By saying "No" it appears you are attempting to speak for everyone. Because you don't speak for everyone, you'll need to say "I didn't" instead.
Here's some examples for you to use in your normal life; "I didn't get the joke". "I didn't realize that 'rasterman' is indeed an alias. "I didn't get invited again".
Who here cares if the last thing can still be used? We yearn for the next graphics card when we know damn well the last one we had will probably be just fine... because we love the cutting edge stuff. Thats part of being a tech geek.
So now someone wants to put out something better, and we're all supposed to say no! Too early.... let me play with this one longer?
Bah, those who want to play with PS2 and XBox can do so, but I'm going to take a bet that if this is that much better, people will buy it...if not, it will die.
But retraining new tech for the sake of keeping old tech around? Thats counter-slashdot... and the same argument applies if it was Sony or Microsoft, although I'd also sneak a side bet in that if it was Sony, it would be a good thing... but its Microsoft, and people love to hate them.
Your comment is well written and well thought out.
I don't think I've destroyed the word, but instead put it back to it's rightful place, and returned humans to the "natural world".
Once we do that, we eliminate the weakest argument there is; "it's not natural".
I understand your argument about not acting in our nature, but i believe that our evolution of intelligence and eventual recognition of critical thinking over instinct was natural, and is in the same realm. It is specific thinking for the sake of definition and discussion that makes people say otherwise.
That becomes a problem when doing something is labeled unnatural as a bad thing. Why is it bad? We would be much better served by dropping the "unnatural" label and just presenting why it's a bad idea straight off, and leaving the "unnatural" moniker behind us where it belongs in our natural evolution.
The value system is natural, and his realizing that breeding like crazy isnt good for humans at this point, contradicting his instinct, is natural.
The benefit by realizing this is that the dialouge surrounding the issue won't be left at the low level of "It's not natural, so it's bad!" and elevated to "We as humans should work against this/for this because it will harm our society in this way; point 1, 2, 3", or "We should not develop this area because the gains are not equal to the losses in this way"...
FYI I hike every week, absolutely love the outdoors, but I hate environmentalists, not because they want to protect the state of the environment as it is now, but because usually their overbearing zeal doesn't allow for critical thinking, open minds, and valid argumentation; and "save our natural environment" means nothing, gets lost int he moise, and no real arguments are formed.
Yes, but that makes us unique, not unnatural. There are plenty of species that are the only ones that can do something, this does not make them unnatural.
I agree that we as a species, if we want to stay around must pay attention to these things, but your zeal for that idea is natural, as is the other end of the spectrum in humans... its exactly where we are supposed to be in our natural evolution. Yes, the Nazi Deatch Camps were natural. Humans have a tremendous ability to be swindled and told something, and they will believe it; group think is a very powerful, very easily used tool for guiding masses to do something as horrible as that. Why, because in our natural evolution we learned that going with the group protects us, and if enough people around you started running, you most definitely would too, and you'd not know why, but you wouldn't stick around and wait. Or, you stand there, try to figure out why everyone is running.... and wham... you're out of the gene pool. Thats natural.
"We are definitely unnatural, almost cancerous in our refusal to fit within the natural order, we act as Shiva, the destroyer and ender."
Sorry, but Cancer is natural. It may not be what you want as part of the system, but in systems there are bad things and good things... look at earth. "Natural disasters"; yes, cancer is your own natural disaster. It may not be what you like, but cancer evolves from systems and is exactly what that system should produce under the circumstances presented it. Steady cigarette smoking not natural... actually it is. Humans like nicotine... and we use it exactly as much as we should at this point in history.
"I think you may need another term."
I'm going to keep using it as it was intended, to describe natural things. What you want to start using is terms like "destructive to the status quo, or against how you want it to stay, or against your perception of how things should be/remain/change, etc.
You're using "natural" as a description of things that have been around for a few thousand years. maybe even 10 thousand years, and because you weren't around when those things were created, you think they are how it should always be. If you were around somehow when the first little guy walked/slithered/whatever out of the primordial soup, would you yell "Thats not natural!"?
