Because I wouldn't like to be considered in the same profession as them. Like I said in another post, I don't mind if there is a clearly defined purpose, ie prolonging human life (hell we do that all the time by rearing, butchering and cooking animals), but if they can't explain to me the purpose of the experiment then they are not scientists.
Where's the benefit? Are we talking about a cure for aspergers or similar genetic diseases? How do you get from diagnosing empathy in rats to curing human ailments?
My heart is not bleeding for these animals, I understand the use of animals for say, medical testing. There is a clearly defined purpose for them, and when they are tested in this manner, it is often in the most "humane" way possible. I fail to see (either I'm just dumb, or they need to explain it better) the applications of knowing that rats feel empathy for other rats in distress. If they can't back up their reasons for doing this test, the practical applications (what lives will be saved) of deliberately inflicting pain/discomfort on these animals, then I'm inclined to consider them cruel.
Did you read the summary? They are to Tweet a photo, last I heard they are capable of more than 140 characters, there's a famous saying in there somewhere.
Wow, what an innovative marketing campaign. It may also change the future of how scholarships are granted, making the process much leaner and promoting original works, not plagiarism.
I'm quite interested in the outcome of this test, at what point did the 'scientists' decide what they were doing was cruel to the animals and stop? How long did it take before any of the 'scientists' began to show some form of empathy for the monkeys?
Making very addictive and VERY harmful drugs illegal is probably be a good way of preventing people from "trying it once" then getting hooked on it and ending up in an alleyway turning tricks for meth money.
I can't agree on it for marijuana, but meth, crack, and other such drugs are just a *bit* more dangerous and addictive than marijuana. Y'know. Just a tad.
If you shift a few words around you come closer to the truth.
"Making very addictive and illegal drugs makes them VERY harmful. It prevents some people from "trying them once" but those who do try them, end up hooked on badly manufactured meth and end up in an alleyway turning tricks"
If the production, sale and consumption of, say, Meth wasn't illegal, then big pharma and the FDA would get in on the action. I work at a big pharma plant making inject-able medicine. They are bulked/diluted in class 1000 rooms, filtered through exceedingly high quality filters, filled in class 100 rooms, inspected for particles by some of the most sophisticated visioning systems available, then Freeze dried/capped of as liquid before they are packaged off for use in your local hospital.
There is a team 3-4 times as large as the core manufacturing staff to review microbiological results, chemical tests, air flows, autoclave cycles, every single blip is investigated, reviewed and signed off by qualified people before the product can leave the factory.
Knowing all this is a major part of why I would never touch Heroin or Meth (I don't smoke either) because I can guarantee you that none of those health and safety measures are taken manufacturing heroin/meth for use by druggies. Thus you end up with people dropping dead when they take a bad batch of dope, when it's bulked up with talcum powder/ rat poison to 'cut' it down for profit.
If you legalised the production of many recreational drugs, and regulated them the same way we do medicine, then you might find that we'd invest money into R&D of safer drugs with fewer side effects and fewer risks to those who want to 'try it once'.
If you have read any Culture novels, you'll get a picture of where the future could go. Drugs are so commonplace, so well made, that they are treated no worse than a pint of beer.
Where do you think they would put the solar cell, that you hand wouldn't cover it up. Keyboards are fine, you can have the strip along the top, but not so for a mouse. Now, a mouse that is charged through magnetic induction, sitting on yep, an inductive mouse mat, would be a better option.
So the gravity is the same on the hard dense surface of earth as it is up in the not so dense atmosphere surface? I like your thought experiment. If you have layers and layers of less dense material, then you are in fact moving away from the point of gravity.
"spherically-symmetrical"
I'd re-examine that term. I think that it requires uniform density. So your thought experiment should still work. Our atmosphere is just an extreme difference between the 2 densities. I remember my science teacher telling me that people who jump higher are lighter, because at the top of the jump, gravity affects them less.
On a side point, I wonder how, as it's much larger, the angular momentum and centri***al force is affected, would it also counter some of the grabbity?
Slashdot Mirror
There are too many people on Slashdot that disagree just to be contrary
Oh no there isn't.
This grammar nazi-ing is raising my stress levels, brb.
Oh, that make much more sense, I was thinking "Adblock, come to me" and felt I was missing the punchline.
Because I wouldn't like to be considered in the same profession as them. Like I said in another post, I don't mind if there is a clearly defined purpose, ie prolonging human life (hell we do that all the time by rearing, butchering and cooking animals), but if they can't explain to me the purpose of the experiment then they are not scientists.
