Odd that people wouldn't kick a dog, but they don't mind having cattle slain for them for a burger.
Is it really? Emotionally, we don't like to cause pain to things we perceive as capable of feeling pain, but logically, we don't see an ethical problem with participating in the food chain. It's not as if most people who wouldn't kick a dog believe that the dog has some kind of abstract "right" not to get kicked - they just don't enjoy cruelty for cruelty's sake.
Heh, coincidentally enough, Russian is my native language. Actually, apart from the article placement, I didn't see many particularly "Russian-esque" mistakes there, it was more just a sloppy pile of Internet carelessness. (btw, I think the rule of thumb is that languages with 6 or more noun cases tend to not have articles, so I'm guessing people speaking any of those will have similar problems with English)
This isn't about censorship. It is about making us all less likely to accidentally click on a goatse.cx link when our boss is standing behind us. It is also about making us feel more comfortable posting possibly objectionable content by giving visitors a means of easily filtering that content.
And if it gains momentum, various providers and blocking services will start requiring it, and content providers will have to implement it if they want to reach a wider audience; and voila, it's about censorship! Remember how the MPAA ratings system is completely voluntary and "not about censorship" either?
It's very deceptive to users who know that google doesn't display sponsored results to display your own stuff first.
Where has it been shown that they do this? They show "Tips" and "Sponsored Links" for their own stuff before the results, both of which look very different to the results themselves. It's not hard to believe that Google Maps comes up first in a search for online maps, either. If you search for a newer service (like picture sharing, for example), Google's offering isn't even in the first page of results (but of course the ads and "tips" are there).
It continually astounds me how the American people are willing to look the other way when it comes to their liberty and civil rights being encroached on!
Dude, the American people just looked the other way when the US government allowed itself to torture prisoners, and compromised just about every tenet of a fair trial. And you want us to care about web cookies and browser logs and shit?
That's a nice self-serving sentiment there, though I'm inclined to completely disagree with it. Unless he meant to imply that in order to be worthwhile reading for kids, a book needs to be able to appeal to adults. In which case both HP and his work fail as children's books (which I personally don't think they do).
Or maybe he's assuming that most people will already be senile by 50...
I don't think anyone's saying that, especially not to kids. It's the hordes of adults who go on about it being some quantum leap in the evolution of literature, who are somewhat bemusing (or annoying, depending on your perspective).
That's very different though, they have 1.5-2 times the normal complement of major organs above the waist. Most importantly, they have two spines that join at the pelvis - nowhere near the amount of "conjoinedness" that the "two-headed" reptiles have. Nobody would call those twin one person with two heads; it's not as clear-cut with the reptiles.
I'd venture to say a brain in the chest cavity would make a hell of a lot more sense and invest in faster nerves for the ears and eyes
If it made more "sense" to have the brain in the chest, we would have brains in our chests. It's just pointless to argue with mother nature when it comes to design. You can probably point to some kinks that specific species are still working out, but anything this universal is so damn near optimal that it's awe-inspiring.
I suspect the answer here is that there's no such thing as "faster nerves"; you'd have to increase nerve cell length to cut down on the number of synapses, which would make them more fragile, and, more importantly, less manageable (and still wouldn't make up for the comparatively huge distance). Come to think of it, it's the old "higher throughput" == "lowered responsiveness" problem.
Plus, the head is better protected than the chest; it would probably add an inordinate amount of weight to the skeletal structure to fortify it to the same degree. Also, maintaining the blood-brain barrier would probably be tricky without the separation that the neck provides (not to mention that your circulatory system would be right next to the thing).
Does it act as a redundant system used only if the primary one fails or do they actually process stimuli from both heads?
As far as I know, animals don't work that way - all "redundant" systems are always active, they just have enough "capacity" to pick up the slack if one part fails.
I seem to recall and article about a two-headed turtle. The dude who owned it said that it generally seemed to get around ok; though sometimes the heads would fight over food and such. But then it's a turtle, they aren't exactly known for their active life-style. From the way they talked about it, it did seem to be "two turtles with one body", rather than "a turtle with two heads" kind of thing; which is probably why you never see this in anything more advanced than reptiles.
The embryo "damage" is the same thing that causes conjoined twins - these guys are conjoined at the body. I am not sure what you mean by "accepted", these things happen, there's not much to accept (unless of course god is testing our faith again).
For a second there I thought MS was going after those annoying kids who shop at Hot Topic. And chose to use a very politically incorrect term to refer to them (my version didn't have the 'ti' or the 'l').
I mean, that is some seriously shitty science fiction. The first couple of seasons of SG1 were somewhat palatable, but the rest (and especially Atlantis) is just horrid, horrid tripe.
Just had to get that off my chest. It's a sad state of affairs for TV science fiction when the Stargates are considered some of the "better" shows.
Slashdot Mirror
Odd that people wouldn't kick a dog, but they don't mind having cattle slain for them for a burger.
Is it really? Emotionally, we don't like to cause pain to things we perceive as capable of feeling pain, but logically, we don't see an ethical problem with participating in the food chain. It's not as if most people who wouldn't kick a dog believe that the dog has some kind of abstract "right" not to get kicked - they just don't enjoy cruelty for cruelty's sake.
Heh, coincidentally enough, Russian is my native language. Actually, apart from the article placement, I didn't see many particularly "Russian-esque" mistakes there, it was more just a sloppy pile of Internet carelessness. (btw, I think the rule of thumb is that languages with 6 or more noun cases tend to not have articles, so I'm guessing people speaking any of those will have similar problems with English)
Definitely, Vista is very very improved OS over the previous versions, but the delayed in the launch has cost Microsoft, billions of dollars.
