Caesar, one of our lab monkeys on cocaine with an electronically-enhanced brain, has escaped from the biotech facility and stole a truck full of our latest brain prosthetic devices and all our reserves of experimental hard drugs. He has liberated the zoo gorillas and baboons, and supplied them with electronic brain-enhancers and narcotics. The war on us humans has already begun and is raging as I'm writing this.
...
The end is near...We are dying...Crack-head monkeys have just broken into my office....Good bye, good bye, and God save us all..Aaaaaaargh..
...And some (i.e the army ants) also practice a form of Denial of Service Attacks when they carry out massive raids over a specific area, denying food for other colonies.
They also wage wars of annihilation where weaker colonies are wiped out. But that's another story and the algorithm is way simpler.
"With all due respect, I believe you are being dishonest for the sake of argumentation."
Nope.
"Feelings towards loved ones don't just magically disappear at the moment of death."
I never said that they did. You should, however, care more about the memories of the person than the persons dead body which they will no longer have a use for. If it could be used to help others rather than just rot in the ground or be burnt into ashes, why not (again, I know that this wasn't the case here)? There's no sense to this.
It doesn't have to be rational. Unless you believe that Humans are 100% rational beings , and would see a corpse for what it is.
Attaching emotions to things is part of being human. Ignoring all non-rational dimensions of human nature is being illogical.
"Unless you don't have any feelings to begin with, which is still a possibility. By being a psychopath, for instance."
I suppose being different is always a possibility, but I don't really fit into this criteria.
"Psychopath" was of course not meant as an insult. Psychopaths are among the most rational of individuals, since they are not being influenced by emotions nor conscience.
I won't pretend to speak for the GP, but I feel I should point out that a loved one and a corpse are different things. If you really believe that the person you loved is gone when they die, there is no real reason to have feelings about the shell left behind.
And what you are saying (both of you & the GP), has only the appearance of logic.
If you truly believe that a loved one is gone, then that "shell" is about only concrete in-flesh thing left of him/her. It has his/her face & his/her body.
Saying that you don't have any feelings for that shell is bizarre.
Doesn't a photograph of your gone loved one spark any emotion? But a photograph & the actual person it represents are two completely different things. And a dead body of a person who just died is more tangible than that photograph.
"Cool; so when someone close to you dies they wont mind if I come along and urinate on their body before the funeral?"
Not really. They're dead, why would I care?
With all due respect, I believe you are being dishonest for the sake of argumentation. Feelings towards loved ones don't just magically disappear at the moment of death.
Unless you don't have any feelings to begin with, which is still a possibility. By being a psychopath, for instance.
The Incredible Hulk - new & improved.
on
Muscle Mice
·
· Score: 1
From the article: "These cells not only repaired the injury, but they caused the treated muscle to increase in size by 170 percent."
Here comes the New Incredible Hulk. No need for gamma rays, nor anger feed to turn into a green monster. Gone the urge to get new large clothes after each transformation..
The New Hulk version 2.0 doesn't turn green. He has gone through several stem cells injections, he stays big, and doesn't need anger management classes... But it will be still quite unwise to piss him off.
What possibly could be remotely important about this study?
Basically, the researcher made a completely arbitrary "evolutionary" assumption that the view of meat provoked "blood lust", despite any evidence to that. And then he stood corrected after wasting funds on that largely irrelevant issue. Blood lust didn't help our ancestors hunt, hunger did. It would seem way more logical to most people - except to that researcher, obviously - that the view of meat would calm them, since it meant "dinner's (almost?) ready".
The view of meat could provoke anger with some people like veggie activists, but this has nothing to do with our ancestors hunting for food, IMO.
$54,000 is still a lot of money, but it's doable, over a good number of years.
For a native-American woman mother of four, with a job as a natural resource coordinator in Indian reservation? I might be wrong, but don't think $54,000 is doable either.
Blaming Harry Potter or its fans doesn't seem to have much to do with the problem of disappearing owls, since the article itself mentions big Hindu festivals where the birds are sacrificed.
What's the threat here exactly, some kids taking owls as pets, or crowds of religious fanatics killing these birds in offerings to their gods?
