If you don't happen to have a supply of potato powder around, table sugar is reported to have a similar effect.
I don't know about the clotting effect, but sugar (and even better, honey) can help prevent infection in wounds. It works the same way that concentrated sugar and salt solutions work to preserve fruits and vegetables without boiling/sterilizing in preserves and pickles. The solution MUST be sufficiently concentrated to prevent bacterial growth. Pouring salt on a wound would be just too painful, but sugar and honey both work.
Honey is even better for treating wounds than sugar for (at least) two reasons: It's already a superaturated sugar solution right out of the jar, and it contains, in addition to some interesting sugars (mostly levulose, maltose), some natural antibiotics/bacterial growth inhibitors.
Hydrogen peroxide and blood. I really don't remember a thing about the chemistry other than it makes a lot of heat that sterilizes your cuts...
IIRC it's a simple oxidation reaction, what with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) being a strong oxidizer and all.
BTW it's not the heat that "sterilizes" your cuts. For that you would need something like 121C at 20 pounds of pressure for 20 minutes or so, like yer average autoclave. H2O2 is an oxidizing agent (a very powerful one - there's a reason that the stuff you buy at the drug store is only 3% H2O2) and a bleaching agent. IIRC It's the oxidization that makes things foam and the bleaching that kills (some) bacteria.
It does NOT sterilize wounds. It can, however disinfect them sufficiently to speed healing.
IMSMC, if you use the really dilute peroxide you get in a drug store, it won't do much, you need a way stronger solution from a lab or something.
The dilute H2O2 from the drug store produces plenty of bubbles when applied to a bleeding cut, and would presumably do much the same thing to a blood sample in a lab demonstration. But you have to use a rather fresh bottle of H2O2. Over time it reverts to H2O, and won't do anything to the blood except lyse the red cells, which doesn't look near as impressive (not even if you look under a microscope). The problem for a lab demonstration is probably not the H2O2 (the dilute stuff needs no warning labels) but the blood. There are some pretty serious rules for handling and disposing of blood these days, in the age of AIDS and other blood-borne pathogens/diseases.
Even animal blood requires some rather intensive paperwork for disposal. I know - I have to deal with some of it for my job.
That stuff is putrid. I certainly hope that her artwork is what my voice looks like
Yeah but art appreciation is notoriously subjective. One person's masterpiece is another's putrid crap.
I for a long time have enjoyed Wassily Kandinsky's works, though until I read the article I wasn't aware that he was synaesthetic. Makes me wonder what sounds (smells, tastes, sensations) he had in mind when creating them.
[I wish I had this condition] I could save thousands on drugs
Actually, I think I'd rather have a (safe, reliable, flashback-free, won't-destroy-your-brain) drug that induces this. That way I could turn the condition on or off at will, just by taking or not taking the drug.
It sounds like it could be fun, and maybe even useful as an aid to creativity/productivity but I can see real problems with having synaesthesia all the time. Just like a caffeine buzz can be useful for getting through long nights of coding but would be no fun to have all the time, so I imagine it'd be with synaesthesia.
When and if a safe synaesthetic agent becomes available, I'd also like to be able to buy it from a pharmacist, instead of on the street. Maybe it's misplaced trust, but I'd still trust my synapses to the friendly neighborhood druggist - or even ConHugeCo Pharmaceuticals - before I'd trust some stranger selling the stuff out of a car trunk.
But the chances are miniscule that the FDA would approve a drug like that (even if a safe and effective one were found). Too much potential for recreational use....
Large land mammals are basically a relic. Natural selection has weeded most species out.
That would depend on whether you think human intervention is "natural".
Even without the encroachment of man into their world, I think the elephant is a species that will probably eventually die out.
Why? What else would kill them? What else would drive them from their ranges? They seem to have been a rather successful species (or group of species) until humans started to exceed their carrying capacity.
With the africa continent slowly turning into desert, I am not sure what can be done to preserve the natural wild african elephant.
There is some evidence that desertification in Africa is, at least in part, caused by human activity such as overgrazing and attempting to grow row crops on unsuitable land. But even if it's entirely due to non-human factors, it's unlikely to be deadly to all large land mammals. Habitats may grow or shrink, but barring things like asteroids slamming into the planet it's not likely that they'll vanish completely, particularly on a large land mass like Africa. Small island environments are another matter.
If you don't like his message about the dangers of technology, perhaps you should see a movie where technology is heroic? How about The Matrix? Oh... wait, no, that's not going to work. Terminator? No, that's no better... Dr. Strangelove? Missed again. Logan's Run? Tron? Gattaca? Minority Report? 2001? Blade Runner? Akira?
For really pro-technology movies one probably has to go back to the cheesy monster-attacks-the-Earth flicks of the '50's. The ones where the white-coated scientist and his plucky prone-to-screaming female sidekick defeat the alien menace by utilizing clever inventions with glowing coils and giant computers with lots of blinky lights. Those were the days!
The simple proof is that European economies picked up once they got rid of their colonies. More money was spent on colonies than was generated from them.
