
So, to get this straight, you are seriously wondering why someone would insist that the point of playing something called a "role playing game" would be to play a role. Probably because if they didn't then what you were playing would have to have another name.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who says humans are "the most resilient species in the world" is shockingly ignorant of the many other species that exist on this world. The amount of infrastructure we depend on to thrive, the fragility of it and the amount of time it takes to build is astounding.
This article gives a list of animals that are far more resilient than humans ever could be. And this doesn't even touch on every species of bacteria or archaea that exists, all exponentially more resilient as a species than humans.
It's worth noting that at the time Hitler was coming to power there was an actual Socialist party that the the Nazis were vehemently opposed to. It is also worth noting that Hitler reportedly loved children and he may have been a vegetarian. And yet loving children and not eating meat are not traits that point to a need to conquer Europe or wipe out an entire race of people.
I don't hate people who are born psychopaths or pedophiles. What I do hate, however, are people who act out on their psychopathy or pedophilia with no concern about the damage it causes other people. That's the point where my sympathy for them dies.
Hello. Thank you!
Back when I was doing my Master's Project I used the tool NAUTY extensively to test out isomorphism on graphs I was interested in. Checking around a little bit it looks like NAUTY does a fairly good job in most cases, but there are a few classes of graphs which gives it fits. Something that this new algorithm addresses.
And what has C++ ever given us in return?
...And smart pointers.
Zero-cost abstraction?
What?
Zero-cost abstraction?
Oh. Yeah yeah. It did give us that, that is true.
Oh yeah. Smart pointers Reg. Remember what programming used to be like?
Yeah, all right, I'll grant you, zero-cost abstraction and smart pointers are two things that C++ has done.
And the portability.
Well yeah obviously the portability, I mean portability goes without saying, doesn't it? But apart from the zero-cost abstraction, smart pointers and portability...
Language stability?
In my opinion Slashdot is more technology-aligned than science-aligned. Any hint that we'd have to slow down "progress" and (consequently) the rate of releasing new shiny-shiny toys tends to be met with derision.
Well your second statement is correct, anyways.
Change my "be so uncertain" above to "be so certain". Grrrrr...
Errrr... no. When I read up on what effects us human have on the environment I keep it to people who study such things for a living, with supporting degrees and hard facts to back up their claims. No need to go on tangents on the Drake Equation or what have you. Just read more into the link I provided with the references to back the claims. No need to judge whether this is a good, bad, or indifferent thing at first. Just get an objective view of what the situation is.
Sorry, but I can't see the person you linked to as a "respectable" authority on the subject. The times I'd find him respectable is when he's giving advice on writing entertaining thrillers, some of which involve dinosaurs.
You're correct that species go instinct all the time, and have been far before we ever arrived on the scene. However all the evidence points to us accelerating the process by our actions. The question then becomes, could we be killing off things making our survival more difficult. Whether we're killing off all of the non-gross, filthy and nasty things isn't a huge concern of mine. But I wouldn't discount the attitude completely. We tend to evolve to see beauty in the things that are beneficial to us.
I don't see how later in your post what you're saying is supposed to raise hair on the back of my neck. Life adapts, and we've bred life to be beneficial to us. It's not exactly a secret. *shrug* If you want to read an excellent account of how life adapts and what impact we've had on the world, try reading The World Without Us sometime. You can see a pretty good excerpt here.
I'm afraid you've highly over-estimated the adaptability of the human race. We really aren't. Our high intelligent may have origins that go back as far as 2 million years. We live among species that have remain unchanged for HUNDREDS OF MILLION OF YEARS. Don't be so uncertain we're here to last. Our timeline is way too short to have any proven track-record, no matter how shiny our gizmos may appear. You want an adaptable life-form? Look to bacteria. Those suckers were the first to appear on this planet, and they'll be the last to leave when it's burnt up by the sun.
Well we are in the middle of an extinction event that is largely believed to be caused by humans. This might be notable, yes? Many of the technologically advanced societies have superior environmental conditions because they depend on societies with less stringent regulations so that they can buy stuff on the cheap. You ever wonder what would happen to our economy if all the countries providing materials and services we depended on had the same restrictions we did?
