OK, since this discussion is occurring within the general population, and not confined to the scientific community, I think it's fair to fall back on terminology and definitions that most people understand.
Your average person wouldn't assume influenza to be a parasite. Your average person would think of a tick or something else along those lines.
In general, organisms that your average person would see as a parasite most certainly do follow the type of pattern suggested above, that is, that successful ones as a general rule do not kill their host.
Further, even if we do stick to the scientific definition...MOST people survive influenza, and I feel safe in saying that if influenza were actually 100% fatal, it would be a very ineffectual 'parasite'...as is ebola. It's too good at killing to be a successful parasite. This is one reason why Influenza is rampant and ebola is not.
I didn't say the joke itself was inappropriate, I specifically targeted the timing of said joke.
Shall I tell that joke about your mom while we're all huddled around her grave at her funeral? Or would it be more appropriate for a private conversation at the reception after?
Why I'm responding to someone that calls themselves Lord though...you'd think I'd learn.
Well, that's maybe why this happened in Canada, but hasn't in the states. Rogers had a monopoly on Cable, Bell had a monopoly on Phone Lines. Both were forced to offer unbundled internet services (Which neither did on their own).
So I can see how this is the way things are in the states, free market and all that.
Because it's the moral attitude that leads to these kinds of extinction.
We've proven over and over that we're not capable of making that kind of distinction. We kill indiscriminantly. If we can't choose to NOT wipe out a species like this dolphin, how are we going to choose to not wipe out some species that is key to our survival?
I get that, I do. I'm getting a bit heated arguing the natural part of this in an attempt to counter the incredible amount of 'Sucks to be them, they should have evolved better' kind of attitude coming out in this thread.
So, yes, this is really more of a morality issue.
Regardless of this being natural or not, WE caused this extinction. WE should be ashamed of ourselves for doing so. WE need to learn from our mistakes, because one of these days it will be our last mistake.
So let me rephrase my point: Fuck all of you that think this 'is the way things should be', because it's not.
Christ, there are more jokes about this extinction than there is actual discussion about the issue at hand. That says a lot...and I personally believe is directly related to how we let this happen in the first place. Quite obviously, most people just don't give a fuck. Shame on them.
No, it's not impossible, but it is extremely difficult. And there is a natural population to leverage in that case to boot.
Good luck raising an extinct aquatic species in a similar manner. (Not suggesting it shouldn't be tried, I'd just hope it would be reserved as the last resort)
It wasn't really the post itself, it's that it was modded up to the top of the pile so fast and considering what the article is about, I find that sad.
I find it even more sad that people would view this opinion as being a troll.
There is simply nothing amusing about the extinction of a species, but considering how most of the ensuing discussions have gone, I really shouldn't be remotely surprised.
The average IQ around here may be higher than most places, but it sure doesn't equate to higher morality. (Now that could be legitimately called a troll, though it is true)
At the least, it's shady business practices. You are right that ideally, it would be a stupid move on comcast's part that would result in them going out of business.
Unfortunately, this would be the real world we're living in here.
So, let me ask you this: Is there any inherant benefit in allowing companies to link unrelated services together and force both on you if you want one? And if not, is there any detriment to not allowing companies to ONLY offer a service if it's bundled with another unrelated one?
Of course companies should be able to offer whatever bundles they want, but personally I think it would be very beneficial to all to not allow companies to only offer services bundled with other unrelated services.
If some natural predator were to cause this, then so be it. Though you can expect that as humans we'd probably try to save the species anyways. (OK, some of us would) No duty involved, simply a desire not to see something lost forever.
People have been fishing these dolphins for a very very very long time. Overpopulation (human) lead to overfishing, causing stress on the species. Pollution added to that stress. What sealed it for this dolphin though was the boat traffic in the river, essentially rendering this species 'blind'.
It wasn't the predator->prey part of this equation that ended it for this species.
Yep, more proof that despite the best efforts of part of the human race, we WILL be the end of ourselves...Personally I just hope we off ourselves before we take everything else on this planet along with us.