Yes but. That doesn't prove they didn't steal, only that the strategy of theft needs to be done quickly. Get in, take the goods, and get out. The longer you stay the less profitable (and more dangerous) it gets.
Armies, navies, administration (including education and health care), all cost a lot of money that the colonies didn't return.
Makes my point for me. The longer you stay, the more it starts to cost.
Europe isn't rich because it stole but because it worked innovatively.
Compromise: Europe stole innovatively. It made use of the new things that it found and borrowed or stole. Without the orient, Europe would have no gunpowder or pasta. Without the Americas it would have no corn, potatoes, tomatoes, tobacco, squash, peppers, chocolate, coffee etc. There was far less famine in Europe after contact with the Americas than before.
The developed world is not rich because the rest of the world is poor. Its rich because it started using better methods to produce, manufacture and trade earlier.
Often those very methods were borrowed or stolen, though Europe had a fair share of innovation too. The main reason Europe succeeded so rapidly is becuase it applied those methods on a grand (often unsustainable) scale.
I fail to see how acknowledgment of this is Marxist (though I often hear this line from Marxist-leaning folk, I don't think it supports their ideology). The nations that Europe exploited those many years ago weren't Marxist.
The U.S. has done better than many countries in these areas, but we're far from perfect. Bhutan is far from perfect too. It might be a good idea to consider American failings before allowing the American cultural Juggernaut to roll into one of the last places on the planet that it hasn't already been. That having been said, I doubt that television will be the death knell of Bhutan's culture. There is always the option of not buying a TV set, or not watching it if the village buys one.
Still I do get tired of listening to defensive-sounding Americans brag about their culture. Like they invented all the things on that list.
- trial by jury
A good thing, if you can afford to get that far. Many more court cases are settled without trial (money buys justice) than ever go to trial.
- women's rights
U.S. laws protect women's rights to a degree, but there's still no equal rights amendment. And the laws' limited protection does not extend outside the U.S. The culture does, and the culture increasingly objectifies women. What I see happening is the exploitative culture is exported, while the laws that protect against the worst of the exploitation are not.
- end of torture
You might want to ask Amnesty International about that. The U.S. does not have a spotless track record, and often exports torture to other countries (avoiding for a moment the issue of whether Britney Spears videos ARE torture)
- highly productive economy
Which wouldn't look nearly so productive without the importation of cheap foreign-made goods, made by people who are, in every meaningful way, slaves.
- separation of church and state
On paper anyway.
- education of the masses
The why do American youth consistently score so very low compared to youth in other countries?
- modern medicine
Which is happily exported for a price... that few in Bhutan will ever be able to afford.
- multicultural tolerance
If Americans REALLY had multicultural tolerance they'd appreciate other cultures for more than just their restaurants and video games. They might actually learn more about other cultures than what their food tastes like and the names of all the Pokemon. And they wouldn't feel the need to crow all the time about how tolerant they are. It'd be a natural thing, like breathing.
The GRACE design team deserves kudos, but I still think that robots/AI should primarily be designed and programmed to do things that humans are BAD at, like searching through dangerous rubble, or performing fine manipulations in toxic or extreme-temperature environments, rather than doing things that humans are already quite GOOD at, like schmoozing. There are billions of people available who already know how to schmooze, and they can learn new schmoozing rules quickly, on the fly, without costly reprogramming. There are very few who would be willing (to say nothing of able) to work in a hazardous or tiny confining environment.
Re:Why a social robot?
on
Social Robot?
·
· Score: 2
Rhetorical question, I'm sure, but I felt the urge to respond anyway.
Sorry.. but if we're so good at recognizing emotions and predicting responses from facial expressions, then why are there so many divorces?
If we're so bad at it, why are there so many marriages? People are at least good enough at it to convince themselves and others that they'd be compatible as lifelong partners. Try getting a robot to do that.
That alone is proof that we SUCK at recognizing each other's needs..
Not necessarily. Humans are pretty good at recognizing each others needs, by both speech and non-verbal cues. They may not always be so good at meeting those needs though.
Re:Why a social robot?
on
Social Robot?
·
· Score: 2
Because people don't communicate to each other with a keyboard or mouse
It's what I'm doing now.
If we want robots/computers/silicon-whatever to be able to perform tasks of any sort for non-experts...
I'm not saying that the short-term goal isn't a laudable one - or at least a stimulating intellectual exercise. I'm more concerned about the long term. Do we WANT robots performing tasks for non-experts? There are more than enough human non-experts around, and we keep making more. I guess it just seems more sensible to me to work on making robots that ARE experts. Particularly if they're made to be expert at things human have difficulty doing.
... we need to be able to communicate with them more naturaly, and that means includes gestures and expressions.
Gestures and expressions are just another form of communication, and if you want to use them to communicate with your robot, be my guest. But gestures and expressions are extremely subtle (fractions of a centimeter in eyelid position can communicate volumes) and alarmingly variable, at least as humans use them. They also very subject to contextual cues. I expect that getting a robot to reliably recognize and interpret human gestures and expression will be far more difficult that getting it to recognize and interpret human speech. With speech we at least know most of the rules. We're still learning about nonverbal human communications ourselves.
