I have wondered, though... how exactly are pro-gay genes promoted? I assume that they are recessive genes (no judgement here... just that gay folks are in the vast minority), and as such aren't likely to last long, since true homosexuality would prevent breeding, right?
A homosexual in a family group increases the adult/child ratio therefore improving care and survivability of the child. The family group passes on the recessive genes of the homosexual who does not reproduce.
Interestingly a similar study was done on suicide. It is a trait that reduced the population in difficult (depressing) times thereby leaving more resources for the group.
Even bigotry helps unify social groups (against a real or imagined foe) thereby providing more effective cooperation on common goals.
This is not related to the societal desirability of these behaviors. Just that under the right cirucmstances they can be evolutionarily beneficial.
Re:ADD Version
on
The Red Queen
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'll assume this is some sort of dig on the idea of homosexual marriage. I'm not gay, but I'll bite.
If Evolution is true, marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is a result of natural selection and therefore is right and good.
Wouldn't homosexuality also be the result of natural selection and therefore right and good? If it was detrimental it would have been selected away and wouldn't exist, right? This is as opposed to continuing to exist across centuries and civilizations. Bigotry on the other hand, is rapidly growing obsolete in the modern age.
If Creation is true marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is from God and therefore is right and good.
If creation is true we've got a lot more to worry about than the proper definition of marriage. Also, the definition of right and good vary strongly across individuals despite their belief in creation. Some believe in the Bible, others the Koran, others the Torah. Some take their scripture literally, others with a grain of salt.
Imagine if an RFID kiosk at the entrance identified that you were wearing stain blocker Dockers and announced "I see you are wearing stain blocker pants...we stock a complete selection in your size, and today they are on sale".
Oh my god! You mean they would make my shopping faster, more convenient, AND possibly save me money???!!!
The HORROR!
Re:Theres no scientific proof for any of this.
on
Working with ADHD?
·
· Score: 1
regularly reoccurring bouts of SUICIDE are NOT an "issue" to be worked through, THEY ARE A SERIOUS FREAKING PROBLEM.
Regularly recurring bouts of suicide wouldn't seem to be a problem. The first "bout" would pretty much take care of things...
I actually agree with your point (if not your volume level) but had to point out the funny...
Will they then speak harshly of the "bird race" that aided the lizard leaders and who themselves are suspected of harboring these water depletion devices?
No no, obviously the ones aiding the evil lizard race are the evil "frogs".
Oooo! An ant farm! What a great idea! Hmmm, I'll need ants, a bigger case, it's gotta be backlit of course. Now... what were you saying? Oh never mind.
Note the bolded part of this quote... there could be a multiverse where most slashdotters have sex on a regular basis.! The best news geeks have ever heard!
Yes, but equally frightening is that _this_ could be the universe where slashdotters have the most sex!
Situation 1: I buy a copy of a DVD and invite my friends over to watch it with me. They get to watch it without paying.
Situation 2: I buy a copy of a DVD, rip it, and FTP it to the same friends. They get to watch it without paying.
Now what exactly is the difference, ethically, and morally, in those two situations? The truth is there is no difference! They're the ones who permitted me to purchase a copy of a movie and there are no constraints pertaining to who I can show it to, providing I don't charge admission.
Read the following, stop, and please just think for a moment about how much your greed has blinded you. I do NOT think you are stupid.
The obvious difference is that the friends have to be in the physical presence of the purchased DVD to watch the content. The first is conducive to local friends numbering in the tens, maybe twenties. These local friends also cannot watch the content at their convenience and cannot pass the content onto others. The second number of "friends" can be in the millions all across the planet and can easily pass the content onto their friends. The first encourages more content to be purchased. End of story.
Also, if there truly isn't a difference, why not just purchase it as the creator wishes?
1) Violating the law simply because you "feel" it's ok. This is not conducive to a constructive society.
Since when is one's reason for violating a law an additional transgression to the violation of the law itself?
Because in this particular area we were discussing the morality of the act in addition to the legality. It is a transgression against the law AND a transgression against morality. I think most would agree that willful violation of a law for personal entertainment is immoral. Certain circumstances (let's say orders to shoot POWs) might make violating authority a moral act. See the difference? That is also in addition to the immorality of violating the creator's rights to control their creations.
Look. You steal creativity. You're proud of it. That's gross to me. End of story.
Am I legally guilty if I only downloaded the movie, but did not watch it in its entirety? If I only viewed certain portions?
IANAL, but my guess is that the act of downloading is the illegal bit.
What is the second wrong? I watched Matrix Reloaded on the big screen (right), and downloaded a VCD afterwords (arguably wrong). What else?
1) Violating the law simply because you "feel" it's ok. This is not conducive to a constructive society. 2) Violating the wishes of the copyright holder. Whether they are wrong, stupid, or anything else, I believe they have the right to choose how others obtain content they create.