Come on by and I'll personally show you some 'natural selection', if you know what I mean.
Glad to see you are proud about and desire to use responsibly your (unwarranted) sentience. Fucking waste of gray matter that one.
Tell me, how the FUCK would transport ships 'evolve' over a matter of a couple hundred years? It is NOT the same thing, it is not even remotely comparable.
Heck, a massive meteor could have landed in that river and wiped out this species at any time over the past 20 million years. Even THAT wouldn't be the same as how we've caused this species to go extinct. The meteor simply can not know what impact it is about to have, and much less, do anything about it.
We damned well can.
You like your iPod? Your car? Your toys and games? Yes, all very very natural and expected. Heck, I'm sure I saw a squirrel the other day working out the internal combustion engine.
There is a difference here, and for all of our sakes, anyone with this particular fatalist view really ought to do their best to realize this.
Why are people choosing to argue themselves into extinction?
You have the unique ability to be accountable for your actions, whereas most other species do not, and none come even remotely close to being able to on the level that we can.
So which are you? We're 'natural' and so is everything we do, and when we're done killing every other species on this planet off it will have been inevitable.
Or, we're 'human', we have a responsibility to account for our actions, to ensure that we don't kill everything on this planet (including ourselves) out of sheer ignorance.
Which is it? An ignorant mound of flesh and bone or a sentient being? There is a choice here.
Do we really care so little for our environment that all we can do in a case like this is make jokes? Makes it kind of hard to hold up any sort of hope for the human race. Very sad really.
Yeah, they just happened to have been naturally selected for extinction now, nevermind that we KNOW exactly what the cause of their decline has been, and that we KNOW it is because of OUR artificial impact on their natural environment.
You couldn't have picked a worse place or time to pull that steaming pile of shit out.
Um, being forced to pay for phone service you don't want to get internet service...but that's somehow not forcing...hmmm, I'm having trouble following that logic.
Particularly if you live somewhere where it's a one corp show.
Forcing a minimum TV subscription to get TV service, not the same thing at all.
Are you actually suggesting you see no problem with this? No wonder they do it, because there are enough suckers out there to buy into it with no questions asked.
That's fine and all, but what is the point behind trying to convince people that this is _right_? Please stop already.
Is it not illegal to force an unrelated service on someone?
I'm quite certain that in Canada at least this is the case. The cable companies were forced to provide internet service with no requirement for paying for cable tv as well. This happened years ago now.
I mean when some exec goes to some meeting and declares that today they are going to create the next #1 hit for their current 'face-du-jour', digital pre-canned sequences are pulled out, plopped together, a voice track thrown on it, and it's released as music.
I'm not talking about musicians using digital tools and instruments to _create_. I'm talking use of digital technologies to repackage ad infinitum, with basically zero creation going into the process.
No one said digital music isn't music, YOU read that into my original post, and that was the exact topic I wished to avoid, for this very reason. That is NOT what is being discussed.
CRAP being the norm from the major players in the music industry is what is being discussed, and my point being that there is a LOT more of it now than there ever has been before, and MOST of it is cookie cutter digitally made garbage.
I know and love tonnes of digital music, and note I do call it music.
Care to discuss what's being discussed? Or shall you continue to hijack this so you can continue arguing from whatever moral high ground you've apparently propped yourself up on?
They are suggesting that Google works so well and is so incredibly simple from the end users perspective, because of how much complexity went into the back end.
They are also suggesting that Microsoft and Yahoo's sites are so incredibly mind numbingly complicated because their back end systems are so simple.
It actually makes a good deal of sense. I wouldn't apply it as a general rule of thumb, but there is definitely truth in there.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, since this discussion is occurring within the general population, and not confined to the scientific community, I think it's fair to fall back on terminology and definitions that most people understand.
Your average person wouldn't assume influenza to be a parasite. Your average person would think of a tick or something else along those lines.
In general, organisms that your average person would see as a parasite most certainly do follow the type of pattern suggested above, that is, that successful ones as a general rule do not kill their host.