I'm not looking for Shakespeare here, but the submitter is what, eight?
complete email archives lost to online services: a couple
complete email archives lost to dead desktops: 10 million? 20?
they probably have some catching up to do
This isn't about censorship. It is about making us all less likely to accidentally click on a goatse.cx link when our boss is standing behind us. It is also about making us feel more comfortable posting possibly objectionable content by giving visitors a means of easily filtering that content.
And if it gains momentum, various providers and blocking services will start requiring it, and content providers will have to implement it if they want to reach a wider audience; and voila, it's about censorship! Remember how the MPAA ratings system is completely voluntary and "not about censorship" either?
It's very deceptive to users who know that google doesn't display sponsored results to display your own stuff first.
Where has it been shown that they do this? They show "Tips" and "Sponsored Links" for their own stuff before the results, both of which look very different to the results themselves. It's not hard to believe that Google Maps comes up first in a search for online maps, either. If you search for a newer service (like picture sharing, for example), Google's offering isn't even in the first page of results (but of course the ads and "tips" are there).
What's the problem with that?
Wouldn't that imply that exactly as many people are trading their Wiis for PS3s?
It continually astounds me how the American people are willing to look the other way when it comes to their liberty and civil rights being encroached on!
Dude, the American people just looked the other way when the US government allowed itself to torture prisoners, and compromised just about every tenet of a fair trial. And you want us to care about web cookies and browser logs and shit?
Are you implying that HP & Lewis's books fail to appeal to adults?
I am not implying anything. The parent said "worth reading", not "appeal to" - HP and Lewis are not worth reading when you are an adult.
That's a nice self-serving sentiment there, though I'm inclined to completely disagree with it. Unless he meant to imply that in order to be worthwhile reading for kids, a book needs to be able to appeal to adults. In which case both HP and his work fail as children's books (which I personally don't think they do).
Or maybe he's assuming that most people will already be senile by 50...
Man, that naming formula is even more boring than Star Wars' "Episode NUMBER: VERB of the NOUN".
"This is crap, read something better,"
I don't think anyone's saying that, especially not to kids. It's the hordes of adults who go on about it being some quantum leap in the evolution of literature, who are somewhat bemusing (or annoying, depending on your perspective).
Yet another god-damned
One
Item
Per
Page
List
You know what? I don't think I can stand the internet anymore.
That's very different though, they have 1.5-2 times the normal complement of major organs above the waist. Most importantly, they have two spines that join at the pelvis - nowhere near the amount of "conjoinedness" that the "two-headed" reptiles have. Nobody would call those twin one person with two heads; it's not as clear-cut with the reptiles.
I'd venture to say a brain in the chest cavity would make a hell of a lot more sense and invest in faster nerves for the ears and eyes
If it made more "sense" to have the brain in the chest, we would have brains in our chests. It's just pointless to argue with mother nature when it comes to design. You can probably point to some kinks that specific species are still working out, but anything this universal is so damn near optimal that it's awe-inspiring.
I suspect the answer here is that there's no such thing as "faster nerves"; you'd have to increase nerve cell length to cut down on the number of synapses, which would make them more fragile, and, more importantly, less manageable (and still wouldn't make up for the comparatively huge distance). Come to think of it, it's the old "higher throughput" == "lowered responsiveness" problem.
Plus, the head is better protected than the chest; it would probably add an inordinate amount of weight to the skeletal structure to fortify it to the same degree. Also, maintaining the blood-brain barrier would probably be tricky without the separation that the neck provides (not to mention that your circulatory system would be right next to the thing).
Does it act as a redundant system used only if the primary one fails or do they actually process stimuli from both heads?
As far as I know, animals don't work that way - all "redundant" systems are always active, they just have enough "capacity" to pick up the slack if one part fails.
I seem to recall and article about a two-headed turtle. The dude who owned it said that it generally seemed to get around ok; though sometimes the heads would fight over food and such. But then it's a turtle, they aren't exactly known for their active life-style. From the way they talked about it, it did seem to be "two turtles with one body", rather than "a turtle with two heads" kind of thing; which is probably why you never see this in anything more advanced than reptiles.
The embryo "damage" is the same thing that causes conjoined twins - these guys are conjoined at the body. I am not sure what you mean by "accepted", these things happen, there's not much to accept (unless of course god is testing our faith again).
he also invented the Turing machine, a forerunner to the modern microcomputer
Holy. Crap.
You understand the difference between inventing something and coming up with a random new word to describe something that already exists, right?
For a second there I thought MS was going after those annoying kids who shop at Hot Topic. And chose to use a very politically incorrect term to refer to them (my version didn't have the 'ti' or the 'l').
I mean, that is some seriously shitty science fiction. The first couple of seasons of SG1 were somewhat palatable, but the rest (and especially Atlantis) is just horrid, horrid tripe.
Just had to get that off my chest. It's a sad state of affairs for TV science fiction when the Stargates are considered some of the "better" shows.
Sushi K? Is that you?
So I don't know if I'd say it was the best writing ever, but a nice adaption from reality and a damn fine episode.
That's what all great writing is, in one way or another.
Instead of posting irritating comments, Grammar Nazis(TM) could just edit the offending posts directly.
So now they just have to drop RedHat and SUSE and we are finally done? Great!
I've been getting kinda tired of the whole cult surrounding MySQL's substandard "RDBMS".
They'll just start hurding all of us coders into 'state correctional institions'
Gods, that'd be even worse!