Is there anything morally wrong with downloading an esoteric release of Reloaded online? I went to the movies, paid my money, contributing to the $44 billion or so profit of Warner Brothers. I don't feel guilty downloading a crappy quality VCD to notice all the details and things I missed. (But I did notice the terminal with ssh and nmap on it).
Nothing wrong at all.
It's irrelevant how you feel. Guilt is based on legality, under which you clearly are guilty. Whether it's wrong or not is an entirely different matter, but as a matter of principle I've always operated under "two wrongs don't make a right".
The general gaming community would tend to disagree with you. This site [gamerankings.com] which basically ranks games based on reviews from users and various gaming sources has Zelda: Ocarina of Time ranked as the #1 game out of over 6000. Also, another Nintendo Exclusive game Metroid Prime comes in at #2 and Zelda: The Wind Waker comes in at #7. So I would say that Nintendo games are that good.
Oh I agree with you. I merely meant that others debate it.
George Harrison, a vice president at Nintendo of America, noted that much of the competition's success has been built on socially questionable games such as the street-crime romp "Grand Theft Auto 3." He promised Nintendo wouldn't go down that alley. "Mario will never start shooting hookers," he vowed.
Kind of reaching there huh guys? Rockstar told you to go piss up a rope didn't they? Lets face it, with games like GTA and Metal Gear as exclusive titles you guys didn't stand a chance. Zelda isn't _that_ good.
Nintendo has had that stance for, oh, 20 years now. Whether it's successful, or even reasonable, is debatable... but it's definitely NOT some new reaction to Sony. It is to a large part based on Miyamoto's attitude and design philosophy, visible from his earliest games.
Well then wouldn't normal use also include 16 hours of down time for every 8 hours of up time?
Sure, thus the quotes around normal use. Anyone truly seeking to understand should have taken the time to read the article before posting and would have seen the testing methodology on the page two. The original poster was wasting everyone's time and deserved a little public ridicule. Stupidiy should be painful.
Sure, but if you practice "stopping and thinking" for a moment, I'm sure you'll figure out what. You'd be surprised, this "stopping and thinking" behavior comes in handy in all sorts of situations.
Hint: the length of the study does not have to be as long as the length of time during which a monitor might undergo "normal use". If you're still having trouble, try asking your Mother. Or perhaps the dog.
I'm assuming this is intended to be a clever reference to the Kennedy assasination.
Specifically the Warren Commission Report stated that there was a "lone gunman", despite abundant evidence that many claim shows there were multiple shooters.
The term "Lone Gunmen" therefore cleverly ridicules the widely accepted "truth" and indicates that those taking the name disagree with mainstream "facts".
Of course what I was really referring to was a spoiler made by another editor last year!
One butterfly flapping its wings cannot lead to the destruction of the sun. Nature has built in redundancy. So do human societies. Diamond's book (Guns Germ and Steel) is a hodgepodge of deterministic gibberish.
The butterfly doesn't CAUSE the destruction of the sun. The conditions exist that it is possible and the butterfly is the proverbial straw (or first domino).
Good for you. Eventually your Slashdot front page can be blank because every editor has, at one point, posted something you found objectionable. For shame! How utterly human of them to make a mistake!
It's irrelevant whether it's a mistake. They chose to do it, therefore they are gone. Now I've been reading Slashdot for two years, and I've garbaged 3 editors (~10%). Two for spoilers and one for repeatedly posting moronic things (Jon Katz). At this rate, providing they add no new editors, I'll run out of content in 20 years. Hmmm, I'll take my chances. Also if I'm not using this feature correctly, can you tell me exactly what this feature was intended for then?
There are going to be lots of Star Wars mini-spoilers before the movie is released. As another reader pointed out, just block Star Wars content. Better yet, stop reading the internet altogether and turn off your TV, then you'll be sure to be completely surprised when you see it.
Killfiling Star Wars was a great idea as well, though it's a bummer to miss all the anti-Jar Jar talk. Ridiculous suggestions aside, I and many of my friends managed to avoid pretty much everything about Star Wars (and LOTR) and that's what we'd like. How hard is it to put "Original Cast Member to Reprise Role in Star Wars: Episode III (spoilers)". Really, how hard is it to turn on his brain for one second?
Slashdot Mirror
I have wondered, though... how exactly are pro-gay genes promoted? I assume that they are recessive genes (no judgement here... just that gay folks are in the vast minority), and as such aren't likely to last long, since true homosexuality would prevent breeding, right?
A homosexual in a family group increases the adult/child ratio therefore improving care and survivability of the child. The family group passes on the recessive genes of the homosexual who does not reproduce.
