While I understand your argument, I feel the need to point out that 'Mother Nature' doesn't 'decide' anything. When Darwin spoke about 'survival of the fittest' he wasn't talking about aerobics.
Those who can survive, do so. Those who can't, don't. That's all there's to it.
The survival of the physically weak is not a matter of 'good' or 'bad' - those are ethical values. (Ethics may be intertwined with human evolution, but that's a different discussion.)
Consider if Stephen Hawking hadn't been allowed to survive because he was physically weak. Where would our understanding of the universe be ? I'm not entirely aware of his condition and the procreational consequences thereof, but now that he is still alive, the combination of genes that provided him with such a brilliant mind are available in the genepool and may someday benefit mankind again. I for one feel quite good about that.
And yes, a lot of fucktards survive as well. Any number of them are soccer jock types, who to all appearances have strong chances of procreation anyways, but whose physical attributes are no more relevant to the species as Dr Hawking's mental attributes in our modern world.
When we send an ambassador to a foreign nation, he speaks with the voice of the nation. Yes, that one has actually been sent by the nation.
When you happen to discover a new land, and you meet the people, even if you're a private person, their perception of you is going to define the way they think of your entire civilization.
An advanced race of space-faring aliens is likely to have built up it's own complex system of etiquette and diplomacy, based on it's own culture, which is probably very different from ours. The first coherent message from a new planet is going to be viewed based partly on how they interact with other species. If he's rude to them (and that may not even mean the same to them as to us), our relations with them are going to be seriously damaged even before they get started.
He may be a private person, but if he's the only member of the human race to speak to the aliens, then he is in effect speaking for the entire race, and the entire race will be judged by his words.
If the number thingie (that's a technical term, don't whine) is in the same space as they are, and this slowing down of time is a physical phenomenon (due to speed or whatever), then wouldn't time for it slow down at the same rate, so they don't see any difference ?
Maybe a better test would be to have independent observation which doesn't move at the same speed - say, a remote high-zoom camera on a pivot, tuned to swivel down at a speed calculated to match the falling object's trajectory.
Either that, or it's a latent time control brainpower thingie that only manifests when we're in *real* danger, not a controlled free-fall environment. Someone get researching how to unlock this, I urgently need the ability to fast-forward through meetings.
FTA: > #9. The World's Oldest Animal > > In October, researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf > off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world's > oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to > kill it to determine the clam's age by studying rings on its shell.
You find what you suspect to be the world's oldest living animal. OF COURSE you kill it to check wether you're right.
> rely on the sensible majority policing a malicious minority on an equal footing by weight of numbers
Yeah. Hitler did have some pretty good ideas for dealing with those pesky jews and homosexuals, didn't he ?
The problem with that aproach is that it intrinsically creates another hierarchy: the self-declared 'moral majority' (now where have we heard that one before) versus the 'socially unadapted'.
At which point does a minority view switch from 'abnormal and wrong' to 'unsual, but valid' ? Ten people ? A hundred ? A thousand ?
> Of the 148 offenders, 6 were homosexual, 106 heterosexual, and the sexual orientation of the remaining 36 is not known from the unclassified record. Homosexuality is not known to have been a significant factor in any of the cases.
No, but heterosexuality clearly is!
I move we put the filthy breeders in a reservation, where they'll of course get 'well cared for' and fed a 'balanced, healthy diet', and find a foolproof way of filtering out their acceptably glbt offspring for reintegration in our new, trustworthy society.
I can't seem to find anything useful through the wonderful search - I just keep getting back to this article plus a whole lot of unrelated onse - but does anyone else remember an article from several years ago where random students wired up a wearable thing that mapped quake levels and enemies onto the real world you were running around in ? What's new in this one ?
If that happens, I wonder how long it's going to be before they design a detonator that activates when hit with x-rays. If you can't blow up the plane, at least blow up the security guys.
Slightly OT, but as your neighbour (.be), this is of some interest to me as well, so are you using English or normal dates (i.e. did you mean 2/2007 or 7/2002) ?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure about SGML, but XML in any case doesn't provide for attributes in closing tags.
> which frees up the other system for what it does best
Bluescreens are used during the production of music ?
I'm not a specialist, but isn't sonic boom more to do with speed and shape than with the actual engine type ?
While I understand your argument, I feel the need to point out that 'Mother Nature' doesn't 'decide' anything. When Darwin spoke about 'survival of the fittest' he wasn't talking about aerobics.
Those who can survive, do so. Those who can't, don't. That's all there's to it.
The survival of the physically weak is not a matter of 'good' or 'bad' - those are ethical values. (Ethics may be intertwined with human evolution, but that's a different discussion.)