Google's answer with counterclaims. Like a declaration that the Oracle’s claims be barred by the doctrine of "unclean hands" (i.e. bad faith), and for Oracle to pay Google's attorney fees for that invalid lawsuit.
The point is that these primate fossils show that they might have colonized Africa from somewhere else. Why? Because of the sudden appearance of such diversity while there is no earlier fossil evidence.
The most likely place would be Asia. Why? Probably because of the earlier findings of old fossils there and that one of the Libyan anthropoids resembled one found in Asia.
Apart from that specific article, the more important point IMO is that IQT's mission is not just "fraud", but whatever is supposed to serve "national security". The latter being increasingly used as an excuse to monitor as many people as possible.
In 2009 for example, IQT invested in a company called "Visible Technologies" which specialized in social media monitoring & tracking, such as the monitoring of blog posts or tweets. Another company IQT invested in, "Recorded Future" , extracted "time and event information from the Web". Another one would be "Attensity, with its own web 2.0-monitoring service.etc...
Nothing really new here: extensive Web monitoring & electronic surveillance by Big Brother in the name of cybersecurity. Dubious overall efficiency but enormous potential for privacy violations.
Maybe Big Business is not so good for science, but still most tech innovations are done primarily in the private sector. The state is actually a much bigger obstacle to scientific research.
In "The Economic Laws of Scientific Research", Keeley showed with backed data (stats from OECD countries,) that gov-funded R&D is wasteful, and appears to reduce overall R&D spending, thereby causing slower economic growth.
Publicly funded science is ineffective compared to the private sector, although the latter is far from being perfect.
And since we're talking about Canada, an anecdotal evidence of the thesis above is the deplorable present state of Canadian fisheries where R&D are managed by the DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) .
Newspapers make the bulk of their money from selling ad space, not with subscription fees.
If the same news are available elsewhere for free, then subscription fees are useless. If that was not the case, if the NYT had worthwhile content unavailable anywhere else that would make readers keep coming back, then yes, this could work. I don't see that being the case, IMO.
All that is fine & dandy, but the major problem for the US forces in Afghanistan isn't energy, but a lack of strategy, IMO.
Talibans don't have F-16 nor drones, they don't have solar panels, and they still control over 90% of the country.
Example of bad strategy is fuel trucks crossing the Khyber Pass, historically well-known & pretty well-suited for ambush. Just ask the British who lost an army there in the nineteenth century.
Hardly surprising, since Google CEO Eric Schmidt's notorious "if you want privacy, you have something to hide" remark.
The problem with this guy power-tripping on some kids, was not that he didn't give importance to people's privacy - which is apparently along the lines of the company's general mindset - but that he got caught for being stupid.
He is also known for aggressive cost-cutting with massive layoffs, but that's actually another positive trait in a CEO.
Unless, of course, you're making your numbers for the quarter/year look good at the cost of cutting resources you can't easily replace that you'll need for long-term success.
A number of people have alleged this is the case with Hurd; I don't know enough to say for sure either way.
Looking at the way companies are run today, I'm not sure long-term success is sought as much as short-term ones. Making the quarter/year books look good & investors happy & stocks rise, even if it is just for a while, seems good enough to qualify for a "Top Gun CEO" nomination.
Nope. "Cronyism" is putting friends in positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications.
Hurd's record as a CEO speaks for itself, like HP becoming number one in computers sales, and having its market share for printers increase significantly.
He is also known for aggressive cost-cutting with massive layoffs, but that's actually another positive trait in a CEO.
They state that "a skeletal scan would only expose a person to radiation that is the approximate equivalent of taking one cross-country airline flight", but If they implement it as they hope, to "scan the skeletal structures of people at airports, sports stadiums, theme parks and other public places that could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks, child abductions or other crimes" - how much radiation is that per year? I suppose that scanning your skeleton is only possible with radiation that is strong enough to "reach" your bones.
Other question:
- How many countries have a database of terrorist skeletons just waiting to be used?
The good news is that, we don't have to surrender our privacy, since it's already long gone. We just have to watch out for cancer a little (or a whole lot) more.
