Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Where in the Constitution were we guaranteed a standing army? That argument goes both ways. In fact, unlike healthcare, a standing army was explicitly guarded against. Moreover, healthcare in its present form didn't exist when the Constitution was written, so its absence is irrelevant.
Personally, I believe both the military and national healthcare are beneficial to the well being of our society, and in fact, they both have the same goals -- to keep people safe and secure -- even if one fights people instead of disease. It's absurd that we fully recognize that the benefit of collectively funding a defense against other people, but not against disease, especially when the latter kills far more people than the former.
That's not really a good metaphor because it implies similarity between all colonies. If the ants in your backyard were demonstrating a behavior different than any other ants studied, then a biologist would certainly be interested.
Really, regardless of the starting assumptions, someone would be interested in us, if they exist:
1) If we assume that Homo Sapiens exist on other planets (colonies) that are identical to us, then those people would be interested in us, and the super-intelligent species is irrelevant. If the extra-terrestrial species is not interested in us, then they're not identical, and we are exhibiting unique behavior, which means the super-species would be interested in us.
2) Homo Sapiens do not exist on other planets, so we are unique, and the super-intelligent species would be interested in us, and the non-existant extraterrestrial homo-sapiens are irrelevant.
Any way you slice it, disinterest is very unlikely to be a factor.
I pretty much agree with the first five entries of your list though, and would add the possibility that we are the first intelligent species to arise in the galaxy, and perhaps the universe. Really, we have very little data. We don't have any idea what the odds of life are, let alone the odds of intelligent life, or advanced intelligence including the use of tools and symbols, storing and harnessing energy to perform work (aside from bodily processes), etc.
Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug
on
F-22 Raptor Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure that "fact" is even true.. Zero fatalities from aircraft in Vietnam? Really? I know we lost many aircraft, some from Air-to-Air combat, some from Anti-Air Artillery, but I can't find any figures on fatalities either way. I would find it hard to believe that the number is 0, however.
I think #8 is a bit of a red herring (along with some of the others, but particularly #8). Our complexity or lack thereof does not reduce our value as a data point for determining how life typically evolves in the universe. For that reason alone any one/thing interested in exploration would be interested in us, and other life forms on our planet, the same way we're interested to know if there's simple life on Mars.
Only in that the NASDAQ is new. But it's not at all new for the heads of large corporations, governments, or other organizational entities to take advantage of employees/investors/voters/subjects for personal gain.
It's been forty years since the first moon landing, and we still haven't traveled beyond that distance. While we may have the capability in an abstract sense, we couldn't launch a manned mission to Europa right now even if we wanted to. Hell, we don't even have a craft capable of taking us back to the moon...
If cashing checks was a prerequisite to accepting a contract, then we wouldn't have Guantanamo Bay! If Jupiter is failing to cash its checks, it's clearly an indication that it finds personal satisfaction of a job well done to be sufficient compensation. Just like the satisfaction Cuba gets from knowing it's made a difference in the Global War on Terror.
If the asteroid belt had been closer to the Sun, there's a good chance it wouldn't be around for us to wish it wasn't around. Left to their own devices, these asteroids would have undergone accretion to form a planet. Instead, Jupiter's influence has ensured that the average velocity of collisions was high enough for planetesimal shattering to dominate over accretion, thus we have the asteroid belt. Interestingly, Jupiter and Mars have flung most of the original material out of the belt, leaving only an estimated 0.1% behind, about 4% of our Moon's mass, which is what we see today.
Yeah, well, anyone who's ever watched Cosmos knows that he's said plenty of nonsensical things. It may have made sense to someone baked out of their gourd, but his spiritual commentary was just inane, and his earnest effort to convey his excitement about the universe made the "billions and billions" quote quite plausible. So while it may not have been something he ever said, it certainly captures the essence of (the public image of) Sagan.
Well if nothing else, they've potentially devalued your first edition Kindle, as it has one less book on it. That said, kindles are retarded. And I say that mainly because there are no google search results for "kindles are retarded" as of yet, despite the fact that they are highly retarded. At least the business model is. Digital copies should cost pennies -- certainly no more than $2 ea. -- and they should be included at no cost with the purchase of a physical book, especially in light of the fact that things like this can happen, intentionally or otherwise.
Except it's NOT in the license. Quoted here in case it mysteriously changes:
Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.
3. tending to spread from person to person: contagious laughter.
It's already well established that ideas are contagious, and particularly infectious or virulent ideas are called memes. It's obvious that isolating two individuals will prevent the spread of ideas from one to the other, and it logically follows that increasing their exposure increases the spread of ideas proportionally (or at least not inversely). That is basically the purpose of the internet -- to increase our exposure to other people, and to disseminate and to receive ideas.
It's also well established that people hold the ideas of their peers in higher regard than those of anyone else, except parents for a short time. This has led to the concept of peer pressure.
