True, but remember, the US unemployment rate is at very record low levels. This is despite of the great number of immigrants to the US. Why?
Because there just aren't enough PEOPLE in this country to take up all the jobs. India and China have populations of 1 billion +.. US has around 300 million.
Also when the Unemployment rate nears 2%, things start getting wild and people start getting afraid of inflation.
These immigrants are taking up positions that US citizens CANNOT fill. Unless they all sit down and start procreating frantically and getting a dozen kids each. But even if they do that, the industry will have to wait about 20 years before it will get a large trained workforce.
Actually, the point to this is a very cruel one. I'm speaking of this out of experience so think about it a minute.
When an employee is with a company a few years, he typically gets raises and other benefits increased.
A new worker would start with the same starting pay.
sometimes this benefit, can actually offset the cost of retraining. I know, cause we did the math, and at our business we have actually done exactly that to cut costs.
Could this method of tagging things with DNA be usd for a whole bunch of other purposes to uniquely identify items?
However, I dont think this would work, if something were sufficiently profitable, it would be worth the while of some underworld cartel to get the equipment needed to extract the DNA tag from an original and replicate it and tag their own couterfeit items in the same way.
This is absolutely ridiculous!
There has to be some law that protects a user from this. Or atleast they should not be able to sell the information they gathered about me, BEFORE The change. Because I had agreed to their previous privacy policy. Wouldn't this be breach of contract.
I can see it now. Medical instituions and porn sites. GARAUNTEing your privacy, hell they can make absolutely ANY claim they want. Then after a couple of years, when they have gathered lots of information and are gonna get good chunks of money, they simply change their privacy policy and can do whatever they want???.. This is called conning the customer.
Does this mean that I can put up a deal on my commercial website that says.. Join now and fill this survey out.. and we promise never to disclose this information to anyone, and we'll never use any information either to spam you, and on top of that we'll mail them a check worth $10 in three months time to the address and name filled out in the survey. Now you'd have to fill in the right information to get the check and be able to cash it. So now I have a whole ton of your information. Then 2 months later, I change my policy and some $hit like that and spam anyway because we no longer give an option to registered users to opt-out of our "news" mail.
Re:Why bring it back?
on
TigerCloning
·
· Score: 1
Killing animals for pleasure isn't just a human trait, cats do it too. They play and kill creatures with no intension to eat them. And you cannot deny my line of reasoning. You said "with this line of reasoning humans can kill any animal".. well you answer that.. can they NOT kill any animal they please? "so if they can't figure out how to prevent us from killing them, screw them" . Exactly.. are they NOT getting screwed? "You forget that a lot of animals that we've hunted down to near extinction, we did out of petty reasons".. yes but a lot of animals kill for the same reason. (see cats) And even if it were a strictly human trait, too bad for the animals, we have an advantage over them and unless they cant come up with anythign to stop us.. they CANT stop us.
I can see that you have misunderstood the entire point of my comment. I wasn't justifying our killing off these animals, I was saying it is merely inevitable unless WE decide against it, cause there is NO ONE to stop us yet.
"If you think you're smarter than a bear, let's put you up against one. " Yes.. I am smarter than the average bear.:).. IF you do put me up against a bear, I wouldn't win, but I would not necessarily loose. there are ways in which you can fool a bear into thinking you are already dead and they leave you alone.
Besides, you are talking about one brief instance of time in a special condition. How about, face me against a bear, give me 1 gun. Give the bear 10 guns. Lets see who wins. In the long run, and even in the short run for a majority of the situations, the smart do win the big and the mean.
Let me ask you a question now. If you disagree with my statement, and that the biggest and the baddest dont loose to the smartest. Explain to me why the bear is an endangered animal and humans aren't? Explain to me how humans survived in southern Africa amongst Lions , hippos, rhinos, etc. ? Explain how the smartest creature on earth is also the strongest?
About the dumb people reproducing like crazy and the smart people not.. I disagree, unless you are pointing toward geographic locations and racial traits. Which I assume you are not. Fastest population growth is in the underdeveloped countries, so.. the relation would seem that the under developed nations have the dumbest people.. and by the same assumption, Chinese and Indians would be the dumbest. Or okay, dumb Chinese and Indians reproduce the most, in that case, you are implying that MOST indians and chinese are dumb. I dont think so, and I think a lot of Smart people (in the developed world ) would agree with me.