Why a social robot?
on
Social Robot?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
...they sent Vikia out into hallways to see if she could get passersby to stop and talk with her and if she could learn to predict the behavior of people.
So it's a neat exercise. Is this really what we want robots to do? Recognizing human emotional states and predicting their responses from facial expressions and actions is one of the things humans do best. Why work at making a robot do it? It would seem to make more sense to design robots to do things that humans are BAD at, rather than having them try to do things we're GOOD at.
If a person is disturbed enough to make them commit a murder, putting a locator implant in their arm will not make them less disturbed. It will not lead to a happier society.
Exactly. The disturbed-but-clever people will just find better ways to make it look like an accident or a natural death.
Oh well. It's fiction, so I suppose it's okay. Better that we devote our efforts to combating real abuses rather than fictional ones.
Comparisons to other (legal or illegal) technology abound. Is(was?) Napster more like a getaway car or a lockpick? I think it's more like a photocopier. A tool that can be used for good or evil. Yes, a lot of people photocopy copyrighted material without obtaining permission or paying royalties. But manufacturers continue to market photocopiers without fear of legal retribution from authors, publishers or the Gummint. Why is this? And why do I suspect that, if the photocopier were invented in 2002, it would be extremely illegal, and possibly even a threat to Homeland Security(tm)?
When (insert technology here) is outlawed, only outlaws will have (insert same technology here).
Americans tend to take a very negative view of public transportation. Part of this is due to the fact that it's public, and the public includes people who are drunk, abusive, and smell bad. People you would never ride with by choice. Even though they make up a small minority of the bus- and subway-riding public, they're enough to spoil the experience and make one not want to ride public transportation.
These transport pods look like they'd eliminate most of that problem, as they're small enough one could travel alone or with a small group of one's own choosing.
The dedicated track part could still be a problem. Americans like to go where they want, when they want (doesn't everyone) and with the ready availability of (polluting, road-clogging) cars, I don't see them opting for any track-based transport system in the near future. Americans also take a kind of pride in their vehicles (witness the huge number of heavy, expensive, rollover-prone "off-road" vehicles that have never been off a road). Maybe this kind of thing will work in Cardiff, but to really make an impact on the environment, petroleum industry etc., one needs a system that will work in the U.S. Where the cars are.
The TV tells me what to think, newspapers and magazines back them up, and slashdot does the same exact thing and is somehow worshipped as a haven for free thinking.
Slashdot is certainly not perfect, but it's got one big advantage over TV, newspapers and magazines: most of its content comes from the readers. The ones who run this circus get a few sentences to try to tell us what to think (or what to think about), but then the readers take over. If Slashdot sucks, its our own fault. If we want it to be better, it's our own responsibility to make it so. You don't get that chance with TV, newspapers, or magazines. If they suck, you're stuck with it.
Used to be you could take your business elsewhere, but now they all song the same song.
Nice words, most of them, and I more-or-less agree with the overall sentiment, which seems to be "leave the internet alone". But there are a few points I must protest.
I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us.
If it were naturally independent of tyrannies etc., there would be no need to declare it so. It's not natural. Those who inhabit the internet have made it so, and they (we?) can unmake it. I hope that never happens, but it could.
This is the same complaint I have about another great document - one that declares that there exist certain "inalienable rights", endowed by a creator. If in fact those rights were inalienable, there would be no need to declare them so. The rights exist not because a creator granted them, but because people decided they should have them. They're not inalienable. People might someday decide those rights don't matter. Then those rights would cease to exist. I hope that doesn't happen either, but it could.
You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.
Leaving aside the moral right, it's important to remember that certain powers can and do have the means to interfere with the freedom we now enjoy on the internet. In many parts of the world, governments hold a great deal of power over the flesh and blood of their citizens. They may not have the same kind of powers over the thoughts of those citizens, but they can enforce their powers over how those thoughts are expressed, in speech, the press, and yes, on the internet. There are tools to thwart their efforts, but not everyone can gain access to and use those tools. This sort of tyranny may not affect you or me (not now, not yet), but it affects others, and it erodes away the freedom we enjoy on the internet.
So why I agree with the sentiment "leave the internet alone", I think the tone of this manifesto is far too smug. It seems to say "leave the internet alone - you don't really have a have a choice because none of your intefering affects us anyway". A more realistic declaration might be "leave the internet alone because by doing so you will benefit". Then document the benefits. Document also the costs and unintended consequences when the internet is not "left alone".
I suspect that this is going to be better science than the folks who look for extra-terrestrial mingling of alien DNA with the human species.
Oh no... if this doesn't prove that I have no life nothing will. I've actually heard of the StarChild Project! Those skull pictures are way cool, but it's not an alien (or alien hybrid) skull. No sinuses, minimal area for jaw muscles to attach, foramen magnum in the middle instead of at the back...alien for sure, right? Wrong! That's because the part that would have have been positioned forward of the foramen magnum, that would have contained the sinuses and the jaw-muscle attachments is missing. Most of the face, from the eyes on down, is broken off. That's also why the eye sockets are so shallow - they're partly missing too.