Nope, that was natural too, as was the Tsunami, as tragic as we might feel it is, as our valuing human life is part of our nature.
While my point was meant to be rediculous, the part you don't realize is that somewehre in your head you think that humans laying "waste" to anything isn't natural. It's actually quite natural, and my proof is that it happened. Anything that happens is natural. Humans natural rip the crap out of things, we natural want to preserve it, and we naturally consider things exactly as much as we do, till we naturally change to another way of thinking.
It is natural to beat the hell out of our environment till we naturally see the effects and scale back.
I can go on and on, but the point is we don't do anything that isn't natural. Our conversation here, on the internet, perhaps hundreds on miles away from eachother, is actually part of natural evolution. And I'm glad we've done our part.
This comment sounds very "insightful", but so does alot of philosophy. Real life progress is never as cut and dry, and if this thinking had its way, we'd never get anything done.
It ignores that fact there is no equilibrium on earth. It is constantly changing, and we are changing with it. It also assumes a tremendous value on "virgin soil" as if this one fact makes it better. And what is the value in waiting till we have mastered the earth to start looking at a completely different type of planet... this assumes the Earth data is going to apply to Mars somehow.
This reminds me of the people that say that humans changing the earth aren't natural, therefore it's bad. I always have to wonder what about humans aren't natural, because we are exactly like every other creature on the planet. We have absolutely no choice but to act in our nature. Somewhere along the lines someone decided that if it changes the environment too much, then it's not "natural". This argument isn't sound, or I'd argue that beavers building huge dams and creating gigantic ponds/lakes/starting small ecosystems themsleves aren't "natural".
Don't tell me now that beavers are ok because they look pretty natural doing it, but we as humans don't. Or, is it just us and the beavers now, screwing up the Earth for the whales?
I wonder what point in human evolution we became "unnatural"; Was it the whole opposable thumb thing? Tools? Fire? The wheel? The premiere of "American Idol"? The fact is, all of it is natural, just not "woodsy" like wildlife lovers would like you to believe everything should be.
But back to Mars; Sure, there might be something we could do with the soil on Mars that we can't get back if we make it habitable. On the flip side of that, what good is it if we really can't get to it for any meaningful amount of time?
There's a balance between preserving samples so that they can be observed, and entering the environment and effecting it so that one can utilize the resources.
Fact is there's going to be a balance... we're going to try things, and we'll not always be right, but we'll make progress and learn, and the "naturalist" will tell you it's never time to move forward. The guys at NASA aren't stupid, there will be alot of baby steps and testing before they decide to try anything.
more to do with differentiating the apple than anything else. Man, they love to be apple users, and 2 buttons... "thats a windows crazy thing. we know better!"
but then I read in the article: "and had sufficient forced air through the heat exchangers to transport the heat from a small car out of this small room."
Actually I quite intentionally wrote it in the tone of someone who would mistake a TV show for a news broadcast.
I myself mistook you for someone who might be able to get a joke... but rage on net patrol, rage on (I think I saw a typo, look, over there... you see it... it's way over your head!")
I was just watching a 24 hour news update, and apparently the internet boradcast of the execution of a US Secretary Heller was a coverup for an attack on a US nuclear base firewall.
This all in an attempt to use a remote control system developed for nuclear installations in case of a radiation leak or disaster.
It's no suprise... not like there wasn't a nuke detonated in the desert all those years ago. About time they wake up.
I for one CANNOT welcome some japanese dancing fairy robots as my overlords. Maybe if they were veritech and at least transformed, but these robot overlords are way to geisha for me.
Slashdot Mirror
They mean 'Original' to SciFi.
By saying "No" it appears you are attempting to speak for everyone. Because you don't speak for everyone, you'll need to say "I didn't" instead.
Here's some examples for you to use in your normal life;
"I didn't get the joke".
"I didn't realize that 'rasterman' is indeed an alias.
"I didn't get invited again".
Anyone else think this article sounded a bit more superhero than it turned out to be?
"Rasterman Responds To Seth And Havoc"
RasterMan, defender of good finally reengages his age old enemies Seth, and his evil master Havoc.