Further, even if we do stick to the scientific definition...MOST people survive influenza, and I feel safe in saying that if influenza were actually 100% fatal, it would be a very ineffectual 'parasite'...as is ebola. It's too good at killing to be a successful parasite. This is one reason why Influenza is rampant and ebola is not.
I didn't say the joke itself was inappropriate, I specifically targeted the timing of said joke.
Shall I tell that joke about your mom while we're all huddled around her grave at her funeral? Or would it be more appropriate for a private conversation at the reception after?
Why I'm responding to someone that calls themselves Lord though...you'd think I'd learn.
Well, that's maybe why this happened in Canada, but hasn't in the states. Rogers had a monopoly on Cable, Bell had a monopoly on Phone Lines. Both were forced to offer unbundled internet services (Which neither did on their own).
So I can see how this is the way things are in the states, free market and all that.
And that would be bad because...?
That ignores the definition of parasite.
Influenza is not a parasite.
Neither is ebola.
They are viruses.
Because it's the moral attitude that leads to these kinds of extinction.
We've proven over and over that we're not capable of making that kind of distinction. We kill indiscriminantly. If we can't choose to NOT wipe out a species like this dolphin, how are we going to choose to not wipe out some species that is key to our survival?
I get that, I do. I'm getting a bit heated arguing the natural part of this in an attempt to counter the incredible amount of 'Sucks to be them, they should have evolved better' kind of attitude coming out in this thread.
So, yes, this is really more of a morality issue.
Regardless of this being natural or not, WE caused this extinction. WE should be ashamed of ourselves for doing so. WE need to learn from our mistakes, because one of these days it will be our last mistake.
So let me rephrase my point: Fuck all of you that think this 'is the way things should be', because it's not.
Christ, there are more jokes about this extinction than there is actual discussion about the issue at hand. That says a lot...and I personally believe is directly related to how we let this happen in the first place. Quite obviously, most people just don't give a fuck. Shame on them.
Tried raising a Giant Panda lately?
No, it's not impossible, but it is extremely difficult. And there is a natural population to leverage in that case to boot.
Good luck raising an extinct aquatic species in a similar manner. (Not suggesting it shouldn't be tried, I'd just hope it would be reserved as the last resort)
It wasn't really the post itself, it's that it was modded up to the top of the pile so fast and considering what the article is about, I find that sad.
I find it even more sad that people would view this opinion as being a troll.
There is simply nothing amusing about the extinction of a species, but considering how most of the ensuing discussions have gone, I really shouldn't be remotely surprised.
The average IQ around here may be higher than most places, but it sure doesn't equate to higher morality. (Now that could be legitimately called a troll, though it is true)
Sorry, I did mean TV, not phone.
And good for you for being on the 'smart' list.
Think your grandma figured that out though?
At the least, it's shady business practices. You are right that ideally, it would be a stupid move on comcast's part that would result in them going out of business.
Unfortunately, this would be the real world we're living in here.
So, let me ask you this: Is there any inherant benefit in allowing companies to link unrelated services together and force both on you if you want one? And if not, is there any detriment to not allowing companies to ONLY offer a service if it's bundled with another unrelated one?
Of course companies should be able to offer whatever bundles they want, but personally I think it would be very beneficial to all to not allow companies to only offer services bundled with other unrelated services.
If some natural predator were to cause this, then so be it. Though you can expect that as humans we'd probably try to save the species anyways. (OK, some of us would) No duty involved, simply a desire not to see something lost forever.
People have been fishing these dolphins for a very very very long time. Overpopulation (human) lead to overfishing, causing stress on the species. Pollution added to that stress. What sealed it for this dolphin though was the boat traffic in the river, essentially rendering this species 'blind'.
It wasn't the predator->prey part of this equation that ended it for this species.
And more often than not, and documented many many times...END OF SPECIES.
A species has a minute chance of recovering from such a catastrophe. I'd rather not have to take that chance myself.
Holy fuck are you a complete moron.
Yep, more proof that despite the best efforts of part of the human race, we WILL be the end of ourselves...Personally I just hope we off ourselves before we take everything else on this planet along with us.
