BTW, I did read your response, FWIW... Where do we come by this "moral conscience"?
I suspect that it's a behavior that first spontaneously appears when you have brain structures that are capable of self-awareness. In other words, "I see that this creature is suffering. I also see that this creature is like me. Therefore, I could be the one suffering." Of course, once that person has a child, they will try to teach them the same behavior, so the meme becomes self-propogating. Once society arises, there's added cultural pressure to act within certain non-destructive boundaries.
Have you ever noticed that it's almost physically painful to see someone tortured? I think that's because we've evolved with "the golden rule" built right in to our brains. In order to short-circuit that response, the victim has to be dehumanized first. It's hard for us to do bad things to someone we identify with. It's a lot easier when someone looks different, or doesn't speak our language.
Of course, in some people, these parts of the brain aren't properly working. Sociopaths, I think is the clinical term. I doubt they tend to breed well, reinforcing the selective pressure to evolve better-socialized humans.
Why should I? Based on your thinking why should I be nice to anyone unless it serves my own self-interest. Why should I follow the rule of law, etc? Why shouldn't I just become a totally self-centered anarchist--kill or be killed? Survival of the fittest and all that, right? Where in evolutionary theory does it tell me that I have to or even necessarily should be 'nice' to anyone? Just because you want me to and it might make your life better?
So... your viewpoint is that people are incapable of behaving in a moral fashion if they don't think that an invisible man in the sky is watching their every move, preparing to bless them into eternal paradise, or smite them into eternal damnation? Is every kind act you perform, in expectation of some reward, or in avoidance of some punishment? Most people grow out of that when they are toddlers. The rest are sociopaths.
From an evolutionary standpoint, I would say that people who have a moral conscience and a well-developed sense of right and wrong are more likely to mate and have children. Thus, brain structures that support empathy and sympathy are an inheritable survival trait. We are very social creatures, so it's not surprising that we've evolved to live and breed as part of a functioning society.
I suspect that one of the reasons for this is simple... most of their tools and cultural artifacts were made of organic substances: wood, leather, bone and horn. Thus they simply didn't leave a lot for us to find that survived the millennia.
Therefore, people have this image of naked, tool-less man-apes drooling on themselves. Silly. Ancient peoples were (at most) only marginally less clever than ourselves... and I'm willing to bet that living without technology in an environment that's constantly trying to kill you would be conducive to some pretty amazing problem solving.
Besides, for something like sailing, you don't need everyone to succeed. They may have failed ten thousand times before a breeding population finally survived. The arch of time is vast.
Faster processing, you maroon. 64-bit computing's advantages reach far beyond the additional memory space.
Really? That's odd. I was under the impression that it was only in very specific circumstances that you saw any real performance gain from 64-bit. Like scientific computing etc.
To blockquote the Wiki:
While 64-bit architectures indisputably make working with huge data sets in applications such as digital video, scientific computing, and large databases easier, there has been considerable debate as to whether they or their 32-bit compatibility modes will be faster than comparably-priced 32-bit systems for other tasks. Theoretically, some programs could well be faster in 32-bit mode. Under some architectures, instructions for 64-bit computing take up more storage space than the earlier 32-bit ones, so it is possible that some 32-bit programs will fit into the CPU's high-speed cache while equivalent 64-bit programs will not. In basic terms moving 64 bits at a time to perform otherwise 32 bit work simply requires more processing effort to/from memory.link
So, unless our definition of the average user has expanded to include "digital video, scientific computing, and large databases"... it seems like the equivalent of buying a 9-seat SUV to make grocery store runs. Inefficient. Overkill.
All art is subjective. Of course I'm biased. Everyone that I've ever met is. I'm ok with that. For the record, I didn't say that SF is any better on average than any other genre, I just don't think it deserves the crappy reputation that it has. I completely agree that most SF is lousy, like most of anything is lousy.
Ah... but when it's good... really really good? There's nothing better, in my book. It deals with big ideas. It can ask (and answer) big questions. It makes me think. Postulate. Wonder.