Can someone please put the parent on the short list for torture; I'm too busy eating apple pie, bombing brown people, and devolving society right now.
Thanks a bunch.
Who here cares if the last thing can still be used? We yearn for the next graphics card when we know damn well the last one we had will probably be just fine... because we love the cutting edge stuff. Thats part of being a tech geek.
So now someone wants to put out something better, and we're all supposed to say no! Too early.... let me play with this one longer?
Bah, those who want to play with PS2 and XBox can do so, but I'm going to take a bet that if this is that much better, people will buy it...if not, it will die.
But retraining new tech for the sake of keeping old tech around? Thats counter-slashdot... and the same argument applies if it was Sony or Microsoft, although I'd also sneak a side bet in that if it was Sony, it would be a good thing... but its Microsoft, and people love to hate them.
Your comment is well written and well thought out.
I don't think I've destroyed the word, but instead put it back to it's rightful place, and returned humans to the "natural world".
Once we do that, we eliminate the weakest argument there is; "it's not natural".
I understand your argument about not acting in our nature, but i believe that our evolution of intelligence and eventual recognition of critical thinking over instinct was natural, and is in the same realm. It is specific thinking for the sake of definition and discussion that makes people say otherwise.
That becomes a problem when doing something is labeled unnatural as a bad thing. Why is it bad? We would be much better served by dropping the "unnatural" label and just presenting why it's a bad idea straight off, and leaving the "unnatural" moniker behind us where it belongs in our natural evolution.
Yes, that's exactly my point.
The value system is natural, and his realizing that breeding like crazy isnt good for humans at this point, contradicting his instinct, is natural.
The benefit by realizing this is that the dialouge surrounding the issue won't be left at the low level of "It's not natural, so it's bad!" and elevated to "We as humans should work against this/for this because it will harm our society in this way; point 1, 2, 3", or "We should not develop this area because the gains are not equal to the losses in this way"...
FYI I hike every week, absolutely love the outdoors, but I hate environmentalists, not because they want to protect the state of the environment as it is now, but because usually their overbearing zeal doesn't allow for critical thinking, open minds, and valid argumentation; and "save our natural environment" means nothing, gets lost int he moise, and no real arguments are formed.
"But, we are the ONLY species that can do this."
Yes, but that makes us unique, not unnatural. There are plenty of species that are the only ones that can do something, this does not make them unnatural.
I agree that we as a species, if we want to stay around must pay attention to these things, but your zeal for that idea is natural, as is the other end of the spectrum in humans... its exactly where we are supposed to be in our natural evolution. Yes, the Nazi Deatch Camps were natural. Humans have a tremendous ability to be swindled and told something, and they will believe it; group think is a very powerful, very easily used tool for guiding masses to do something as horrible as that. Why, because in our natural evolution we learned that going with the group protects us, and if enough people around you started running, you most definitely would too, and you'd not know why, but you wouldn't stick around and wait. Or, you stand there, try to figure out why everyone is running.... and wham... you're out of the gene pool. Thats natural.
"We are definitely unnatural, almost cancerous in our refusal to fit within the natural order, we act as Shiva, the destroyer and ender."
Sorry, but Cancer is natural. It may not be what you want as part of the system, but in systems there are bad things and good things... look at earth. "Natural disasters"; yes, cancer is your own natural disaster. It may not be what you like, but cancer evolves from systems and is exactly what that system should produce under the circumstances presented it. Steady cigarette smoking not natural... actually it is. Humans like nicotine... and we use it exactly as much as we should at this point in history.
"I think you may need another term."
I'm going to keep using it as it was intended, to describe natural things. What you want to start using is terms like "destructive to the status quo, or against how you want it to stay, or against your perception of how things should be/remain/change, etc.
You're using "natural" as a description of things that have been around for a few thousand years. maybe even 10 thousand years, and because you weren't around when those things were created, you think they are how it should always be. If you were around somehow when the first little guy walked/slithered/whatever out of the primordial soup, would you yell "Thats not natural!"?
Nope, that was natural too, as was the Tsunami, as tragic as we might feel it is, as our valuing human life is part of our nature.
