having lived in NC for a while recently, i can back that up - don't know how it is for manufacturing exactly, but most high-tech industries have some very good reasons to go to NC...
conservatism is necessary. ask your nearest physicist what would happen if science wasn't conservative... that being said, being too conservative == being a moron asshole stick-in-the-mud grumpy get-off-my-lawn waste of breath.
I've heard that argument before, and I don't agree with it. I misspoke earlier - I should've said that I believe the idea behind eugenics is sound - clearly depending on one's beliefs it can be pointless or downright wrong (for example, if hold preservationist beliefs, e.g. due to religion). Personally, I don't necessarily believe there's any inherent value in pushing the limits of our physical/mental abilities, improving health (i.e. survival rates), etc. That being said, it seems to me that if, as a species, we were to be choosing a goal, then such improvements should be at the top of the list, simply because we have much less evidence (i.e. 0) to believe in the value of any other kind of objective mankind has ever come up with.
Now, you're right, even without resorting to eugenics, there's still a lot of room for improvement. But as anyone with rudimentary knowledge in biology and psychology knows, every attribute of an individual is influenced by two factors - "nature" (i.e. genome) and "nurture" (i.e. environment). Every improvement achieved until now has been due to changes in the second category. But there are limits to what can be achieved by just optimizing that aspect. We're not at the limits yet, but from a resource allocation perspective, the marginal benefits are becoming smaller and smaller - as a model, just picture performing gradient descent on a bivariate function while keeping one of the variables fixed. A point comes when it makes much more sense to relax that variable, than to continue making changes to the other.
This is of course just a very vague, 50 thousand foot view argument, but I think it illustrates my point.
there's nothing wrong with the main stated purpose of eugenics. quite the opposite, it's an admirable and noble idea. the problem is that its real counterparts have always been twisted into horrible, racist, self-serving reflections of the idea. that's exactly part of the GP's point - we never got it right, and probably won't. let nature handle it.
I can only hope. I like my stability and all, but at least part of me really wants to see this country burn in a bloody revolution... Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-US or anything. I just want to see the streets running red with the blood of the Murdochs, Glenn Becks, and heck, even the Obamas. Fuck 'em. George Carlin observed: "in this country, the whole social structure just beginning to collapse, you watch. Just beginning now to come apart at the edges and the seams." I hope was right. I hope the social structure in this country has decayed enough that i get to see a real, old-fashioned, bloody uprising within my lifetime.
But, I know it ain't happening... The art of controlling the "proles" is now more of a science... Who needs secret police and KGB if you've got wal-mart and lady gaga and fox news? We're done for...
uhh yeah, but good luck getting everyone to agree on what the common language should be.... if it was up to me, i'd vote to eradicate not only all but one language, but all but one culture (don't really care which one, as long as it's compatible with western individual freedoms, and, of course, places scientific advancement high up on the list of priorities). obviously, i'm in the minority...
uhh, then don't move your eyes 45 degrees when you want a 45 degree turn. it could just be a standard joystick-like approach, where looking at the edge of the screen causes initiates turning until you look back at the center.
the funny thing is, it used to be the opposite - not so long ago, it was the soviets who's intricate schemes and manipulations made the CIA look like a bunch of jocks that couldn't do anything without a sniper rifle... or at least that's my impression from 30-th hand accounts of things that happened long before i was born.
uhh, well, that technology was very (ok, very) different from modern 3dtv's. not saying the same problems don't exist, just saying it's not directly applicable.
while this is a good idea (ok, a very good idea), the difficulty is implementing it. it's already difficult enough to separate the 5 or 6 kinds of materials that are being recycled today from trash, let alone extending that to a large number or other, potentially recyclable materials (which is, really, almost every kind of trash other than food...). pulling this off would require serious commitment from governments, organizations, and individuals, and that seems unlikely, considering that simply separating plastic bottles and cans from trash already seems to be an incredibly difficult task for many people...
makes a sad statement about preferring form over function
i think you've got that backwards - the function here is to be aesthetically pleasing. putting any special meaning in it would just be for the sake of, well, fun.
uhh, yeah, walked into that one.. but i still maintain that it should be easy to find evidence supporting my clam, so yeah... i've convinced myself already, too bored to do the work for the rest of you.:]
I disagree. AFAIK, there are many natural healing processes in the human body that can be accelerated with external stimulation. Can't be bothered to find examples now, but fairly certain that it's true. It I am indeed right, then it's not unreasonable to expect that a similar approach can speed up healing in the brain.
Regarding your claim about the formation of 'neuromas', I don't see how you can be so certain that that would be the result of the treatment in question. What evidence could you possibly have, considering this is a brand-new idea?
Slashdot Mirror
having lived in NC for a while recently, i can back that up - don't know how it is for manufacturing exactly, but most high-tech industries have some very good reasons to go to NC...
conservatism is necessary. ask your nearest physicist what would happen if science wasn't conservative... that being said, being too conservative == being a moron asshole stick-in-the-mud grumpy get-off-my-lawn waste of breath.