This thing is, I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to poor writing. I'll finish a book that doesn't seem that good, just because it might get better near the end. (rarely, but it happens) I read a lot, and I read reasonably quickly, so it's not a huge waste of my time to finish something that isn't any good. Here's my criteria for deciding if someones writing sucks.
1. Is the plot obvious, and full of cliches? 2. How's the dialog? Natural, stilted, inane? 3. Is the science/history/physics etc. appropriately believeable? (If it's a magic box, fine. I can accept that. But at least have some passing familiarity with a field like cryptography before writing that your super-duper quantum computer can break any code, including one-time pads. That crap just makes me angry.) 4. Do the politics of the person writing the book drive the entire plot, till it's nothing but a soapbox. 5. Do I feel like the book is written for an audience who is mildly retarded?
Of course, these are just _my_ hot buttons, but I don't think they're totally unique to myself. A lot of this stuff is at least somewhat objective. Bad physics don't have an excuse.
I think it's fair to say that 90% of what people read is crap.
I enjoy a lot of SF, but once you start looking around at other genres (especially mainstream fiction), you start realizing that most authors suck, and almost all of the popular ones do--no matter what the setting. (i.e. Cussler, Grisham, Crichton, Clancy... and my own personal antichrist, Dan Brown)
The sad truth is that people seem to like bad writing. A notable exception: Salman Rushdie. He's very popular, and (imo) perhaps the English language's best living wordsmith. Not sure how that happened.
At least SF has people like Robert Charles Wilson, Connie Willis and Charlie Stross. Gives you hope for the future.
The name for Acrobat made a lot of sense in the early days. PDF was the first widely-spread completely cross-platform format-rich document format. Design once, distribute ad infinitum. It didn't matter what fonts someone had, or what platform they were on. As long as they had Acrobat Reader, you were golden.
See, making a document into a PDF added flexibility, and you could jump from platform to platform easily. Kind of like an Acrobat.
Correction, it's ONE race-specific drug. And the science behind it is a bit suspect, to say the least.
From the link you so kindly provided: Most geneticists agree that ethnicity has little biological significance and that racial differences are only skin deep. There is far more genetic variation within an ethic group - say people whose ancestors are Swedish - than there is between Swedes and Africans. Several commentators have slated BiDil for challenging this view.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions? Some peer-reviewed studies, perhaps?
IIRC, it's pretty well-documented that genetic variation *within* any one (racial, cultural) group is far greater than the statistical variation from one group to another. With a few isolated exceptions (sickle-cell anemia/malaria connection among some ethnic Africans, lack of adult lactase production in some Asian populations), we're all pretty much the same on the inside.
You're right that people differ in their drug reactions, but by and large, these are differences in individuals, not ethnic groups. If I'm wrong, please link some peer-reviewed studies.
Just because someone believes that doens't mean they feel the need to require you to believe the same thing.
Exactly correct. However, this debate is not framed by those who keep their beliefs to themselves, but by those who try to force their beliefs upon others. They may be a minority, but they certainly are a vocal one.
I think people forget sometimes that "freedom of religion" also implies "freedom from religion."
Personally, I don't want my tax dollars spent teaching mythology as fact. Call me crazy.
To get a person who isn't into games to play Halo 2 you'd first have to give a lecture on how the controller works, after that you'd have to spend a year teaching them about how to strafe kill an opponent (and what not) just so that they wouldn't die all the time.
Er... right. Alternatively, you could just not date idiots. I know it was a steep learning curve for you, but Halo is hardly brain surgery.
(finished halo 1 and 2 with my wife in co-op, so i know whereof i speak)
One measure of success (not the definitive measure, but a perfectly valid one) is when one earns enough money that one can buy what one wants, when one wants, without sweating it. Sure, there are people who spend more than they have. There are also people to whom $500 is a drop in the bucket. Who are YOU to judge what is excessive? I'm sorry if you have a lousy job, or have a mountain of debt, or have to support a wicked coke habit, but not everyone has your problems.