While my point was meant to be rediculous, the part you don't realize is that somewehre in your head you think that humans laying "waste" to anything isn't natural. It's actually quite natural, and my proof is that it happened. Anything that happens is natural. Humans natural rip the crap out of things, we natural want to preserve it, and we naturally consider things exactly as much as we do, till we naturally change to another way of thinking.
It is natural to beat the hell out of our environment till we naturally see the effects and scale back.
I can go on and on, but the point is we don't do anything that isn't natural. Our conversation here, on the internet, perhaps hundreds on miles away from eachother, is actually part of natural evolution. And I'm glad we've done our part.
High five.
This comment sounds very "insightful", but so does alot of philosophy. Real life progress is never as cut and dry, and if this thinking had its way, we'd never get anything done.
It ignores that fact there is no equilibrium on earth. It is constantly changing, and we are changing with it. It also assumes a tremendous value on "virgin soil" as if this one fact makes it better. And what is the value in waiting till we have mastered the earth to start looking at a completely different type of planet... this assumes the Earth data is going to apply to Mars somehow.
This reminds me of the people that say that humans changing the earth aren't natural, therefore it's bad. I always have to wonder what about humans aren't natural, because we are exactly like every other creature on the planet. We have absolutely no choice but to act in our nature. Somewhere along the lines someone decided that if it changes the environment too much, then it's not "natural". This argument isn't sound, or I'd argue that beavers building huge dams and creating gigantic ponds/lakes/starting small ecosystems themsleves aren't "natural".
Don't tell me now that beavers are ok because they look pretty natural doing it, but we as humans don't. Or, is it just us and the beavers now, screwing up the Earth for the whales?
I wonder what point in human evolution we became "unnatural"; Was it the whole opposable thumb thing? Tools? Fire? The wheel? The premiere of "American Idol"? The fact is, all of it is natural, just not "woodsy" like wildlife lovers would like you to believe everything should be.
But back to Mars; Sure, there might be something we could do with the soil on Mars that we can't get back if we make it habitable. On the flip side of that, what good is it if we really can't get to it for any meaningful amount of time?
There's a balance between preserving samples so that they can be observed, and entering the environment and effecting it so that one can utilize the resources.
Fact is there's going to be a balance... we're going to try things, and we'll not always be right, but we'll make progress and learn, and the "naturalist" will tell you it's never time to move forward. The guys at NASA aren't stupid, there will be alot of baby steps and testing before they decide to try anything.
Because it only has one big button.
99% of slashdot wants to know what this "exercise bicycle" you speak of is.
has the power to view the web page anymore...
more to do with differentiating the apple than anything else. Man, they love to be apple users, and 2 buttons... "thats a windows crazy thing. we know better!"
Color me troll, but this guy sort of makes me not want to cure cancer or aids... just in case he might get it.
but then I read in the article:
"and had sufficient forced air through the heat exchangers to transport the heat from a small car out of this small room."
Suprising.
"18 months in a Minnesota prison may only seem like 2000 years."
Yet oddly enough 18 months in a Minnesota prison will seen alot like 18 months in Minnesota.
They do the same thing over here for dl'ing an MP3.
Actually I quite intentionally wrote it in the tone of someone who would mistake a TV show for a news broadcast.
I myself mistook you for someone who might be able to get a joke... but rage on net patrol, rage on (I think I saw a typo, look, over there... you see it... it's way over your head!")
I was just watching a 24 hour news update, and apparently the internet boradcast of the execution of a US Secretary Heller was a coverup for an attack on a US nuclear base firewall.
This all in an attempt to use a remote control system developed for nuclear installations in case of a radiation leak or disaster.
It's no suprise... not like there wasn't a nuke detonated in the desert all those years ago. About time they wake up.
Eww.
Because in space when you scream (in estacy), theres nowhere for it to go.
Adam?
My bad, I thought this was going to an article about cubicles in the modern work environment.
I for one CANNOT welcome some japanese dancing fairy robots as my overlords. Maybe if they were veritech and at least transformed, but these robot overlords are way to geisha for me.
"No news Is good news?"
I think you mean "no news IS news".