Hey how do I put in a link with with just "Westermarck Effect" highlighted as the link?
Write full HTML for the link, e.g. The Westermarck effect is done by typing "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_effect">The Westermarck effect</a>. You can do quite a lot in this way, e.g. bullet points, italics. If shashcode doesn't like what you've done' it'll strip it. Try hitting the "Quote Parent" button to get a lump of HTML to play with;-)
I think he is making a valid - if not brave - point. And probably hoping for some support from his readership. Multiverse Theory opens the possibility of "happy endings" in the style of Sliding Doors or the afterlife: although this existence is not perfect there is another world where it is/will be. We can't do much about this one, sorry for the inconvenience.
You described an opinion, I described a physiological feedback mechanism that gives rise to that kind of opinion (supremacy).
I can kill something without such false delusions.
Who said any kind of thinking, even delusional, is involved, apart from post-rationalisation or just plain lying? I'm not convinced that you are not trolling.
When an animal kills another for food (even more so if it is for living space), implicit in this action is an assessment (correct or not) that the killer is more important than the prey (because the killer should live and the prey should not). Animals understand this (in my opinion) and nature has given us (all animals) a capacity to derive pleasure from the misfortune of others (see my Schadenfreude link elsewhere on this topic - satisfaction is comparable to a good meal. This strikes me as a useful trait for ensuring that prey is brought back to the entire pack and not consumed on the spot by hunters). The idea that we achieved our current position (top) in the food chain due to our intelligence alone deliberately obscures the fact that it was our brutality that achieved it. Our earnest attempts to train ourselves to curb such brutality unfortunately leave us open to exploitation by entities who choose not to accept such constraints.
Thank you for taking the time to illustrate how far from "news" that was. I eventually played the video and towards the end of it I began to get an idea what Dropbox is: a cross-platform shared drive (like X-drive was for Windows?) hosted by a 3rd party. Useful if you don't have Samba or NFS and VPN. They're not getting my music collection!
Interestingly, it's not a "gold" debt, AFAIK. And none of it has been paid yet. It hasn't been borrowed by the EU yet. It (cash) hasn't been asked for yet. Anyway, as I was saying: it's a Euro debt, not a gold debt. Ireland should take it all now, convert it all to dollars then cash it back when pressure on some other Euro state pushes the Euro down again;-)
What's destabilizing Africa at this point is corrupt politicians and other government officials. Providing a huge pot of cash isn't going to help that.
I have a theory that if you supply enough cash, then everyone - corrupt or not - is happy and can get on with things. Take Ireland, for example...
The important word is "measure" not "observer". Your sample sentence could be:
"Stranger still, the electron doesn't even have properties like position and momentum until an armadillo measures them. "
Furthermore, we define the things we measure, not nature. We might not be measuring the most useful things yet. We know that matter isn't made up of particles but we measure it that way because we know how to do that...
I believe this to be true and am sure someone somewhere has measured it (changing it in the process;-) What I mean is that I suspect that if we know that someone understands a subject, our default behaviour is to believe without really trying to understand. This is a useful trait (otherwise we'd all be wasting our time trying to understand the same things) - provided that the source is trustworthy. An untrustworthy source of information is often known as a "confidence trickster". Etc.
I think the question (which I didn't raise, by the way) maybe should be which rights, rather than whose.
Everyone has rights - this is why we have lawyers;-)
In fact, I left my comment open to several interpretations; you selected one interpretation but grandparent also contains all counter-arguments [smiles smugly].
“Streptomyces produce a golden colony of bacteria, and if it was floating on a batch of beer, it must have look pretty impressive to ancient people who revered gold,” Nelson theorizes.
Slashdot Mirror
...for stating so accurately the opinions I had been forming :-)
We might end up with PC's with a sticker saying "Dell inside; too much.
Hey how do I put in a link with with just "Westermarck Effect" highlighted as the link?
Write full HTML for the link, e.g. The Westermarck effect is done by typing "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_effect">The Westermarck effect</a>. ;-)
You can do quite a lot in this way, e.g. bullet points, italics. If shashcode doesn't like what you've done' it'll strip it.
Try hitting the "Quote Parent" button to get a lump of HTML to play with
You son of a sow ;-)
Egypt's military are already busy protecting their customer base. :-)
Thanks for a really interesting link, BTW
I think he is making a valid - if not brave - point. And probably hoping for some support from his readership.