By placing a group of people together, they will tend to form bonds and groups. In this case, it's irrelevant who comprises which group, because they all have one thing in common: They made poor decisions which led to their incarceration. So you have groups of people with bad ideas and poor decision-making skills, who hold their own opinions in higher regard than those of their custodians, spending most of the day exchanging those ideas, and using their poor decision-making skills to choose which ideas sound good.
In retrospect, it's really hard to argue that anything good could come of this. Yes, some people could realize their mistakes, but it seems unlikely that they would speak up even if they did, or that the majority of people would seriously consider their opinion when it clashes with what everyone else is saying (that they didn't do anything wrong, or that their circumstances excuse their behavior). In effect, to escape from the cycle, they must A) recognize the process which is affecting them, and B) reject the ideas of their peers, which could possibly mean rejecting the only people they share any bonds with.
Or more likely it was garbage and you only realized your mistake after spending the last 20 minutes thinking about it.
Hey, I just cured cancer, but I can't be arsed to explain it so I just left this post instead!
If you actually read TFA beyond the title, you'd see that they don't claim that a recession caused a decline in video game sales, or vice versa. They said a recession has reached the video game industry, which is a demonstrable fact. They then go on to speculate as to the reasons, but never imply a causal relationship between lost sales and recession, and rightly so since that would be nonsense.
So now you're an amoeba? If every single cell in your body has been irradiated, then you're screwed anyway. But if not, and if you keep the cells that are salvageable, instead of writing off every damaged cell as a total loss, then you increase the odds of survival. At least, that's what they seem to be claiming, and that's the point you seem to be deliberately avoiding.
Yes, but cars are never self-repairing no matter what you give them (for cars manufactured within the domain of t = Now). Fortunately, unless you are Vehicle Force Voltron, your body is not made up of cars.
The phrase is a reminder that two events may not be linked, not proof positive that they're not. You don't measure below-average rainfall during a drought, and then say "Let's keep in mind, other factors could be at play than a drought!" A drought IS an extended period of reduced rainfall, by definition. Similarly, there is no question that low sales are linked to a recession, because they define a recession.
Slashdot Mirror
Where in the Constitution were we guaranteed a standing army? That argument goes both ways. In fact, unlike healthcare, a standing army was explicitly guarded against. Moreover, healthcare in its present form didn't exist when the Constitution was written, so its absence is irrelevant.
Personally, I believe both the military and national healthcare are beneficial to the well being of our society, and in fact, they both have the same goals -- to keep people safe and secure -- even if one fights people instead of disease. It's absurd that we fully recognize that the benefit of collectively funding a defense against other people, but not against disease, especially when the latter kills far more people than the former.
That's not really a good metaphor because it implies similarity between all colonies. If the ants in your backyard were demonstrating a behavior different than any other ants studied, then a biologist would certainly be interested.
Really, regardless of the starting assumptions, someone would be interested in us, if they exist:
1) If we assume that Homo Sapiens exist on other planets (colonies) that are identical to us, then those people would be interested in us, and the super-intelligent species is irrelevant. If the extra-terrestrial species is not interested in us, then they're not identical, and we are exhibiting unique behavior, which means the super-species would be interested in us.
2) Homo Sapiens do not exist on other planets, so we are unique, and the super-intelligent species would be interested in us, and the non-existant extraterrestrial homo-sapiens are irrelevant.
Any way you slice it, disinterest is very unlikely to be a factor.
I pretty much agree with the first five entries of your list though, and would add the possibility that we are the first intelligent species to arise in the galaxy, and perhaps the universe. Really, we have very little data. We don't have any idea what the odds of life are, let alone the odds of intelligent life, or advanced intelligence including the use of tools and symbols, storing and harnessing energy to perform work (aside from bodily processes), etc.
I'm not sure that "fact" is even true.. Zero fatalities from aircraft in Vietnam? Really? I know we lost many aircraft, some from Air-to-Air combat, some from Anti-Air Artillery, but I can't find any figures on fatalities either way. I would find it hard to believe that the number is 0, however.
I think #8 is a bit of a red herring (along with some of the others, but particularly #8). Our complexity or lack thereof does not reduce our value as a data point for determining how life typically evolves in the universe. For that reason alone any one/thing interested in exploration would be interested in us, and other life forms on our planet, the same way we're interested to know if there's simple life on Mars.
Awesome.
AND CAPSLOCK FOR WINNING
Only in that the NASDAQ is new. But it's not at all new for the heads of large corporations, governments, or other organizational entities to take advantage of employees/investors/voters/subjects for personal gain.
In the real 2010, it's more like:
It's been forty years since the first moon landing, and we still haven't traveled beyond that distance. While we may have the capability in an abstract sense, we couldn't launch a manned mission to Europa right now even if we wanted to. Hell, we don't even have a craft capable of taking us back to the moon...