It's a skull of a hydrocephalic child (hence the large thin cranium), probably cradleboarded.
Oh well.
Re:It goes against reason, check your bible !
on
New Human Ancestor?
·
· Score: 2
What does the Bible have to do with reason? Isn't that the book that states (paraphrase) that pi == 3 ?
The idea that Man and all his wonderful gifts, for art, literature and science is descended from some kind of faeces-flinging monkey is an insult.
Why? I'm descended from some rather unsavory folk somewhere down the line, and I suspect you are too. I've grown from an incontinent babbling infant into the charming adult that I now am, and I suspect you have too (except for maybe the charming part!) We can rise above our origins. Or does your Bible condemn that too?
Not only to Christians, but also to Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus, Scientologists and many other religions that do not subscribe to the orthodox view of science.
The orthodox view of science? Sorry, religion does not subscribe to ANY view of science. Science by its very nature is based upon observation. When new observations come to light, theories are be revised to reflect them. Religion (well all of the ones I'm familiar with) is based on eternal capital-T Truths. No amount of observation can disprove them or cause them to be revised. If something is observed that seems to contradict the Eternal Truths, then the observations are rejected.
This having been said, most religions (even most forms of Christianity) don't seem to have a problem with the theory of evolution. They recognize it as a valid SCIENTIFIC principle. Which has nothing to do with valid RELIGIOUS principles. Observations - the best ones we have to date - indicate that life on Earth evolved from earlier forms. These observations say nothing about Eternal Truths. Nothing science says about human origins can contradict religion, and nothing religion says about human origins can contradict science. They're two very different things.
The creationists seem to have confused science with Truth. In that way they have elevated science far beyond its humble position, and they want to place their Eternal Truths on the same lofty pedestal. But they are in for a disappointment. There is no pedestal. Scientific theories are revised all the time. Sometimes they're discarded altogether. No scientific theory occupies a pedestal as lofty as the one religion already has.
The Biblical account of creation has endured for thousands of years. It has important moral messages that still resonate today. So do the creation stories of myriad other religions. They still have value even if observations indicate they didn't happen exactly as described. They're not science and they never will be. But so what?
For me, I'll stick by science for things like the history of life on earth, the positions of the planets WRT to the sun, etc. It just seems to work better for me.
The article said
...over time, smaller services start building up within the city, like little grocery stores or gas stations, that are servicing needs within the community. The internal infrastructure gets larger and larger, and over time it becomes the biggest part of the city - the city producing goods and services for itself.
Sorry, but that's not how it works in the real world. The city doesn't produce goods and services for itself. What we make is sold to strangers we never see half a world away. What we buy comes from strangers we never see half a world away. The grocery store and the gas station may be owned by our neighbors, but the produce comes from South America, and the gas comes from the Middle East.
It's the global economy. The good part is you can get muskmelons in Minnesota in the middle of winter. The bad part is we've become so dependent on it that if a modern-day Hitler appeared we'd never dare fight a war with him for fear that it'd disrupt the economy and we couldn't get all the cheap goods and services we're used to.
The modern city isn't self-sustaining. It's a house of cards. Most couldn't begin to feed themselves. Why did they let themselves become so vulnerable? Because it's cheaper. It's all about money.
Limited releasd != good
on
The Pledge
·
· Score: 2
The Sweet Hereafter... was marketed just the way Penn wanted The Pledge to be -- in small theaters in selected cities.
Who selects those "selected" cities anyway?
In context, the implication is that limited release is good, while letting the rubes in Podunkville see anything but formulaic "blockbusters" is bad. Um, is this the same Jon Katz who wrote of the tragedy of how dull life can be for small-town and rural geeks?
What is to be gained by this big-city (sorry - "selected" city) elitism?
It's bad enough when economic necessity forces small town theaters to show only mass-market Hollywood tripe. It's worse when media elite (I'm afraid that's you this time, Jon) act like that's a good thing and encourage this unfortunate trend.
I had read somewhere that Shreck may have been a sort of PR trick for the original Nosferatu, because a last name of Shreck meant "terror" or something like that in German.
Yup. "Max Schreck" is certainly a pseudonym. And, apparently, a pseudonym used only for that one film. The question remains, though, who was the real actor behind the name? One book I looked into (while working on a paper about another great silent film, "Metropolis") suggested that "Max Schreck" was probably Alfred Abel in prosthetics and makeup. Alfred Abel was the gaunt, stern-looking actor who protrayed Joh Fredersen, absolute monarch of Metropolis.
You should be. They will breathe your air and eat your food. When they grow up they will need a place to live and try to eke out a living, so they will cut down rainforests. They will need water to drink and for irrigation, so they will drain aquifers. Maybe they will hear about how much better things are in your country, move there, and start doing your job for 1/4 the pay. Be afraid of their babies. Be very afraid.
There are too many people on this rock now, and revoking funds for population control (contraception too, not just abortions!) is the worst thing that could be done.