You assumed very very much about what I'm saying and my beliefs based on very very little. Do you think it's even possible that someone can disagree with you without being deluded or insane? I don't believe in the supernatural myself. Not what most would consider "religious". We may or may not stagnate. It is you who are making the assumption that we will continue to progress on a scale that we could genetically engineer all of our problems away. I'm just saying it's a big assumption.
All I'm saying is that it's sometimes a good idea to step back and ask where are we going, what are we doing what's useful, what are we doing that's harmful. Just having a battle cry of "Progress!" (progress to what?) just because it seems really really cool might not be enough. Hardly "the faith of doom and destruction." LOL
I think you're missing his point about IQ. Even though we humans may be the only animal capable of rational thought, we actually aren't all that rational. People with high IQs do stupid shit as frequently as those with low IQs. They just have more complex, convoluted arguments to convince themselves they're right in situations where their motivations are actually irrational. It takes a bit of wisdom to step back and see the difference.
Very rapid change in a short amount of time. Some of it very good, some of it very bad. Throwing them together in the same category and considering anyone who questions if all of them are wise as Luddites who belong in drum circles is more than a little disingenuous.
What you consider inevitablilities are insanely speculative. Life on this planet has been around about 3.5 billion years. Us humans have been around for 250,000 years of it. And just 10,000 years of that since the agricultural revolution. Can the rate of technological advances continue at the same pace as it has since, what, a few hundred years ago? Who knows. Can stable civilizations stay in place at the current pace? Will we find technological solutions to pollutants that are causing a rapid decrease in biodiversity? Will the rapid decline in biodiversity later affect us in ways our civilizations cannot recover from? Who knows. Who knows. Who knows. What you are proposing depends on a long period of human civilizations capable of such advancements that just might not be there.
If you are concerned about "ideological dogma", you might want to step back from what you've been writing, take a deep breath, and re-read it sometime.
So you have no way of knowing what it was like to be uncircumcised, and yet are able to conclude there are zero side effects without anything else to compare circumcision to? I'm guessing you and logic are not close friends.
You might want to read into the functions the foreskin was created through many millions of years of evolution to provide. Or read the opinion on the procedure from countries that do not practice it routinely. Ones unlike the US, which started it to curtail the scourge of excessive masturbation. Being circumcised myself, I'm horrified to have a naturally occurring piece of my body removed without given a choice in the matter.
Interestingly enough, men's rights groups aren't the only ones who are interested in the topic. Some of the strongest anti-circumcision voices I've heard have come from dyed in the wool feminists.
Just because there is a good reason for cats to torment their prey doesn't mean they aren't enjoying it. Hunting is part of their nature, and it does seem that more intelligent animals get joy out of doing what they were born to do.
I mean a household cat doesn't need to hunt to eat, but when left outside it will hunt with gusto. Its joy is inflicting agony and death.
Play Go then. Black moves first.
This x1000. People seem to have readily forgotten the article that was referenced by Slashdot just last month.
Right. Because everybody wants to rule the world...
Best to wait until they have the whole nausea problem settled. This is one case where you don't want to fall victim to the Ludovico technique.
It didn't take a supernova to create all of the elements other than hydrogen, helium and lithium - only the heavier ones. See here.
I think LeCun covers this quite well when he quotes, "the first part of a sigmoid looks a lot like an exponential." There's nothing that says the acceleration of technological progress has to continue as it has.
I'm seriously regretting any anti-bacterial soap I've used over the years right about now.
"Is it true that you smoke eight to ten cigars a day?"
"That's true."
"Is it true that you drink five martinis a day?"
"That's true."
"Is it true that you still surround yourself with beautiful young women?"
"That's true."
"What does your doctor say about all of this?"
"My doctor is dead."
- An interview with George Burns
I don't think that's crackpot speculation - it's not a crazy idea. More like amateur speculation, and a really good one at that imho. Wish I had some mod points for you.
Yeah, I think you should read this article to get a better idea of the scope of the undertaking you're talking about.
So, to get this straight, you are seriously wondering why someone would insist that the point of playing something called a "role playing game" would be to play a role. Probably because if they didn't then what you were playing would have to have another name.