If cashing checks was a prerequisite to accepting a contract, then we wouldn't have Guantanamo Bay! If Jupiter is failing to cash its checks, it's clearly an indication that it finds personal satisfaction of a job well done to be sufficient compensation. Just like the satisfaction Cuba gets from knowing it's made a difference in the Global War on Terror.
If the asteroid belt had been closer to the Sun, there's a good chance it wouldn't be around for us to wish it wasn't around. Left to their own devices, these asteroids would have undergone accretion to form a planet. Instead, Jupiter's influence has ensured that the average velocity of collisions was high enough for planetesimal shattering to dominate over accretion, thus we have the asteroid belt. Interestingly, Jupiter and Mars have flung most of the original material out of the belt, leaving only an estimated 0.1% behind, about 4% of our Moon's mass, which is what we see today.
Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt#Formation
Yeah, well, anyone who's ever watched Cosmos knows that he's said plenty of nonsensical things. It may have made sense to someone baked out of their gourd, but his spiritual commentary was just inane, and his earnest effort to convey his excitement about the universe made the "billions and billions" quote quite plausible. So while it may not have been something he ever said, it certainly captures the essence of (the public image of) Sagan.
Well if nothing else, they've potentially devalued your first edition Kindle, as it has one less book on it. That said, kindles are retarded. And I say that mainly because there are no google search results for "kindles are retarded" as of yet, despite the fact that they are highly retarded. At least the business model is. Digital copies should cost pennies -- certainly no more than $2 ea. -- and they should be included at no cost with the purchase of a physical book, especially in light of the fact that things like this can happen, intentionally or otherwise.
I think the last sentence means that all content falls under that license unless a specific title expressly says otherwise.
Except it's NOT in the license. Quoted here in case it mysteriously changes:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530&#content
What's the insurance on a router?
Salesman: About a buck fifty.
Duck: Put it on my bill!
Why do people buy pay-as-they-go cellphones? Who knows, but clearly some people use them.
I guess it's true what they say: The shortest router isn't always the fastest router.
I don't drive very often, but when I do drive, I always have a case of Dos Equis with me.
3. tending to spread from person to person: contagious laughter.
It's already well established that ideas are contagious, and particularly infectious or virulent ideas are called memes. It's obvious that isolating two individuals will prevent the spread of ideas from one to the other, and it logically follows that increasing their exposure increases the spread of ideas proportionally (or at least not inversely). That is basically the purpose of the internet -- to increase our exposure to other people, and to disseminate and to receive ideas.
It's also well established that people hold the ideas of their peers in higher regard than those of anyone else, except parents for a short time. This has led to the concept of peer pressure.
By placing a group of people together, they will tend to form bonds and groups. In this case, it's irrelevant who comprises which group, because they all have one thing in common: They made poor decisions which led to their incarceration. So you have groups of people with bad ideas and poor decision-making skills, who hold their own opinions in higher regard than those of their custodians, spending most of the day exchanging those ideas, and using their poor decision-making skills to choose which ideas sound good.
In retrospect, it's really hard to argue that anything good could come of this. Yes, some people could realize their mistakes, but it seems unlikely that they would speak up even if they did, or that the majority of people would seriously consider their opinion when it clashes with what everyone else is saying (that they didn't do anything wrong, or that their circumstances excuse their behavior). In effect, to escape from the cycle, they must A) recognize the process which is affecting them, and B) reject the ideas of their peers, which could possibly mean rejecting the only people they share any bonds with.
Or more likely it was garbage and you only realized your mistake after spending the last 20 minutes thinking about it.
Hey, I just cured cancer, but I can't be arsed to explain it so I just left this post instead!
If you actually read TFA beyond the title, you'd see that they don't claim that a recession caused a decline in video game sales, or vice versa. They said a recession has reached the video game industry, which is a demonstrable fact. They then go on to speculate as to the reasons, but never imply a causal relationship between lost sales and recession, and rightly so since that would be nonsense.
So now you're an amoeba? If every single cell in your body has been irradiated, then you're screwed anyway. But if not, and if you keep the cells that are salvageable, instead of writing off every damaged cell as a total loss, then you increase the odds of survival. At least, that's what they seem to be claiming, and that's the point you seem to be deliberately avoiding.
Yes, but cars are never self-repairing no matter what you give them (for cars manufactured within the domain of t = Now). Fortunately, unless you are Vehicle Force Voltron, your body is not made up of cars.
The phrase is a reminder that two events may not be linked, not proof positive that they're not. You don't measure below-average rainfall during a drought, and then say "Let's keep in mind, other factors could be at play than a drought!" A drought IS an extended period of reduced rainfall, by definition. Similarly, there is no question that low sales are linked to a recession, because they define a recession.
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!
And finally, a Tip of the Hat to the OP and ADN, for giving me something to complain about.