Come on by and I'll personally show you some 'natural selection', if you know what I mean.
Glad to see you are proud about and desire to use responsibly your (unwarranted) sentience. Fucking waste of gray matter that one.
Tell me, how the FUCK would transport ships 'evolve' over a matter of a couple hundred years? It is NOT the same thing, it is not even remotely comparable.
Heck, a massive meteor could have landed in that river and wiped out this species at any time over the past 20 million years. Even THAT wouldn't be the same as how we've caused this species to go extinct. The meteor simply can not know what impact it is about to have, and much less, do anything about it.
We damned well can.
You like your iPod? Your car? Your toys and games? Yes, all very very natural and expected. Heck, I'm sure I saw a squirrel the other day working out the internal combustion engine.
There is a difference here, and for all of our sakes, anyone with this particular fatalist view really ought to do their best to realize this.
Why are people choosing to argue themselves into extinction?
You have the unique ability to be accountable for your actions, whereas most other species do not, and none come even remotely close to being able to on the level that we can.
So which are you? We're 'natural' and so is everything we do, and when we're done killing every other species on this planet off it will have been inevitable.
Or, we're 'human', we have a responsibility to account for our actions, to ensure that we don't kill everything on this planet (including ourselves) out of sheer ignorance.
Which is it? An ignorant mound of flesh and bone or a sentient being? There is a choice here.
Anyone ever heard of comedic timing?
Yeah, well, this isn't it.
Do we really care so little for our environment that all we can do in a case like this is make jokes? Makes it kind of hard to hold up any sort of hope for the human race. Very sad really.
You don't know very much about genetics and gene pools do you?
That's ok, ya'll just go on ahead and marry your sister now mmkay?
20 Million Years.
Repeat after me: Twenty Million Years
Yeah, they just happened to have been naturally selected for extinction now, nevermind that we KNOW exactly what the cause of their decline has been, and that we KNOW it is because of OUR artificial impact on their natural environment.
You couldn't have picked a worse place or time to pull that steaming pile of shit out.
Perhaps evolved and thrived _because_ there were small mammalians available as a food source, but no large predators.
Which would actually further support the original theories :)
Um, being forced to pay for phone service you don't want to get internet service...but that's somehow not forcing...hmmm, I'm having trouble following that logic.
Particularly if you live somewhere where it's a one corp show.
Forcing a minimum TV subscription to get TV service, not the same thing at all.
Are you actually suggesting you see no problem with this? No wonder they do it, because there are enough suckers out there to buy into it with no questions asked.
That's fine and all, but what is the point behind trying to convince people that this is _right_? Please stop already.
Is it not illegal to force an unrelated service on someone?
I'm quite certain that in Canada at least this is the case. The cable companies were forced to provide internet service with no requirement for paying for cable tv as well. This happened years ago now.
I mean when some exec goes to some meeting and declares that today they are going to create the next #1 hit for their current 'face-du-jour', digital pre-canned sequences are pulled out, plopped together, a voice track thrown on it, and it's released as music.
I'm not talking about musicians using digital tools and instruments to _create_. I'm talking use of digital technologies to repackage ad infinitum, with basically zero creation going into the process.
Oh get off your high horse.
No one said digital music isn't music, YOU read that into my original post, and that was the exact topic I wished to avoid, for this very reason. That is NOT what is being discussed.
CRAP being the norm from the major players in the music industry is what is being discussed, and my point being that there is a LOT more of it now than there ever has been before, and MOST of it is cookie cutter digitally made garbage.
I know and love tonnes of digital music, and note I do call it music.
Care to discuss what's being discussed? Or shall you continue to hijack this so you can continue arguing from whatever moral high ground you've apparently propped yourself up on?
I think you completely missed the point.
They are suggesting that Google works so well and is so incredibly simple from the end users perspective, because of how much complexity went into the back end.
They are also suggesting that Microsoft and Yahoo's sites are so incredibly mind numbingly complicated because their back end systems are so simple.
It actually makes a good deal of sense. I wouldn't apply it as a general rule of thumb, but there is definitely truth in there.