Ironically, Bush's policy will probably result in more abortions. Without readily available contraception (most of which is distributed by organizations that support legal abortion) third-world women will risk their lives obtaining unsafe, illegal abortions. Many will die in the process (complications from unsafe abortions are the leading cause of death for women of childbearing age in many parts of the world). How "pro-life" is that?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a link about the myth of flightless bumblebees. Yup, it's a myth.
I don't know about the clotting effect, but sugar (and even better, honey) can help prevent infection in wounds. It works the same way that concentrated sugar and salt solutions work to preserve fruits and vegetables without boiling/sterilizing in preserves and pickles. The solution MUST be sufficiently concentrated to prevent bacterial growth. Pouring salt on a wound would be just too painful, but sugar and honey both work.
Honey is even better for treating wounds than sugar for (at least) two reasons: It's already a superaturated sugar solution right out of the jar, and it contains, in addition to some interesting sugars (mostly levulose, maltose), some natural antibiotics/bacterial growth inhibitors.
It's not just for toast and tea!
Hydrogen peroxide and blood. I really don't remember a thing about the chemistry other than it makes a lot of heat that sterilizes your cuts...
IIRC it's a simple oxidation reaction, what with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) being a strong oxidizer and all.
BTW it's not the heat that "sterilizes" your cuts. For that you would need something like 121C at 20 pounds of pressure for 20 minutes or so, like yer average autoclave. H2O2 is an oxidizing agent (a very powerful one - there's a reason that the stuff you buy at the drug store is only 3% H2O2) and a bleaching agent. IIRC It's the oxidization that makes things foam and the bleaching that kills (some) bacteria.
It does NOT sterilize wounds. It can, however disinfect them sufficiently to speed healing.
IMSMC, if you use the really dilute peroxide you get in a drug store, it won't do much, you need a way stronger solution from a lab or something.
The dilute H2O2 from the drug store produces plenty of bubbles when applied to a bleeding cut, and would presumably do much the same thing to a blood sample in a lab demonstration. But you have to use a rather fresh bottle of H2O2. Over time it reverts to H2O, and won't do anything to the blood except lyse the red cells, which doesn't look near as impressive (not even if you look under a microscope). The problem for a lab demonstration is probably not the H2O2 (the dilute stuff needs no warning labels) but the blood. There are some pretty serious rules for handling and disposing of blood these days, in the age of AIDS and other blood-borne pathogens/diseases.
Even animal blood requires some rather intensive paperwork for disposal. I know - I have to deal with some of it for my job.
That stuff is putrid. I certainly hope that her artwork is what my voice looks like
Yeah but art appreciation is notoriously subjective. One person's masterpiece is another's putrid crap.
I for a long time have enjoyed Wassily Kandinsky's works, though until I read the article I wasn't aware that he was synaesthetic. Makes me wonder what sounds (smells, tastes, sensations) he had in mind when creating them.
[I wish I had this condition] I could save thousands on drugs
Actually, I think I'd rather have a (safe, reliable, flashback-free, won't-destroy-your-brain) drug that induces this. That way I could turn the condition on or off at will, just by taking or not taking the drug.
It sounds like it could be fun, and maybe even useful as an aid to creativity/productivity but I can see real problems with having synaesthesia all the time. Just like a caffeine buzz can be useful for getting through long nights of coding but would be no fun to have all the time, so I imagine it'd be with synaesthesia.
When and if a safe synaesthetic agent becomes available, I'd also like to be able to buy it from a pharmacist, instead of on the street. Maybe it's misplaced trust, but I'd still trust my synapses to the friendly neighborhood druggist - or even ConHugeCo Pharmaceuticals - before I'd trust some stranger selling the stuff out of a car trunk.
But the chances are miniscule that the FDA would approve a drug like that (even if a safe and effective one were found). Too much potential for recreational use....
Large land mammals are basically a relic. Natural selection has weeded most species out.
That would depend on whether you think human intervention is "natural".
Even without the encroachment of man into their world, I think the elephant is a species that will probably eventually die out.
Why? What else would kill them? What else would drive them from their ranges? They seem to have been a rather successful species (or group of species) until humans started to exceed their carrying capacity.
With the africa continent slowly turning into desert, I am not sure what can be done to preserve the natural wild african elephant.
There is some evidence that desertification in Africa is, at least in part, caused by human activity such as overgrazing and attempting to grow row crops on unsuitable land. But even if it's entirely due to non-human factors, it's unlikely to be deadly to all large land mammals. Habitats may grow or shrink, but barring things like asteroids slamming into the planet it's not likely that they'll vanish completely, particularly on a large land mass like Africa. Small island environments are another matter.
If you don't like his message about the dangers of technology, perhaps you should see a movie where technology is heroic? How about The Matrix? Oh... wait, no, that's not going to work. Terminator? No, that's no better... Dr. Strangelove? Missed again. Logan's Run? Tron? Gattaca? Minority Report? 2001? Blade Runner? Akira?