I haven't bought a 360 yet, but I will sometime... and I'll be damned if I'll feel guilty about it because some twit on Slashdot doesn't think it's a valid expenditure.
m-
Re:I thought there were a bunch
on
Warm-blooded Fish?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You're right, as far as tuna-family fish go at least.
It's been well-studied that some of the larger species of tuna direct blood that's been heated by the action of their largest swimming muscles to their brain... which helps keep their super-fast twitch-reactions humming. Swordfish use the warm blood to improve their eyesight.
Personally, I would be unsurprised if insects developed flight several different times over the millennia. Look at the flight structures of moths/butterflies, beetles, flies and mantids. Many similarities, some interesting differences. I'm not an entomologist, though. Aren't insects the only arthropods with powered flight?
"Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles." --DinoBuzz, hosted by University of California Museum of Paleontology
It didn't fly in the 1300s, it doesn't fly now. Thanks for demonstrating the mindset we're fighting against.
m-
Re:Environmental Impact? Please...
on
Sonic Torpedo Defense
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The thing is, you need to do a cost/benefit analysis.
Answer these questions:
When was the last time a US ship was hit with a torpedo? Vietnam maybe? Korea?
How often would this system be tested on various vessels, during war games and such? (Answer, a lot. The navy doesn't usually have a lot of work to do, so they practice. A lot.)
What's the impact on marine mammals, and over what range? (they have a long history of being injured by loud noises, sensitive auditory systems and all)
Ok, so if you make half or 2/3 of an already endangered whale population so deaf that they can't find a mate or beach themselves on rocks they can't "see", pushing them over the edge to total extinction, is that worth protecting a few of our ships from a weapon type that hasn't even been deployed in 30-40 years?
I don't know the answer, but caution is never a bad idea.
No, actually the words that comes to mind are "ignorant", "short-sighted" and "stupid". The truth is that as a species, we are completely dependant on the world around us. It behooves us not to ruin that world, so we have something to live in.
A world without natural life wouldn't just "suck," you ignorant twat, it would be impossible. Sure, you personally may not give a shit about anything (or anyone) outside your own front door, but thank god your type is vasty outnumbered by people who do, or your life (and everyone elses) would end very, very quickly.
It's called "enlightened self-interest," you shmuck. The key problem is that we are just starting to understand how the myriad species on this planet interact and inter-rely on each other. Sure, there are lots of species that could go extinct without having a major impact on us, but we don't know which ones. In fact, we will probably never know.
So what do you do in such a situation? The answer is, you're very, very careful. We all live here, chum. We have NO WHERE ELSE TO GO. We've got to make it LAST.
In the specific case of this system, you probably wouldn't injure any fish outside of the immediate area. Their auditory systems (afaik) aren't complex enough for lasting damage. Marine mammals, OTOH would probably be severely impacted. Some of them have evolved auditory organs so sensitive that they can hear sound hundreds of miles away and respond to them. There's evidence that experimental naval long-range sonar has resulted in brain damage and mass strandings, and these are of already stressed populations.
Now, would I sacrifice my life to save a whale? Probably not. To save all the whales? Yeah, I sure would. Honorable people have sacrificed a lot more, for a lot less. Your life, however, I would sacrifice to save a guppy, you ignorant troll.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't HAVE to be bad, especially once you aren't trying to attract advertisers.
Try Science Friday on NPR. It'll open your eyes.
m-
BTW, I did read your response, FWIW... Where do we come by this "moral conscience"?
I suspect that it's a behavior that first spontaneously appears when you have brain structures that are capable of self-awareness. In other words, "I see that this creature is suffering. I also see that this creature is like me. Therefore, I could be the one suffering." Of course, once that person has a child, they will try to teach them the same behavior, so the meme becomes self-propogating. Once society arises, there's added cultural pressure to act within certain non-destructive boundaries.