And here's the answer to the question everyone wants answered: What does "D" stand for?
"We chose the 'D' in the name, not because it came after models A, B, and C, but because it can stand for demonstrate, deploy, drag, and/or de-orbit."
- Edward "Sandy" Montgomery. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.
Slashdot Mirror
Caesar, one of our lab monkeys on cocaine with an electronically-enhanced brain, has escaped from the biotech facility and stole a truck full of our latest brain prosthetic devices and all our reserves of experimental hard drugs. He has liberated the zoo gorillas and baboons, and supplied them with electronic brain-enhancers and narcotics. The war on us humans has already begun and is raging as I'm writing this.
...
The end is near...We are dying...Crack-head monkeys have just broken into my office....Good bye, good bye, and God save us all..Aaaaaaargh..
...And some (i.e the army ants) also practice a form of Denial of Service Attacks when they carry out massive raids over a specific area, denying food for other colonies.
They also wage wars of annihilation where weaker colonies are wiped out. But that's another story and the algorithm is way simpler.
The average man produces almost one whole pound of poop a day. Times 7 billion. No wonder life stinks.
Might be true innovation in the long term. Or might be just another trick to lock us into proprietary systems. Or a bit of both.
"With all due respect, I believe you are being dishonest for the sake of argumentation."
Nope.
"Feelings towards loved ones don't just magically disappear at the moment of death."
I never said that they did. You should, however, care more about the memories of the person than the persons dead body which they will no longer have a use for. If it could be used to help others rather than just rot in the ground or be burnt into ashes, why not (again, I know that this wasn't the case here)? There's no sense to this.
It doesn't have to be rational. Unless you believe that Humans are 100% rational beings , and would see a corpse for what it is.
Attaching emotions to things is part of being human. Ignoring all non-rational dimensions of human nature is being illogical.
"Unless you don't have any feelings to begin with, which is still a possibility. By being a psychopath, for instance."
I suppose being different is always a possibility, but I don't really fit into this criteria.
"Psychopath" was of course not meant as an insult. Psychopaths are among the most rational of individuals, since they are not being influenced by emotions nor conscience.
I won't pretend to speak for the GP, but I feel I should point out that a loved one and a corpse are different things. If you really believe that the person you loved is gone when they die, there is no real reason to have feelings about the shell left behind.
And what you are saying (both of you & the GP), has only the appearance of logic.
If you truly believe that a loved one is gone, then that "shell" is about only concrete in-flesh thing left of him/her. It has his/her face & his/her body.
Saying that you don't have any feelings for that shell is bizarre.
Doesn't a photograph of your gone loved one spark any emotion? But a photograph & the actual person it represents are two completely different things. And a dead body of a person who just died is more tangible than that photograph.
"Cool; so when someone close to you dies they wont mind if I come along and urinate on their body before the funeral?"
Not really. They're dead, why would I care?
With all due respect, I believe you are being dishonest for the sake of argumentation. Feelings towards loved ones don't just magically disappear at the moment of death.
Unless you don't have any feelings to begin with, which is still a possibility. By being a psychopath, for instance.
Here comes the New Incredible Hulk. No need for gamma rays, nor anger feed to turn into a green monster. Gone the urge to get new large clothes after each transformation..
The New Hulk version 2.0 doesn't turn green. He has gone through several stem cells injections, he stays big, and doesn't need anger management classes... But it will be still quite unwise to piss him off.
Basically, the researcher made a completely arbitrary "evolutionary" assumption that the view of meat provoked "blood lust", despite any evidence to that. And then he stood corrected after wasting funds on that largely irrelevant issue. Blood lust didn't help our ancestors hunt, hunger did. It would seem way more logical to most people - except to that researcher, obviously - that the view of meat would calm them, since it meant "dinner's (almost?) ready".
The view of meat could provoke anger with some people like veggie activists, but this has nothing to do with our ancestors hunting for food, IMO.
$54,000 is still a lot of money, but it's doable, over a good number of years.
For a native-American woman mother of four, with a job as a natural resource coordinator in Indian reservation? I might be wrong, but don't think $54,000 is doable either.