For really pro-technology movies one probably has to go back to the cheesy monster-attacks-the-Earth flicks of the '50's. The ones where the white-coated scientist and his plucky prone-to-screaming female sidekick defeat the alien menace by utilizing clever inventions with glowing coils and giant computers with lots of blinky lights. Those were the days!
The simple proof is that European economies picked up once they got rid of their colonies. More money was spent on colonies than was generated from them.
Yes but. That doesn't prove they didn't steal, only that the strategy of theft needs to be done quickly. Get in, take the goods, and get out. The longer you stay the less profitable (and more dangerous) it gets.
Armies, navies, administration (including education and health care), all cost a lot of money that the colonies didn't return.
Makes my point for me. The longer you stay, the more it starts to cost.
Europe isn't rich because it stole but because it worked innovatively.
Compromise: Europe stole innovatively. It made use of the new things that it found and borrowed or stole. Without the orient, Europe would have no gunpowder or pasta. Without the Americas it would have no corn, potatoes, tomatoes, tobacco, squash, peppers, chocolate, coffee etc. There was far less famine in Europe after contact with the Americas than before.
The developed world is not rich because the rest of the world is poor. Its rich because it started using better methods to produce, manufacture and trade earlier.
Often those very methods were borrowed or stolen, though Europe had a fair share of innovation too. The main reason Europe succeeded so rapidly is becuase it applied those methods on a grand (often unsustainable) scale.
I fail to see how acknowledgment of this is Marxist (though I often hear this line from Marxist-leaning folk, I don't think it supports their ideology). The nations that Europe exploited those many years ago weren't Marxist.
Oh well...
The U.S. has done better than many countries in these areas, but we're far from perfect. Bhutan is far from perfect too. It might be a good idea to consider American failings before allowing the American cultural Juggernaut to roll into one of the last places on the planet that it hasn't already been. That having been said, I doubt that television will be the death knell of Bhutan's culture. There is always the option of not buying a TV set, or not watching it if the village buys one.
Still I do get tired of listening to defensive-sounding Americans brag about their culture. Like they invented all the things on that list.
- trial by jury
A good thing, if you can afford to get that far. Many more court cases are settled without trial (money buys justice) than ever go to trial.
- women's rights
U.S. laws protect women's rights to a degree, but there's still no equal rights amendment. And the laws' limited protection does not extend outside the U.S. The culture does, and the culture increasingly objectifies women. What I see happening is the exploitative culture is exported, while the laws that protect against the worst of the exploitation are not.
- end of torture
You might want to ask Amnesty International about that. The U.S. does not have a spotless track record, and often exports torture to other countries (avoiding for a moment the issue of whether Britney Spears videos ARE torture)
- highly productive economy
Which wouldn't look nearly so productive without the importation of cheap foreign-made goods, made by people who are, in every meaningful way, slaves.
- separation of church and state
On paper anyway.
- education of the masses
The why do American youth consistently score so very low compared to youth in other countries?
- modern medicine
Which is happily exported for a price... that few in Bhutan will ever be able to afford.
- multicultural tolerance
If Americans REALLY had multicultural tolerance they'd appreciate other cultures for more than just their restaurants and video games. They might actually learn more about other cultures than what their food tastes like and the names of all the Pokemon. And they wouldn't feel the need to crow all the time about how tolerant they are. It'd be a natural thing, like breathing.
The GRACE design team deserves kudos, but I still think that robots/AI should primarily be designed and programmed to do things that humans are BAD at, like searching through dangerous rubble, or performing fine manipulations in toxic or extreme-temperature environments, rather than doing things that humans are already quite GOOD at, like schmoozing. There are billions of people available who already know how to schmooze, and they can learn new schmoozing rules quickly, on the fly, without costly reprogramming. There are very few who would be willing (to say nothing of able) to work in a hazardous or tiny confining environment.
Rhetorical question, I'm sure, but I felt the urge to respond anyway.
Sorry.. but if we're so good at recognizing emotions and predicting responses from facial expressions, then why are there so many divorces?
If we're so bad at it, why are there so many marriages? People are at least good enough at it to convince themselves and others that they'd be compatible as lifelong partners. Try getting a robot to do that.
That alone is proof that we SUCK at recognizing each other's needs..
Not necessarily. Humans are pretty good at recognizing each others needs, by both speech and non-verbal cues. They may not always be so good at meeting those needs though.
It's what I'm doing now.
If we want robots/computers/silicon-whatever to be able to perform tasks of any sort for non-experts...
I'm not saying that the short-term goal isn't a laudable one - or at least a stimulating intellectual exercise. I'm more concerned about the long term. Do we WANT robots performing tasks for non-experts? There are more than enough human non-experts around, and we keep making more. I guess it just seems more sensible to me to work on making robots that ARE experts. Particularly if they're made to be expert at things human have difficulty doing.
Gestures and expressions are just another form of communication, and if you want to use them to communicate with your robot, be my guest. But gestures and expressions are extremely subtle (fractions of a centimeter in eyelid position can communicate volumes) and alarmingly variable, at least as humans use them. They also very subject to contextual cues. I expect that getting a robot to reliably recognize and interpret human gestures and expression will be far more difficult that getting it to recognize and interpret human speech. With speech we at least know most of the rules. We're still learning about nonverbal human communications ourselves.