Have you ever noticed that it's almost physically painful to see someone tortured? I think that's because we've evolved with "the golden rule" built right in to our brains. In order to short-circuit that response, the victim has to be dehumanized first. It's hard for us to do bad things to someone we identify with. It's a lot easier when someone looks different, or doesn't speak our language.
Of course, in some people, these parts of the brain aren't properly working. Sociopaths, I think is the clinical term. I doubt they tend to breed well, reinforcing the selective pressure to evolve better-socialized humans.
m-
Why should I? Based on your thinking why should I be nice to anyone unless it serves my own self-interest. Why should I follow the rule of law, etc? Why shouldn't I just become a totally self-centered anarchist--kill or be killed? Survival of the fittest and all that, right? Where in evolutionary theory does it tell me that I have to or even necessarily should be 'nice' to anyone? Just because you want me to and it might make your life better?
So... your viewpoint is that people are incapable of behaving in a moral fashion if they don't think that an invisible man in the sky is watching their every move, preparing to bless them into eternal paradise, or smite them into eternal damnation? Is every kind act you perform, in expectation of some reward, or in avoidance of some punishment? Most people grow out of that when they are toddlers. The rest are sociopaths.
From an evolutionary standpoint, I would say that people who have a moral conscience and a well-developed sense of right and wrong are more likely to mate and have children. Thus, brain structures that support empathy and sympathy are an inheritable survival trait. We are very social creatures, so it's not surprising that we've evolved to live and breed as part of a functioning society.
morality != religion
m-
Dogs don't act like that.
You've never seen a bunch of starving dingos around a dead horse, I'm guessing.
m-
I suspect that one of the reasons for this is simple... most of their tools and cultural artifacts were made of organic substances: wood, leather, bone and horn. Thus they simply didn't leave a lot for us to find that survived the millennia.
Therefore, people have this image of naked, tool-less man-apes drooling on themselves. Silly. Ancient peoples were (at most) only marginally less clever than ourselves... and I'm willing to bet that living without technology in an environment that's constantly trying to kill you would be conducive to some pretty amazing problem solving.
Besides, for something like sailing, you don't need everyone to succeed. They may have failed ten thousand times before a breeding population finally survived. The arch of time is vast.
m-
Faster processing, you maroon. 64-bit computing's advantages reach far beyond the additional memory space.
Really? That's odd. I was under the impression that it was only in very specific circumstances that you saw any real performance gain from 64-bit. Like scientific computing etc.
To blockquote the Wiki:
While 64-bit architectures indisputably make working with huge data sets in applications such as digital video, scientific computing, and large databases easier, there has been considerable debate as to whether they or their 32-bit compatibility modes will be faster than comparably-priced 32-bit systems for other tasks.
Theoretically, some programs could well be faster in 32-bit mode. Under some architectures, instructions for 64-bit computing take up more storage space than the earlier 32-bit ones, so it is possible that some 32-bit programs will fit into the CPU's high-speed cache while equivalent 64-bit programs will not. In basic terms moving 64 bits at a time to perform otherwise 32 bit work simply requires more processing effort to/from memory. link
So, unless our definition of the average user has expanded to include "digital video, scientific computing, and large databases"... it seems like the equivalent of buying a 9-seat SUV to make grocery store runs. Inefficient. Overkill.
Imo, naturally.
m-
Does your friend regularly use software that consumes more than 4gb of memory? I'm guessing not.
So... tell me again what the 64-bit advantage is for your average joe schmoe?
(I have 6gb in my G5, but I'm hardly an average user.)
m-
All art is subjective. Of course I'm biased. Everyone that I've ever met is. I'm ok with that. For the record, I didn't say that SF is any better on average than any other genre, I just don't think it deserves the crappy reputation that it has. I completely agree that most SF is lousy, like most of anything is lousy.
Ah... but when it's good... really really good? There's nothing better, in my book. It deals with big ideas. It can ask (and answer) big questions. It makes me think. Postulate. Wonder.
