Not really. It would be ironic if it was some fundie Christian ritual leading to the evolution, but as it was all do to some pagans, it's not so ironic -- but rather amusing in any case.
* This statement should not be construed as an endorsement of any particular god or gods. Please consult your own professional before making any investment decisions.
Things are bad everywhere, it's only the most blind who think they're only bad "over there".
At the same time, it must be noted that although things are bad everywhere, they're not equally bad. When some people say things are far worse "over there", they're right.
Much the same could have been said about Afghanistan in the 90s.
Would I be downmodded for pointing out that the total number of Americans killed by Al-qaeda-sponsored terrorists is minuscule compared to the number of them killed by North Korean soldiers?
Not trying to cast aspersions on either group, just saying a lot of people have a pretty whacked sense of perspective.
I doubt that "morals" enter into it when you're talking about the Chinese government.
That's not a particularly realistic view of the Chinese government. Morality is very much at the center of their motivations most of the time. Their view of western governments as largely amoral is closer to the truth. But that's a good thing -- the thing most pernicious for any form of morality is government sponsorship.
I don't frequent all that many news aggregator sites, but it seems that lately, most of the submissions getting through to the front page were on other sites days or weeks before.
If by "lately" you mean since the late 90's, then yes, indeed, nearly all submissions on Slashdot since the late 90's were on other sites before, and usually include a link or two to other sites where the story previously appeared.
... if for no other reason than to make it less obvious to the locals.
If there is no other reason, your argument is pretty weak. There's no reason to assume this particular individual gives a rat's ass what the locals think (or for that matter, what we think decades later).
Talking to yourself isn't all that uncommon. Sometimes you're just reminding yourself what the grocery list is. Sometimes you're talking to voices in your head.
Sometimes you're berating the voices in your head for forgetting what was on the grocery list.
Any future society capable of devising the technology required to time travel into the past is not going to bother with anything as quaint as a cell phone. There are sufficiently capable in-ear devices in use even today that are capable of audio based communication and are much less conspicuous than holding a box to your head. Are we to think that we'll still be slugging around cell phones in our distant future, when sci-fi writers would have us believe that in-eye HUDs will be supplementing our realities? What is the point of toting around technology, when its built right into us?
This entire argument collapses due to the unjustified assumption in the first sentence. Unless you are already familiar with the details of time travel technology, you have no basis for the the assumption that a society capable of building it would have already invented in-eye HUDs, in-ear devices, etc. Without knowing how its done, we have no reason to believe the serendipitous discovery that enables it won't happen next week, and the rest of the technology is already in our hands today. We could very well be seeing a time-traveller from the year 2012 who doesn't feel any terrible need for discretion, given we're all going to know it's possible in a few weeks, so who cares if the picture gets noticed in late 2010, a month before the announcement from UChicago/Fermilab or whereever?
This is an old sci-fi trope which I like to call the "unsophisticated sophisticate." A time traveler would of course know not to use a piece of technology like that in public or even possess it...
Why not? Is the universe going to unravel now that we've seen their picture?
Your making several huge, unjustified assumptions behind that "of course". There's no reason to be certain there would be negative consequences to doing what you say they "of course" would not do, nor is there any reason to presume this particular person would care even if there was, as long as he or she isn't personally affected by them.
Another issue is that people have been getting taller evolution-wize over the past roughly 100 years.
No, they haven't. People have been getting taller thanks to medical, sanitation, and most importantly, nutritional improvements. Their genetics have not changed significantly, and thus, have not gotten any taller evolution-wise.
Gah... when will we ever get an edit button? Oh well, the point is made. Real names are optional and frankly not used by most players, who continue to interact significantly as they always have using their character names or nicknames.
I'll believe they'll be sticking to the existing model of allowing players to interact with others using a real name if they so desire, but having the option to use real names if they like. As for this "new model" you're describing, it doesn't exist in any existing Blizzard game, and seems highly unlikely it ever will.
The summary tries to spin this story as "theft increases sales". In reality the theft just prompted the author to do the smart thing and talk to potential customers.
That's funny, because the summary says the soaring sales came after the author engaged with readers (and not right after the comic was posted). In other words, what the summary says is pretty much exactly what you say is true "in reality" and the opposite of what you say it says. Why you're trying to insert into the summary things it doesn't say (indeed, a contradiction to what it actually says) I'm not sure.
From the beginning of this I have thought that genetically engineered crops must have something to do with this...
From the beginning. Without even studying the problem. I don't need to hear a counterargument from Monsanto or anyone else to know you're an idiot. Even if your opinion was right, it would be by coincidence alone, since logical, objective thought was out of the question from the beginning by your own admission. Whether anyone else says otherwise is irrelevant when you make it clear from the start that your own opinion is invalid. ADM doesn't have to say anything when you are self-refuting.
I've never understood why it matters that it was painted with thermite. I don't care what it was painted with, it was the hydrogen that blew it up.
Except it wasn't, since, in fact, it did not blow up. It caught fire and burned, with the flames speaking along the fabric skin in a process that took somewhere from 32-37 seconds. It's unclear, but generally believed, that hydrogen gas may have contributed to the spread of the flames, but at no point did it "blow up".
Or we could just not do heavy construction in gale force winds. The wonderful thing about weather is, it changes if you give it time. Your "problem" is nonexistent unless you propose building large structures as a response to a "ticking time-bomb" scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
Boy thats an oxymoron.
Not really. It would be ironic if it was some fundie Christian ritual leading to the evolution, but as it was all do to some pagans, it's not so ironic -- but rather amusing in any case.
Competition is good.