Where's the benefit? Are we talking about a cure for aspergers or similar genetic diseases? How do you get from diagnosing empathy in rats to curing human ailments?
Lowering is an effect.
My heart is not bleeding for these animals, I understand the use of animals for say, medical testing. There is a clearly defined purpose for them, and when they are tested in this manner, it is often in the most "humane" way possible. I fail to see (either I'm just dumb, or they need to explain it better) the applications of knowing that rats feel empathy for other rats in distress. If they can't back up their reasons for doing this test, the practical applications (what lives will be saved) of deliberately inflicting pain/discomfort on these animals, then I'm inclined to consider them cruel.
But it's a Photo they are looking for. It is possible to put a lot of work into a single photo.
Did you read the summary? They are to Tweet a photo, last I heard they are capable of more than 140 characters, there's a famous saying in there somewhere.
If you are planning to do a degree in how masturbation effects stress levels, it might be totally appropriate.
Wow, what an innovative marketing campaign. It may also change the future of how scholarships are granted, making the process much leaner and promoting original works, not plagiarism.
You mean PTSD? Aren't we desperately trying to find cures for that so we can go back to killing each other?
I'm quite interested in the outcome of this test, at what point did the 'scientists' decide what they were doing was cruel to the animals and stop? How long did it take before any of the 'scientists' began to show some form of empathy for the monkeys?
I used to mod people into Oblivion, but then I took an arrow in the knee.
Had Sales.
Most witches aren't. Their skills don't go far beyond pentagrams.
Daetrin, no offence, but know your audience!
Also, an inductive mousemat would be like wearing one of those magnet wristbands, it would be great for circulation
Making very addictive and VERY harmful drugs illegal is probably be a good way of preventing people from "trying it once" then getting hooked on it and ending up in an alleyway turning tricks for meth money.
I can't agree on it for marijuana, but meth, crack, and other such drugs are just a *bit* more dangerous and addictive than marijuana. Y'know. Just a tad.
If you shift a few words around you come closer to the truth.
"Making very addictive and illegal drugs makes them VERY harmful. It prevents some people from "trying them once" but those who do try them, end up hooked on badly manufactured meth and end up in an alleyway turning tricks"
If the production, sale and consumption of, say, Meth wasn't illegal, then big pharma and the FDA would get in on the action. I work at a big pharma plant making inject-able medicine. They are bulked/diluted in class 1000 rooms, filtered through exceedingly high quality filters, filled in class 100 rooms, inspected for particles by some of the most sophisticated visioning systems available, then Freeze dried/capped of as liquid before they are packaged off for use in your local hospital.
There is a team 3-4 times as large as the core manufacturing staff to review microbiological results, chemical tests, air flows, autoclave cycles, every single blip is investigated, reviewed and signed off by qualified people before the product can leave the factory.
Knowing all this is a major part of why I would never touch Heroin or Meth (I don't smoke either) because I can guarantee you that none of those health and safety measures are taken manufacturing heroin/meth for use by druggies. Thus you end up with people dropping dead when they take a bad batch of dope, when it's bulked up with talcum powder/ rat poison to 'cut' it down for profit.
If you legalised the production of many recreational drugs, and regulated them the same way we do medicine, then you might find that we'd invest money into R&D of safer drugs with fewer side effects and fewer risks to those who want to 'try it once'.
If you have read any Culture novels, you'll get a picture of where the future could go. Drugs are so commonplace, so well made, that they are treated no worse than a pint of beer.
Why are the elephants on their backs?
Because you don't participate in the movie.
Have you played Deus-Ex: Human Evolution?
Where do you think they would put the solar cell, that you hand wouldn't cover it up. Keyboards are fine, you can have the strip along the top, but not so for a mouse. Now, a mouse that is charged through magnetic induction, sitting on yep, an inductive mouse mat, would be a better option.
I'm sticking to using Centri***al in all discussion, where * denotes a wildcard character.
Well that's okay, last I checked, China had all the money.
So the gravity is the same on the hard dense surface of earth as it is up in the not so dense atmosphere surface? I like your thought experiment. If you have layers and layers of less dense material, then you are in fact moving away from the point of gravity.
"spherically-symmetrical"
I'd re-examine that term. I think that it requires uniform density. So your thought experiment should still work. Our atmosphere is just an extreme difference between the 2 densities. I remember my science teacher telling me that people who jump higher are lighter, because at the top of the jump, gravity affects them less.
On a side point, I wonder how, as it's much larger, the angular momentum and centri***al force is affected, would it also counter some of the grabbity?
Given time, it can even be shown that Unemployment was never a problem in the first place.