What's the threat here exactly, some kids taking owls as pets, or crowds of religious fanatics killing these birds in offerings to their gods?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101005114201136
Google's answer with counterclaims. Like a declaration that the Oracle’s claims be barred by the doctrine of "unclean hands" (i.e. bad faith), and for Oracle to pay Google's attorney fees for that invalid lawsuit.
The most likely place would be Asia. Why? Probably because of the earlier findings of old fossils there and that one of the Libyan anthropoids resembled one found in Asia.
In 2009 for example, IQT invested in a company called "Visible Technologies" which specialized in social media monitoring & tracking, such as the monitoring of blog posts or tweets. Another company IQT invested in, "Recorded Future" , extracted "time and event information from the Web". Another one would be "Attensity, with its own web 2.0-monitoring service.etc...
Nothing really new here: extensive Web monitoring & electronic surveillance by Big Brother in the name of cybersecurity. Dubious overall efficiency but enormous potential for privacy violations.
In "The Economic Laws of Scientific Research", Keeley showed with backed data (stats from OECD countries,) that gov-funded R&D is wasteful, and appears to reduce overall R&D spending, thereby causing slower economic growth.
Publicly funded science is ineffective compared to the private sector, although the latter is far from being perfect.
And since we're talking about Canada, an anecdotal evidence of the thesis above is the deplorable present state of Canadian fisheries where R&D are managed by the DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) .
If the same news are available elsewhere for free, then subscription fees are useless. If that was not the case, if the NYT had worthwhile content unavailable anywhere else that would make readers keep coming back, then yes, this could work. I don't see that being the case, IMO.
Talibans don't have F-16 nor drones, they don't have solar panels, and they still control over 90% of the country.
Example of bad strategy is fuel trucks crossing the Khyber Pass, historically well-known & pretty well-suited for ambush. Just ask the British who lost an army there in the nineteenth century.
AFAIK, you still get your search results, so what's the big fucking deal?
You want "pamela anderson" "naked" with her huge "titties" ? Press enter.
BTW thanks to whoever marked my comment down as "flamebait" (sigh) for quoting the Google CEO.
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”
"And it’s important, for example, that we’re all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act... "
The "Patriot Act" was given as just one example, not as the main reason. The old "security versus privacy."
The problem with this guy power-tripping on some kids, was not that he didn't give importance to people's privacy - which is apparently along the lines of the company's general mindset - but that he got caught for being stupid.
He is also known for aggressive cost-cutting with massive layoffs, but that's actually another positive trait in a CEO.
Unless, of course, you're making your numbers for the quarter/year look good at the cost of cutting resources you can't easily replace that you'll need for long-term success.
A number of people have alleged this is the case with Hurd; I don't know enough to say for sure either way.
Looking at the way companies are run today, I'm not sure long-term success is sought as much as short-term ones. Making the quarter/year books look good & investors happy & stocks rise, even if it is just for a while, seems good enough to qualify for a "Top Gun CEO" nomination.
Corporate cronyism at it's finest.
Nope. "Cronyism" is putting friends in positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications.
Hurd's record as a CEO speaks for itself, like HP becoming number one in computers sales, and having its market share for printers increase significantly.
He is also known for aggressive cost-cutting with massive layoffs, but that's actually another positive trait in a CEO.
They state that "a skeletal scan would only expose a person to radiation that is the approximate equivalent of taking one cross-country airline flight", but If they implement it as they hope, to "scan the skeletal structures of people at airports, sports stadiums, theme parks and other public places that could be vulnerable to terrorist attacks, child abductions or other crimes" - how much radiation is that per year? I suppose that scanning your skeleton is only possible with radiation that is strong enough to "reach" your bones.
Other question: - How many countries have a database of terrorist skeletons just waiting to be used?
The good news is that, we don't have to surrender our privacy, since it's already long gone. We just have to watch out for cancer a little (or a whole lot) more.
And here's the answer to the question everyone wants answered: What does "D" stand for?
"We chose the 'D' in the name, not because it came after models A, B, and C, but because it can stand for demonstrate, deploy, drag, and/or de-orbit."
- Edward "Sandy" Montgomery. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.