Amen.*
* This statement should not be construed as an endorsement of any particular god or gods. Please consult your own professional before making any investment decisions.
Things are bad everywhere, it's only the most blind who think they're only bad "over there".
At the same time, it must be noted that although things are bad everywhere, they're not equally bad. When some people say things are far worse "over there", they're right.
Life is such grand comedy. Alas, it's tragic, dark comedy...
Much the same could have been said about Afghanistan in the 90s.
Would I be downmodded for pointing out that the total number of Americans killed by Al-qaeda-sponsored terrorists is minuscule compared to the number of them killed by North Korean soldiers?
Not trying to cast aspersions on either group, just saying a lot of people have a pretty whacked sense of perspective.
I doubt that "morals" enter into it when you're talking about the Chinese government.
That's not a particularly realistic view of the Chinese government. Morality is very much at the center of their motivations most of the time. Their view of western governments as largely amoral is closer to the truth. But that's a good thing -- the thing most pernicious for any form of morality is government sponsorship.
I don't frequent all that many news aggregator sites, but it seems that lately, most of the submissions getting through to the front page were on other sites days or weeks before.
If by "lately" you mean since the late 90's, then yes, indeed, nearly all submissions on Slashdot since the late 90's were on other sites before, and usually include a link or two to other sites where the story previously appeared.
... if for no other reason than to make it less obvious to the locals.
If there is no other reason, your argument is pretty weak. There's no reason to assume this particular individual gives a rat's ass what the locals think (or for that matter, what we think decades later).
Talking to yourself isn't all that uncommon. Sometimes you're just reminding yourself what the grocery list is. Sometimes you're talking to voices in your head.
Sometimes you're berating the voices in your head for forgetting what was on the grocery list.
And, you know, back then people on the street actually talked to one another.
Now that's just crazy-talk... :p
Any future society capable of devising the technology required to time travel into the past is not going to bother with anything as quaint as a cell phone. There are sufficiently capable in-ear devices in use even today that are capable of audio based communication and are much less conspicuous than holding a box to your head. Are we to think that we'll still be slugging around cell phones in our distant future, when sci-fi writers would have us believe that in-eye HUDs will be supplementing our realities? What is the point of toting around technology, when its built right into us?
This entire argument collapses due to the unjustified assumption in the first sentence. Unless you are already familiar with the details of time travel technology, you have no basis for the the assumption that a society capable of building it would have already invented in-eye HUDs, in-ear devices, etc. Without knowing how its done, we have no reason to believe the serendipitous discovery that enables it won't happen next week, and the rest of the technology is already in our hands today. We could very well be seeing a time-traveller from the year 2012 who doesn't feel any terrible need for discretion, given we're all going to know it's possible in a few weeks, so who cares if the picture gets noticed in late 2010, a month before the announcement from UChicago/Fermilab or whereever?
This is an old sci-fi trope which I like to call the "unsophisticated sophisticate." A time traveler would of course know not to use a piece of technology like that in public or even possess it...
Why not? Is the universe going to unravel now that we've seen their picture?
Your making several huge, unjustified assumptions behind that "of course". There's no reason to be certain there would be negative consequences to doing what you say they "of course" would not do, nor is there any reason to presume this particular person would care even if there was, as long as he or she isn't personally affected by them.
Another issue is that people have been getting taller evolution-wize over the past roughly 100 years.
No, they haven't. People have been getting taller thanks to medical, sanitation, and most importantly, nutritional improvements. Their genetics have not changed significantly, and thus, have not gotten any taller evolution-wise.
Gah... when will we ever get an edit button? Oh well, the point is made. Real names are optional and frankly not used by most players, who continue to interact significantly as they always have using their character names or nicknames.
I'll believe they'll be sticking to the existing model of allowing players to interact with others using a real name if they so desire, but having the option to use real names if they like. As for this "new model" you're describing, it doesn't exist in any existing Blizzard game, and seems highly unlikely it ever will.
Meh... no match for Illidan...
You are 1BADD00D.
Why don't we think of ants this way?
It would make it hard to justify not sharing your picnic...
Most of our users are computer generated. I was replaced by a small shell script years ago...
The summary tries to spin this story as "theft increases sales". In reality the theft just prompted the author to do the smart thing and talk to potential customers.
That's funny, because the summary says the soaring sales came after the author engaged with readers (and not right after the comic was posted). In other words, what the summary says is pretty much exactly what you say is true "in reality" and the opposite of what you say it says. Why you're trying to insert into the summary things it doesn't say (indeed, a contradiction to what it actually says) I'm not sure.
From the beginning of this I have thought that genetically engineered crops must have something to do with this...
From the beginning. Without even studying the problem. I don't need to hear a counterargument from Monsanto or anyone else to know you're an idiot. Even if your opinion was right, it would be by coincidence alone, since logical, objective thought was out of the question from the beginning by your own admission. Whether anyone else says otherwise is irrelevant when you make it clear from the start that your own opinion is invalid. ADM doesn't have to say anything when you are self-refuting.
s/speaking/spreading/
I've never understood why it matters that it was painted with thermite. I don't care what it was painted with, it was the hydrogen that blew it up.
Except it wasn't, since, in fact, it did not blow up. It caught fire and burned, with the flames speaking along the fabric skin in a process that took somewhere from 32-37 seconds. It's unclear, but generally believed, that hydrogen gas may have contributed to the spread of the flames, but at no point did it "blow up".
If helium were the only lifting gas, your post wouldn't be entirely pointless.
Or we could just not do heavy construction in gale force winds. The wonderful thing about weather is, it changes if you give it time. Your "problem" is nonexistent unless you propose building large structures as a response to a "ticking time-bomb" scenario.