Also if you look at the way our species implementation of natural selection you will notice that the smart ARE the ones who get the most options/offers for propagating their genes. how? simple, women look among other things look for certain characteristics in a man, Success, intelligence and looks being some of them. The same is the case with men. Humans tend to search for these traits in the person they wish to procreate with. This "natural selection" insures that the genes of those with the best traits are passed on .
I think you have a good point, but what I say is that re-introducing it is in itself messing up everything. We are forcibly shaping and sculpting everything. Its true that we are the ones the removed it in the first place, but now that its gone we are trying to through brute scientific force get that species back in the environment.
However you have to question, what would have happened if the dinosaurs had never gone extinct?
Dont worry about the rabbits, they are like us, growing to fill consume all the resources they can get their furry little claws on. when they're population goes into excesses like ours they start screwing up their environment (just like us) and will start ripping the land dry to survive (just like us) and once they have done enough damage to the system, they themselves will no longer be able to survive (again.. just like us) . Its a pity though.. those rabbits will wipe themselves out of Australia, us humans are working on a planetary scale.. but ofcourse, we _are_ humans, far superior to rabbits..
I'm not trying to be anti-science here, but we all know whats going to happen to that poor creature once they DO bring it back. Regardless of the reasoning behind why they bring it back, its going to have a very miserable existence.
First of all, the media and the businesses are going to go into a frenzy. The media is always looking for stuff like this. But the real pain is the businesses. Lets face it, just about everything is all about money. I can just see all these zoos and other buisnesses looking for ways to cash in on this new development.
Secondly, do they plan to re-release this thing into the wild? How will they train it to survive? Or are they hoping that it will have an inbuilt instinct and know what to do? Chances are, most of these tasmanian tigers (atleast for the next 20 or so years) will be brought up completely in captivity. They will be put on display for people , thats it.
Third. There was an article about this on another site (cant remember which, think it was CNN) , that mentioned that the scientist when asked if he was playing God, retaliated by saying we were also playing god when we wiped it out. I disagree, it has been the case through out evolution, that when one species got an upperhand on the others, it would multiply and drive the others to extinction if the others themselves did not evolve and adapt.
I'm not saying that human extermination of all kinds of life is a _normal_ evolutionary process, what I am saying is, that human kind has achieved such a great advantage over the other species that this process of extermination can reach catastrophic proportions. It is just like economics really, think of all our species as competing for the resources of this planet, the biggest and baddest, loose to the smartest..
Its one thing to _conserve_ what we have, its another to bring back extinct species for the sake of monetary gain. I'm not gonna make judgements on if its wrong, but I think they are different agendas and will have different outcomes.
dude, sony SAYS it will do it,
Microsoft WILL do it........ ofcourse there will be a patch available in a few hours for it, but thats besides the point.
I believe the chap's gotten carried away.
There is no way he can implement what he wants, and get away without _serious_ legal repercussions(sp?)..
Besides having such passionately feelings against Napster isn't going to help. How is he gonna block Gnutella?
The fellow's just gotten caught up in the momment, and said a few things he's probably already regretting.
Here's what I think.
If these ETs get so intelligent that they can build machines that zip between stars and can think for themselves. They can undoubtedly automate anything they do. So what happens to them?
They sit around staring at each other's faces all day? I dont think so.
People talk about "efficiency" when travelling through space. But think about that a minute. Go you sit naked in your car cause its inefficient to have you car haul extra weight? Or leave your dog behind because of that? Do you use your computer for nothing but scientific purposes no. As cars got better, and computers got faster and cheaper. Guess what? No one cares about efficiency when using them. To an intelligence with the ability to create artificial life forms that zip across stars it would be no big a deal to build support on the ships to carry them too. Inefficient? sure! but who cares? I think that if these beings DO end up creating AI, they will STILL be the first we run into. Why? Simple, they dont need to sit around back on their planet and do anything. Their life will be one thing alone. Pursuit of whatever it is they want. It is possible that some of them would like to travel and be tourists all their life. Going from one star to the other. Just because they develop AI, and because AI machines would be more efficient is no reason to say its unlikely that the creators will be coming with them
Slashdot Mirror
True, but remember, the US unemployment rate is at very record low levels. This is despite of the great number of immigrants to the US. Why? Because there just aren't enough PEOPLE in this country to take up all the jobs. India and China have populations of 1 billion + .. US has around 300 million.