...they sent Vikia out into hallways to see if she could get passersby to stop and talk with her and if she could learn to predict the behavior of people.
So it's a neat exercise. Is this really what we want robots to do? Recognizing human emotional states and predicting their responses from facial expressions and actions is one of the things humans do best. Why work at making a robot do it? It would seem to make more sense to design robots to do things that humans are BAD at, rather than having them try to do things we're GOOD at.
If a person is disturbed enough to make them commit a murder, putting a locator implant in their arm will not make them less disturbed. It will not lead to a happier society.
Exactly. The disturbed-but-clever people will just find better ways to make it look like an accident or a natural death.
Oh well. It's fiction, so I suppose it's okay. Better that we devote our efforts to combating real abuses rather than fictional ones.
When (insert technology here) is outlawed, only outlaws will have (insert same technology here).
"Without the right to receive information and ideas, the protection of speech... would be meaningless."
Or: "Everyone must be permitted to discover and consider the full range of expression and ideas available in our 'marketplace of ideas.'"
Does the above apply only if the expressions and ideas are written in ink on paper?
What if it were to apply to expressions and ideas written in ones and zeros?
Americans tend to take a very negative view of public transportation. Part of this is due to the fact that it's public, and the public includes people who are drunk, abusive, and smell bad. People you would never ride with by choice. Even though they make up a small minority of the bus- and subway-riding public, they're enough to spoil the experience and make one not want to ride public transportation.
These transport pods look like they'd eliminate most of that problem, as they're small enough one could travel alone or with a small group of one's own choosing.
The dedicated track part could still be a problem. Americans like to go where they want, when they want (doesn't everyone) and with the ready availability of (polluting, road-clogging) cars, I don't see them opting for any track-based transport system in the near future. Americans also take a kind of pride in their vehicles (witness the huge number of heavy, expensive, rollover-prone "off-road" vehicles that have never been off a road). Maybe this kind of thing will work in Cardiff, but to really make an impact on the environment, petroleum industry etc., one needs a system that will work in the U.S. Where the cars are.
The TV tells me what to think, newspapers and magazines back them up, and slashdot does the same exact thing and is somehow worshipped as a haven for free thinking.
Slashdot is certainly not perfect, but it's got one big advantage over TV, newspapers and magazines: most of its content comes from the readers. The ones who run this circus get a few sentences to try to tell us what to think (or what to think about), but then the readers take over. If Slashdot sucks, its our own fault. If we want it to be better, it's our own responsibility to make it so. You don't get that chance with TV, newspapers, or magazines. If they suck, you're stuck with it.
Used to be you could take your business elsewhere, but now they all song the same song.
Nice words, most of them, and I more-or-less agree with the overall sentiment, which seems to be "leave the internet alone". But there are a few points I must protest.
I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us.
If it were naturally independent of tyrannies etc., there would be no need to declare it so. It's not natural. Those who inhabit the internet have made it so, and they (we?) can unmake it. I hope that never happens, but it could.
This is the same complaint I have about another great document - one that declares that there exist certain "inalienable rights", endowed by a creator. If in fact those rights were inalienable, there would be no need to declare them so. The rights exist not because a creator granted them, but because people decided they should have them. They're not inalienable. People might someday decide those rights don't matter. Then those rights would cease to exist. I hope that doesn't happen either, but it could.
You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.
Leaving aside the moral right, it's important to remember that certain powers can and do have the means to interfere with the freedom we now enjoy on the internet. In many parts of the world, governments hold a great deal of power over the flesh and blood of their citizens. They may not have the same kind of powers over the thoughts of those citizens, but they can enforce their powers over how those thoughts are expressed, in speech, the press, and yes, on the internet. There are tools to thwart their efforts, but not everyone can gain access to and use those tools. This sort of tyranny may not affect you or me (not now, not yet), but it affects others, and it erodes away the freedom we enjoy on the internet.
So why I agree with the sentiment "leave the internet alone", I think the tone of this manifesto is far too smug. It seems to say "leave the internet alone - you don't really have a have a choice because none of your intefering affects us anyway". A more realistic declaration might be "leave the internet alone because by doing so you will benefit". Then document the benefits. Document also the costs and unintended consequences when the internet is not "left alone".
I suspect that this is going to be better science than the folks who look for extra-terrestrial mingling of alien DNA with the human species.
Oh no... if this doesn't prove that I have no life nothing will. I've actually heard of the StarChild Project! Those skull pictures are way cool, but it's not an alien (or alien hybrid) skull. No sinuses, minimal area for jaw muscles to attach, foramen magnum in the middle instead of at the back...alien for sure, right? Wrong! That's because the part that would have have been positioned forward of the foramen magnum, that would have contained the sinuses and the jaw-muscle attachments is missing. Most of the face, from the eyes on down, is broken off. That's also why the eye sockets are so shallow - they're partly missing too.
It's a skull of a hydrocephalic child (hence the large thin cranium), probably cradleboarded.