This thing is, I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to poor writing. I'll finish a book that doesn't seem that good, just because it might get better near the end. (rarely, but it happens) I read a lot, and I read reasonably quickly, so it's not a huge waste of my time to finish something that isn't any good. Here's my criteria for deciding if someones writing sucks.
1. Is the plot obvious, and full of cliches?
2. How's the dialog? Natural, stilted, inane?
3. Is the science/history/physics etc. appropriately believeable? (If it's a magic box, fine. I can accept that. But at least have some passing familiarity with a field like cryptography before writing that your super-duper quantum computer can break any code, including one-time pads. That crap just makes me angry.)
4. Do the politics of the person writing the book drive the entire plot, till it's nothing but a soapbox.
5. Do I feel like the book is written for an audience who is mildly retarded?
Of course, these are just _my_ hot buttons, but I don't think they're totally unique to myself. A lot of this stuff is at least somewhat objective. Bad physics don't have an excuse.
m-
I think it's fair to say that 90% of what people read is crap.
I enjoy a lot of SF, but once you start looking around at other genres (especially mainstream fiction), you start realizing that most authors suck, and almost all of the popular ones do--no matter what the setting. (i.e. Cussler, Grisham, Crichton, Clancy... and my own personal antichrist, Dan Brown)
The sad truth is that people seem to like bad writing. A notable exception: Salman Rushdie. He's very popular, and (imo) perhaps the English language's best living wordsmith. Not sure how that happened.
At least SF has people like Robert Charles Wilson, Connie Willis and Charlie Stross. Gives you hope for the future.
m-
The name for Acrobat made a lot of sense in the early days. PDF was the first widely-spread completely cross-platform format-rich document format. Design once, distribute ad infinitum. It didn't matter what fonts someone had, or what platform they were on. As long as they had Acrobat Reader, you were golden.
See, making a document into a PDF added flexibility, and you could jump from platform to platform easily. Kind of like an Acrobat.
m-
...right after you update the OED entry for "tangible."
m-
Correction, it's ONE race-specific drug. And the science behind it is a bit suspect, to say the least.
From the link you so kindly provided:
Most geneticists agree that ethnicity has little biological significance and that racial differences are only skin deep. There is far more genetic variation within an ethic group - say people whose ancestors are Swedish - than there is between Swedes and Africans. Several commentators have slated BiDil for challenging this view.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions? Some peer-reviewed studies, perhaps?
IIRC, it's pretty well-documented that genetic variation *within* any one (racial, cultural) group is far greater than the statistical variation from one group to another. With a few isolated exceptions (sickle-cell anemia/malaria connection among some ethnic Africans, lack of adult lactase production in some Asian populations), we're all pretty much the same on the inside.
You're right that people differ in their drug reactions, but by and large, these are differences in individuals, not ethnic groups. If I'm wrong, please link some peer-reviewed studies.
M-
Just because someone believes that doens't mean they feel the need to require you to believe the same thing.
Exactly correct. However, this debate is not framed by those who keep their beliefs to themselves, but by those who try to force their beliefs upon others. They may be a minority, but they certainly are a vocal one.
I think people forget sometimes that "freedom of religion" also implies "freedom from religion."
Personally, I don't want my tax dollars spent teaching mythology as fact. Call me crazy.
m-
Sorry, but if you're the one saying there's an invisible man in the sky judging everyone, the burden of proof is on you.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", to quote Sagan.
M-
Something like "People who have enjoyed the page you're currently on have also enjoyed the following: www.xxx.com, www.yyy.com, etc.
You know, it wouldn't have killed you to put NSFW on that first link, and the second one isn't even working... jeesh.
m-
(yes, it's a joke.)
Would this be a good time to remind people of the THE HASSELHOFFIAN RECURSION?.
Go ahead, try to get that image out of your mind.
Good luck.
M-
To get a person who isn't into games to play Halo 2 you'd first have to give a lecture on how the controller works, after that you'd have to spend a year teaching them about how to strafe kill an opponent (and what not) just so that they wouldn't die all the time.