Also when the Unemployment rate nears 2%, things start getting wild and people start getting afraid of inflation.
These immigrants are taking up positions that US citizens CANNOT fill. Unless they all sit down and start procreating frantically and getting a dozen kids each. But even if they do that, the industry will have to wait about 20 years before it will get a large trained workforce.
Actually, the point to this is a very cruel one. I'm speaking of this out of experience so think about it a minute. When an employee is with a company a few years, he typically gets raises and other benefits increased. A new worker would start with the same starting pay. sometimes this benefit, can actually offset the cost of retraining. I know, cause we did the math, and at our business we have actually done exactly that to cut costs.
Could this method of tagging things with DNA be usd for a whole bunch of other purposes to uniquely identify items? However, I dont think this would work, if something were sufficiently profitable, it would be worth the while of some underworld cartel to get the equipment needed to extract the DNA tag from an original and replicate it and tag their own couterfeit items in the same way.
This is absolutely ridiculous! There has to be some law that protects a user from this. Or atleast they should not be able to sell the information they gathered about me, BEFORE The change. Because I had agreed to their previous privacy policy. Wouldn't this be breach of contract. I can see it now. Medical instituions and porn sites. GARAUNTEing your privacy, hell they can make absolutely ANY claim they want. Then after a couple of years, when they have gathered lots of information and are gonna get good chunks of money, they simply change their privacy policy and can do whatever they want??? .. This is called conning the customer.
Does this mean that I can put up a deal on my commercial website that says .. Join now and fill this survey out.. and we promise never to disclose this information to anyone, and we'll never use any information either to spam you, and on top of that we'll mail them a check worth $10 in three months time to the address and name filled out in the survey. Now you'd have to fill in the right information to get the check and be able to cash it. So now I have a whole ton of your information. Then 2 months later, I change my policy and some $hit like that and spam anyway because we no longer give an option to registered users to opt-out of our "news" mail.
Killing animals for pleasure isn't just a human trait, cats do it too. They play and kill creatures with no intension to eat them. And you cannot deny my line of reasoning. You said "with this line of reasoning humans can kill any animal" .. well you answer that.. can they NOT kill any animal they please? "so if they can't figure out how to prevent us from killing them, screw them" . Exactly.. are they NOT getting screwed? "You forget that a lot of animals that we've hunted down to near extinction, we did out of petty reasons" .. yes but a lot of animals kill for the same reason. (see cats) And even if it were a strictly human trait, too bad for the animals, we have an advantage over them and unless they cant come up with anythign to stop us.. they CANT stop us.
I can see that you have misunderstood the entire point of my comment. I wasn't justifying our killing off these animals, I was saying it is merely inevitable unless WE decide against it, cause there is NO ONE to stop us yet.
"If you think you're smarter than a bear, let's put you up against one. " Yes.. I am smarter than the average bear. :) .. IF you do put me up against a bear, I wouldn't win, but I would not necessarily loose. there are ways in which you can fool a bear into thinking you are already dead and they leave you alone.
Besides, you are talking about one brief instance of time in a special condition. How about, face me against a bear, give me 1 gun. Give the bear 10 guns. Lets see who wins. In the long run, and even in the short run for a majority of the situations, the smart do win the big and the mean.
Let me ask you a question now. If you disagree with my statement, and that the biggest and the baddest dont loose to the smartest. Explain to me why the bear is an endangered animal and humans aren't? Explain to me how humans survived in southern Africa amongst Lions , hippos, rhinos, etc. ? Explain how the smartest creature on earth is also the strongest?
About the dumb people reproducing like crazy and the smart people not.. I disagree, unless you are pointing toward geographic locations and racial traits. Which I assume you are not. Fastest population growth is in the underdeveloped countries, so .. the relation would seem that the under developed nations have the dumbest people.. and by the same assumption, Chinese and Indians would be the dumbest. Or okay, dumb Chinese and Indians reproduce the most, in that case, you are implying that MOST indians and chinese are dumb. I dont think so, and I think a lot of Smart people (in the developed world ) would agree with me.