I've heard that argument before, and I don't agree with it. I misspoke earlier - I should've said that I believe the idea behind eugenics is sound - clearly depending on one's beliefs it can be pointless or downright wrong (for example, if hold preservationist beliefs, e.g. due to religion). Personally, I don't necessarily believe there's any inherent value in pushing the limits of our physical/mental abilities, improving health (i.e. survival rates), etc. That being said, it seems to me that if, as a species, we were to be choosing a goal, then such improvements should be at the top of the list, simply because we have much less evidence (i.e. 0) to believe in the value of any other kind of objective mankind has ever come up with.
Now, you're right, even without resorting to eugenics, there's still a lot of room for improvement. But as anyone with rudimentary knowledge in biology and psychology knows, every attribute of an individual is influenced by two factors - "nature" (i.e. genome) and "nurture" (i.e. environment). Every improvement achieved until now has been due to changes in the second category. But there are limits to what can be achieved by just optimizing that aspect. We're not at the limits yet, but from a resource allocation perspective, the marginal benefits are becoming smaller and smaller - as a model, just picture performing gradient descent on a bivariate function while keeping one of the variables fixed. A point comes when it makes much more sense to relax that variable, than to continue making changes to the other.
This is of course just a very vague, 50 thousand foot view argument, but I think it illustrates my point.
there's nothing wrong with the main stated purpose of eugenics. quite the opposite, it's an admirable and noble idea. the problem is that its real counterparts have always been twisted into horrible, racist, self-serving reflections of the idea. that's exactly part of the GP's point - we never got it right, and probably won't. let nature handle it.
As people lose hope, they turn mean.
I can only hope. I like my stability and all, but at least part of me really wants to see this country burn in a bloody revolution... Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-US or anything. I just want to see the streets running red with the blood of the Murdochs, Glenn Becks, and heck, even the Obamas. Fuck 'em. George Carlin observed: "in this country, the whole social structure just beginning to collapse, you watch. Just beginning now to come apart at the edges and the seams." I hope was right. I hope the social structure in this country has decayed enough that i get to see a real, old-fashioned, bloody uprising within my lifetime.
But, I know it ain't happening... The art of controlling the "proles" is now more of a science... Who needs secret police and KGB if you've got wal-mart and lady gaga and fox news? We're done for...
to each his own, i guess...
*woosh*. that was a "if i was god, i'd make boobs grow on trees" kind of statement. i wasn't suggesting genocide would be a good idea.
uhh yeah, but good luck getting everyone to agree on what the common language should be.... if it was up to me, i'd vote to eradicate not only all but one language, but all but one culture (don't really care which one, as long as it's compatible with western individual freedoms, and, of course, places scientific advancement high up on the list of priorities). obviously, i'm in the minority...
******. that's what i see.
does anyone know the origin of this meme? of course http://xkcd.com/626/ comes to mind, but i doubt that's the original...
You mean near hits. RIP, George Carlin...
uhh, then don't move your eyes 45 degrees when you want a 45 degree turn. it could just be a standard joystick-like approach, where looking at the edge of the screen causes initiates turning until you look back at the center.
the funny thing is, it used to be the opposite - not so long ago, it was the soviets who's intricate schemes and manipulations made the CIA look like a bunch of jocks that couldn't do anything without a sniper rifle... or at least that's my impression from 30-th hand accounts of things that happened long before i was born.
WABBIT SEASON!
uhh, well, that technology was very (ok, very) different from modern 3dtv's. not saying the same problems don't exist, just saying it's not directly applicable.
switch to contacts, dude. best decision i ever made...
+1 greatest analogy ever
while this is a good idea (ok, a very good idea), the difficulty is implementing it. it's already difficult enough to separate the 5 or 6 kinds of materials that are being recycled today from trash, let alone extending that to a large number or other, potentially recyclable materials (which is, really, almost every kind of trash other than food...). pulling this off would require serious commitment from governments, organizations, and individuals, and that seems unlikely, considering that simply separating plastic bottles and cans from trash already seems to be an incredibly difficult task for many people...
makes a sad statement about preferring form over function
i think you've got that backwards - the function here is to be aesthetically pleasing. putting any special meaning in it would just be for the sake of, well, fun.
It'll come in handy when we try to use the stargate...
yeah, maybe in 10,000 years.
need to also discriminate driver from passengers. no way a solution would be accepted if anyone in a car was unable to text, ever.
uhh, yeah, walked into that one.. but i still maintain that it should be easy to find evidence supporting my clam, so yeah... i've convinced myself already, too bored to do the work for the rest of you. :]
You can't get rid of alcohol. Alcohol gets rid of you. And no, not just in Soviet Russia.
I disagree. AFAIK, there are many natural healing processes in the human body that can be accelerated with external stimulation. Can't be bothered to find examples now, but fairly certain that it's true. It I am indeed right, then it's not unreasonable to expect that a similar approach can speed up healing in the brain.
Regarding your claim about the formation of 'neuromas', I don't see how you can be so certain that that would be the result of the treatment in question. What evidence could you possibly have, considering this is a brand-new idea?