Oh well.
What does the Bible have to do with reason? Isn't that the book that states (paraphrase) that pi == 3 ?
The idea that Man and all his wonderful gifts, for art, literature and science is descended from some kind of faeces-flinging monkey is an insult.
Why? I'm descended from some rather unsavory folk somewhere down the line, and I suspect you are too. I've grown from an incontinent babbling infant into the charming adult that I now am, and I suspect you have too (except for maybe the charming part!) We can rise above our origins. Or does your Bible condemn that too?
Not only to Christians, but also to Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus, Scientologists and many other religions that do not subscribe to the orthodox view of science.
The orthodox view of science? Sorry, religion does not subscribe to ANY view of science. Science by its very nature is based upon observation. When new observations come to light, theories are be revised to reflect them. Religion (well all of the ones I'm familiar with) is based on eternal capital-T Truths. No amount of observation can disprove them or cause them to be revised. If something is observed that seems to contradict the Eternal Truths, then the observations are rejected.
This having been said, most religions (even most forms of Christianity) don't seem to have a problem with the theory of evolution. They recognize it as a valid SCIENTIFIC principle. Which has nothing to do with valid RELIGIOUS principles. Observations - the best ones we have to date - indicate that life on Earth evolved from earlier forms. These observations say nothing about Eternal Truths. Nothing science says about human origins can contradict religion, and nothing religion says about human origins can contradict science. They're two very different things.
The creationists seem to have confused science with Truth. In that way they have elevated science far beyond its humble position, and they want to place their Eternal Truths on the same lofty pedestal. But they are in for a disappointment. There is no pedestal. Scientific theories are revised all the time. Sometimes they're discarded altogether. No scientific theory occupies a pedestal as lofty as the one religion already has.
The Biblical account of creation has endured for thousands of years. It has important moral messages that still resonate today. So do the creation stories of myriad other religions. They still have value even if observations indicate they didn't happen exactly as described. They're not science and they never will be. But so what?
For me, I'll stick by science for things like the history of life on earth, the positions of the planets WRT to the sun, etc. It just seems to work better for me.
The article said
...over time, smaller services start building up within the city, like little grocery stores or gas stations, that are servicing needs within the community. The internal infrastructure gets larger and larger, and over time it becomes the biggest part of the city - the city producing goods and services for itself.
Sorry, but that's not how it works in the real world. The city doesn't produce goods and services for itself. What we make is sold to strangers we never see half a world away. What we buy comes from strangers we never see half a world away. The grocery store and the gas station may be owned by our neighbors, but the produce comes from South America, and the gas comes from the Middle East.
It's the global economy. The good part is you can get muskmelons in Minnesota in the middle of winter. The bad part is we've become so dependent on it that if a modern-day Hitler appeared we'd never dare fight a war with him for fear that it'd disrupt the economy and we couldn't get all the cheap goods and services we're used to.
The modern city isn't self-sustaining. It's a house of cards. Most couldn't begin to feed themselves. Why did they let themselves become so vulnerable? Because it's cheaper. It's all about money.
The Sweet Hereafter... was marketed just the way Penn wanted The Pledge to be -- in small theaters in selected cities.
Who selects those "selected" cities anyway?
In context, the implication is that limited release is good, while letting the rubes in Podunkville see anything but formulaic "blockbusters" is bad. Um, is this the same Jon Katz who wrote of the tragedy of how dull life can be for small-town and rural geeks?
What is to be gained by this big-city (sorry - "selected" city) elitism?
It's bad enough when economic necessity forces small town theaters to show only mass-market Hollywood tripe. It's worse when media elite (I'm afraid that's you this time, Jon) act like that's a good thing and encourage this unfortunate trend.
I had read somewhere that Shreck may have been a sort of PR trick for the original Nosferatu, because a last name of Shreck meant "terror" or something like that in German.
Yup. "Max Schreck" is certainly a pseudonym. And, apparently, a pseudonym used only for that one film. The question remains, though, who was the real actor behind the name? One book I looked into (while working on a paper about another great silent film, "Metropolis") suggested that "Max Schreck" was probably Alfred Abel in prosthetics and makeup. Alfred Abel was the gaunt, stern-looking actor who protrayed Joh Fredersen, absolute monarch of Metropolis.
I am not scared of their babies!
You should be. They will breathe your air and eat your food. When they grow up they will need a place to live and try to eke out a living, so they will cut down rainforests. They will need water to drink and for irrigation, so they will drain aquifers. Maybe they will hear about how much better things are in your country, move there, and start doing your job for 1/4 the pay. Be afraid of their babies. Be very afraid.
There are too many people on this rock now, and revoking funds for population control (contraception too, not just abortions!) is the worst thing that could be done.
Ironically, Bush's policy will probably result in more abortions. Without readily available contraception (most of which is distributed by organizations that support legal abortion) third-world women will risk their lives obtaining unsafe, illegal abortions. Many will die in the process (complications from unsafe abortions are the leading cause of death for women of childbearing age in many parts of the world). How "pro-life" is that?