Consider if Stephen Hawking hadn't been allowed to survive because he was physically weak. Where would our understanding of the universe be ? I'm not entirely aware of his condition and the procreational consequences thereof, but now that he is still alive, the combination of genes that provided him with such a brilliant mind are available in the genepool and may someday benefit mankind again. I for one feel quite good about that.
And yes, a lot of fucktards survive as well. Any number of them are soccer jock types, who to all appearances have strong chances of procreation anyways, but whose physical attributes are no more relevant to the species as Dr Hawking's mental attributes in our modern world.
Yes... and no.
When we send an ambassador to a foreign nation, he speaks with the voice of the nation. Yes, that one has actually been sent by the nation.
When you happen to discover a new land, and you meet the people, even if you're a private person, their perception of you is going to define the way they think of your entire civilization.
An advanced race of space-faring aliens is likely to have built up it's own complex system of etiquette and diplomacy, based on it's own culture, which is probably very different from ours. The first coherent message from a new planet is going to be viewed based partly on how they interact with other species. If he's rude to them (and that may not even mean the same to them as to us), our relations with them are going to be seriously damaged even before they get started.
He may be a private person, but if he's the only member of the human race to speak to the aliens, then he is in effect speaking for the entire race, and the entire race will be judged by his words.
If the number thingie (that's a technical term, don't whine) is in the same space as they are, and this slowing down of time is a physical phenomenon (due to speed or whatever), then wouldn't time for it slow down at the same rate, so they don't see any difference ?
Maybe a better test would be to have independent observation which doesn't move at the same speed - say, a remote high-zoom camera on a pivot, tuned to swivel down at a speed calculated to match the falling object's trajectory.
Either that, or it's a latent time control brainpower thingie that only manifests when we're in *real* danger, not a controlled free-fall environment. Someone get researching how to unlock this, I urgently need the ability to fast-forward through meetings.
FTA:
> #9. The World's Oldest Animal
>
> In October, researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf
> off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world's
> oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to
> kill it to determine the clam's age by studying rings on its shell.
You find what you suspect to be the world's oldest living animal. OF COURSE you kill it to check wether you're right.
Someone please whack those idiots.
With Stewie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewie_Griffin ), of course.
Umm... I think chess computers have gotten better only because of Moore's law - they still do little more than brute-forcing the issue.
Isn't the human brain basically a chemical processor with a good program for simulating emotions ?
I wonder if the scientist will be able to keep his balance the day the robot pushes back.
Considering the weight a full-size fully functional metal robot would have, you might hurt your foot before toppling the robot
Well... if they were to show as much sex on tv as they're showing violence, maybe we'd get random wild orgies instead of school shootings.
Why does nobody ever bother to ask the virgin's age and sex before blowing themselves up ? Potential for quite a few nasty surprises, there...
Cockroaches will probably be one of the few species to survive a full-scale nuclear war, yes.
> rely on the sensible majority policing a malicious minority on an equal footing by weight of numbers
Yeah. Hitler did have some pretty good ideas for dealing with those pesky jews and homosexuals, didn't he ?
The problem with that aproach is that it intrinsically creates another hierarchy: the self-declared 'moral majority' (now where have we heard that one before) versus the 'socially unadapted'.
At which point does a minority view switch from 'abnormal and wrong' to 'unsual, but valid' ? Ten people ? A hundred ? A thousand ?
You might do better to welcome your new emerald wasp overlords. If you're able to do so, that is.
> Of the 148 offenders, 6 were homosexual, 106 heterosexual, and the sexual orientation of the remaining 36 is not known from the unclassified record. Homosexuality is not known to have been a significant factor in any of the cases.
No, but heterosexuality clearly is!
I move we put the filthy breeders in a reservation, where they'll of course get 'well cared for' and fed a 'balanced, healthy diet', and find a foolproof way of filtering out their acceptably glbt offspring for reintegration in our new, trustworthy society.
> In short one needs lots of police on the ground relying less on military weapons technology
Yeah, just taser the bastards !
I can't seem to find anything useful through the wonderful search - I just keep getting back to this article plus a whole lot of unrelated onse - but does anyone else remember an article from several years ago where random students wired up a wearable thing that mapped quake levels and enemies onto the real world you were running around in ? What's new in this one ?
If that happens, I wonder how long it's going to be before they design a detonator that activates when hit with x-rays. If you can't blow up the plane, at least blow up the security guys.
Unfortunately, the net effect of this behaviour is a lessening of the transferred skills generation after generation.
There is something to be said for the pupil having to beat the master before being allowed to graduate.
My sincere apologies to the entire island. I did indeed mean 'American'.
True. The first two tend to be porn of the more unusual varieties, depending on your search phrase and personal preferences. See rule 34.
> it was decided in 02/07
:-p )
Slightly OT, but as your neighbour (.be), this is of some interest to me as well, so are you using English or normal dates (i.e. did you mean 2/2007 or 7/2002) ?
(One would think y2k taught us nothing