Er... right. Alternatively, you could just not date idiots. I know it was a steep learning curve for you, but Halo is hardly brain surgery.
(finished halo 1 and 2 with my wife in co-op, so i know whereof i speak)
One measure of success (not the definitive measure, but a perfectly valid one) is when one earns enough money that one can buy what one wants, when one wants, without sweating it. Sure, there are people who spend more than they have. There are also people to whom $500 is a drop in the bucket. Who are YOU to judge what is excessive? I'm sorry if you have a lousy job, or have a mountain of debt, or have to support a wicked coke habit, but not everyone has your problems.
I haven't bought a 360 yet, but I will sometime... and I'll be damned if I'll feel guilty about it because some twit on Slashdot doesn't think it's a valid expenditure.
m-
You're right, as far as tuna-family fish go at least.
It's been well-studied that some of the larger species of tuna direct blood that's been heated by the action of their largest swimming muscles to their brain... which helps keep their super-fast twitch-reactions humming. Swordfish use the warm blood to improve their eyesight.
Mind you, these are some enormous fish.
m-
Don't forget the Pterosaurs, which (as far as we know) are unrelated to any modern species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur
Personally, I would be unsurprised if insects developed flight several different times over the millennia. Look at the flight structures of moths/butterflies, beetles, flies and mantids. Many similarities, some interesting differences. I'm not an entomologist, though. Aren't insects the only arthropods with powered flight?
m-
"Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles."
--DinoBuzz, hosted by University of California Museum of Paleontology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur
Knowing is half the battle.
m-
I.E. "I dunno... God did it!"
It didn't fly in the 1300s, it doesn't fly now. Thanks for demonstrating the mindset we're fighting against.
m-
The thing is, you need to do a cost/benefit analysis.
Answer these questions:
When was the last time a US ship was hit with a torpedo? Vietnam maybe? Korea?
How often would this system be tested on various vessels, during war games and such? (Answer, a lot. The navy doesn't usually have a lot of work to do, so they practice. A lot.)
What's the impact on marine mammals, and over what range? (they have a long history of being injured by loud noises, sensitive auditory systems and all)
Ok, so if you make half or 2/3 of an already endangered whale population so deaf that they can't find a mate or beach themselves on rocks they can't "see", pushing them over the edge to total extinction, is that worth protecting a few of our ships from a weapon type that hasn't even been deployed in 30-40 years?
I don't know the answer, but caution is never a bad idea.
m-
"Animal hater?"
No, actually the words that comes to mind are "ignorant", "short-sighted" and "stupid". The truth is that as a species, we are completely dependant on the world around us. It behooves us not to ruin that world, so we have something to live in.
A world without natural life wouldn't just "suck," you ignorant twat, it would be impossible. Sure, you personally may not give a shit about anything (or anyone) outside your own front door, but thank god your type is vasty outnumbered by people who do, or your life (and everyone elses) would end very, very quickly.
It's called "enlightened self-interest," you shmuck. The key problem is that we are just starting to understand how the myriad species on this planet interact and inter-rely on each other. Sure, there are lots of species that could go extinct without having a major impact on us, but we don't know which ones. In fact, we will probably never know.
So what do you do in such a situation? The answer is, you're very, very careful. We all live here, chum. We have NO WHERE ELSE TO GO. We've got to make it LAST.
In the specific case of this system, you probably wouldn't injure any fish outside of the immediate area. Their auditory systems (afaik) aren't complex enough for lasting damage. Marine mammals, OTOH would probably be severely impacted. Some of them have evolved auditory organs so sensitive that they can hear sound hundreds of miles away and respond to them. There's evidence that experimental naval long-range sonar has resulted in brain damage and mass strandings, and these are of already stressed populations.
Now, would I sacrifice my life to save a whale? Probably not. To save all the whales? Yeah, I sure would. Honorable people have sacrificed a lot more, for a lot less. Your life, however, I would sacrifice to save a guppy, you ignorant troll.
m-