Multiverse Theory opens the possibility of "happy endings" in the style of Sliding Doors or the afterlife: although this existence is not perfect there is another world where it is/will be. We can't do much about this one, sorry for the inconvenience.
If 9/11 was my generation's Pearl Harbor, and Afghanistan/Iraq are our Vietnam, then what is this equatable to?
Avatar?
I just said it was an opinion.
You described an opinion, I described a physiological feedback mechanism that gives rise to that kind of opinion (supremacy).
I can kill something without such false delusions.
Who said any kind of thinking, even delusional, is involved, apart from post-rationalisation or just plain lying?
I'm not convinced that you are not trolling.
Here's a really interesting article from Cracked, of all places. It sometimes covers the same areas as the Schadenfreude link. The point I gleaned from this article is that nature makes it easier for us to be "evil" than to be "good". If there is a positive to be gleaned from this, it is that if a "good" entity defeats an "evil" one, then that "good" entity has "evil" in reserve for emergencies.
Our justifications (e.g. "intelligence") are not always needed. Here's another good example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan's_Column and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEmIAHNkDOo
Intelligence does not always provide protection from brutality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
When an animal kills another for food (even more so if it is for living space), implicit in this action is an assessment (correct or not) that the killer is more important than the prey (because the killer should live and the prey should not).
Animals understand this (in my opinion) and nature has given us (all animals) a capacity to derive pleasure from the misfortune of others (see my Schadenfreude link elsewhere on this topic - satisfaction is comparable to a good meal. This strikes me as a useful trait for ensuring that prey is brought back to the entire pack and not consumed on the spot by hunters).
The idea that we achieved our current position (top) in the food chain due to our intelligence alone deliberately obscures the fact that it was our brutality that achieved it. Our earnest attempts to train ourselves to curb such brutality unfortunately leave us open to exploitation by entities who choose not to accept such constraints.
It got us where we are today ;-)
Elevating yourself above another entity simply for that reason is incredibly arrogant.
So what reason do you propose that we use to elevate ourselves above other entities?
Will an article about Schadenfreude do?
If we have learnt anything from history, it's that we don't learn from history
or something like that.
Thank you for taking the time to illustrate how far from "news" that was.
I eventually played the video and towards the end of it I began to get an idea what Dropbox is: a cross-platform shared drive (like X-drive was for Windows?) hosted by a 3rd party.
Useful if you don't have Samba or NFS and VPN.
They're not getting my music collection!
Interestingly, it's not a "gold" debt, AFAIK. And none of it has been paid yet. It hasn't been borrowed by the EU yet. It (cash) hasn't been asked for yet. ;-)
Anyway, as I was saying: it's a Euro debt, not a gold debt. Ireland should take it all now, convert it all to dollars then cash it back when pressure on some other Euro state pushes the Euro down again
What's destabilizing Africa at this point is corrupt politicians and other government officials. Providing a huge pot of cash isn't going to help that.
I have a theory that if you supply enough cash, then everyone - corrupt or not - is happy and can get on with things.
Take Ireland, for example...
awesome
ardle likes this
"Stranger still, the electron doesn't even have properties like position and momentum until an armadillo measures them. "
Furthermore, we define the things we measure, not nature. We might not be measuring the most useful things yet.
We know that matter isn't made up of particles but we measure it that way because we know how to do that...
Scientists acknowledge that they have only gathered about 1% of the total amount of information available in the universe.
If we keep on collecting information like that, do we not run a risk of creating a black hole or something?
I believe this to be true and am sure someone somewhere has measured it (changing it in the process ;-)
What I mean is that I suspect that if we know that someone understands a subject, our default behaviour is to believe without really trying to understand. This is a useful trait (otherwise we'd all be wasting our time trying to understand the same things) - provided that the source is trustworthy.
An untrustworthy source of information is often known as a "confidence trickster". Etc.
That "wasted" energy has to go somewhere and if it's being used to heat up your home in the winter, then it's hardly "wasted."
Should this not have been more like:
That "wasted" energy has to go somewhere and if it's being used to light up your home in the dark, then it's hardly "wasted."
?
I think the question (which I didn't raise, by the way) maybe should be which rights, rather than whose. ;-)
Everyone has rights - this is why we have lawyers
In fact, I left my comment open to several interpretations; you selected one interpretation but grandparent also contains all counter-arguments [smiles smugly].
I think the main priority of the public is food, usually. After that comes "rights" and things like that.