Also if you look at the way our species implementation of natural selection you will notice that the smart ARE the ones who get the most options/offers for propagating their genes. how? simple, women look among other things look for certain characteristics in a man, Success, intelligence and looks being some of them. The same is the case with men. Humans tend to search for these traits in the person they wish to procreate with. This "natural selection" insures that the genes of those with the best traits are passed on .
I think you have a good point, but what I say is that re-introducing it is in itself messing up everything. We are forcibly shaping and sculpting everything. Its true that we are the ones the removed it in the first place, but now that its gone we are trying to through brute scientific force get that species back in the environment. However you have to question, what would have happened if the dinosaurs had never gone extinct? Dont worry about the rabbits, they are like us, growing to fill consume all the resources they can get their furry little claws on. when they're population goes into excesses like ours they start screwing up their environment (just like us) and will start ripping the land dry to survive (just like us) and once they have done enough damage to the system, they themselves will no longer be able to survive (again.. just like us) . Its a pity though.. those rabbits will wipe themselves out of Australia, us humans are working on a planetary scale.. but ofcourse, we _are_ humans, far superior to rabbits..
I'm not trying to be anti-science here, but we all know whats going to happen to that poor creature once they DO bring it back. Regardless of the reasoning behind why they bring it back, its going to have a very miserable existence. First of all, the media and the businesses are going to go into a frenzy. The media is always looking for stuff like this. But the real pain is the businesses. Lets face it, just about everything is all about money. I can just see all these zoos and other buisnesses looking for ways to cash in on this new development. Secondly, do they plan to re-release this thing into the wild? How will they train it to survive? Or are they hoping that it will have an inbuilt instinct and know what to do? Chances are, most of these tasmanian tigers (atleast for the next 20 or so years) will be brought up completely in captivity. They will be put on display for people , thats it. Third. There was an article about this on another site (cant remember which, think it was CNN) , that mentioned that the scientist when asked if he was playing God, retaliated by saying we were also playing god when we wiped it out. I disagree, it has been the case through out evolution, that when one species got an upperhand on the others, it would multiply and drive the others to extinction if the others themselves did not evolve and adapt. I'm not saying that human extermination of all kinds of life is a _normal_ evolutionary process, what I am saying is, that human kind has achieved such a great advantage over the other species that this process of extermination can reach catastrophic proportions. It is just like economics really, think of all our species as competing for the resources of this planet, the biggest and baddest, loose to the smartest ..
Its one thing to _conserve_ what we have, its another to bring back extinct species for the sake of monetary gain. I'm not gonna make judgements on if its wrong, but I think they are different agendas and will have different outcomes.
dude, sony SAYS it will do it, Microsoft WILL do it.... .... ofcourse there will be a patch available in a few hours for it, but thats besides the point.
I believe the chap's gotten carried away. There is no way he can implement what he wants, and get away without _serious_ legal repercussions(sp?) ..
Besides having such passionately feelings against Napster isn't going to help. How is he gonna block Gnutella?
The fellow's just gotten caught up in the momment, and said a few things he's probably already regretting.
Here's what I think. If these ETs get so intelligent that they can build machines that zip between stars and can think for themselves. They can undoubtedly automate anything they do. So what happens to them? They sit around staring at each other's faces all day? I dont think so. People talk about "efficiency" when travelling through space. But think about that a minute. Go you sit naked in your car cause its inefficient to have you car haul extra weight? Or leave your dog behind because of that? Do you use your computer for nothing but scientific purposes no. As cars got better, and computers got faster and cheaper. Guess what? No one cares about efficiency when using them. To an intelligence with the ability to create artificial life forms that zip across stars it would be no big a deal to build support on the ships to carry them too. Inefficient? sure! but who cares? I think that if these beings DO end up creating AI, they will STILL be the first we run into. Why? Simple, they dont need to sit around back on their planet and do anything. Their life will be one thing alone. Pursuit of whatever it is they want. It is possible that some of them would like to travel and be tourists all their life. Going from one star to the other. Just because they develop AI, and because AI machines would be more efficient is no reason to say its unlikely that the creators will be coming with them
...but doesn't it look a lot like Prince is doing 2 things 1) Getting back back at the BIG BAD company. 2) Getting free publicity.