Interestingly a similar study was done on suicide. It is a trait that reduced the population in difficult (depressing) times thereby leaving more resources for the group.
Even bigotry helps unify social groups (against a real or imagined foe) thereby providing more effective cooperation on common goals.
This is not related to the societal desirability of these behaviors. Just that under the right cirucmstances they can be evolutionarily beneficial.
I'll assume this is some sort of dig on the idea of homosexual marriage. I'm not gay, but I'll bite.
If Evolution is true, marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is a result of natural selection and therefore is right and good.
Wouldn't homosexuality also be the result of natural selection and therefore right and good? If it was detrimental it would have been selected away and wouldn't exist, right? This is as opposed to continuing to exist across centuries and civilizations. Bigotry on the other hand, is rapidly growing obsolete in the modern age.
If Creation is true marriage (1 Man/1 Woman) is from God and therefore is right and good.
If creation is true we've got a lot more to worry about than the proper definition of marriage. Also, the definition of right and good vary strongly across individuals despite their belief in creation. Some believe in the Bible, others the Koran, others the Torah. Some take their scripture literally, others with a grain of salt.
Imagine if an RFID kiosk at the entrance identified that you were wearing stain blocker Dockers and announced "I see you are wearing stain blocker pants...we stock a complete selection in your size, and today they are on sale".
Oh my god! You mean they would make my shopping faster, more convenient, AND possibly save me money???!!!
The HORROR!
regularly reoccurring bouts of SUICIDE are NOT an "issue" to be worked through, THEY ARE A SERIOUS FREAKING PROBLEM.
Regularly recurring bouts of suicide wouldn't seem to be a problem. The first "bout" would pretty much take care of things...
I actually agree with your point (if not your volume level) but had to point out the funny...
How are we to make a distinction between a hardcore gamer, and an addict? It seems to be a pretty fine line.
It's obvious! Everquest kills, Anarchy Online heals.
Better yet, have games that are free (as all information should be). America's army is a good, completely free game.
Umm, it wasn't free. It was paid for with taxes.
Will they then speak harshly of the "bird race" that aided the lizard leaders and who themselves are suspected of harboring these water depletion devices?
No no, obviously the ones aiding the evil lizard race are the evil "frogs".
Yuk yuk.
Yes, you can add an ant farm to your PC case.
Oooo! An ant farm! What a great idea! Hmmm, I'll need ants, a bigger case, it's gotta be backlit of course. Now... what were you saying? Oh never mind.
Done, fin, kaput. Man, there has got to be some system in place to temporarily mirror sites before posting on Slashdot, yes?
Yes, but then Slashdot wouldn't have a reason to sell subscriptions? It occurs to one that Slashdot now PROFITS from Slashdotting.
Ethics aside, I doubt they will fix it anytime soon.
Note the bolded part of this quote... there could be a multiverse where most slashdotters have sex on a regular basis.! The best news geeks have ever heard!
Yes, but equally frightening is that _this_ could be the universe where slashdotters have the most sex!
Situation 1: I buy a copy of a DVD and invite my friends over to watch it with me. They get to watch it without paying.
Situation 2: I buy a copy of a DVD, rip it, and FTP it to the same friends. They get to watch it without paying.
Now what exactly is the difference, ethically, and morally, in those two situations? The truth is there is no difference! They're the ones who permitted me to purchase a copy of a movie and there are no constraints pertaining to who I can show it to, providing I don't charge admission.
Read the following, stop, and please just think for a moment about how much your greed has blinded you. I do NOT think you are stupid.
The obvious difference is that the friends have to be in the physical presence of the purchased DVD to watch the content. The first is conducive to local friends numbering in the tens, maybe twenties. These local friends also cannot watch the content at their convenience and cannot pass the content onto others. The second number of "friends" can be in the millions all across the planet and can easily pass the content onto their friends. The first encourages more content to be purchased. End of story.
Also, if there truly isn't a difference, why not just purchase it as the creator wishes?
He said he feels guilty. Whether it's wrong or not is a part of the question; whether it's legal or not isn't.
Like, I can feel guilty about cheating on my girlfriend. Even though it's not illegal.
Actually, he said he _didn't_ feel guilty. This is part of what I find distasteful... not that emotional guilt ameliorates anything.
1) Violating the law simply because you "feel" it's ok. This is not conducive to a constructive society.
Since when is one's reason for violating a law an additional transgression to the violation of the law itself?
Because in this particular area we were discussing the morality of the act in addition to the legality. It is a transgression against the law AND a transgression against morality. I think most would agree that willful violation of a law for personal entertainment is immoral. Certain circumstances (let's say orders to shoot POWs) might make violating authority a moral act. See the difference? That is also in addition to the immorality of violating the creator's rights to control their creations.
Look. You steal creativity. You're proud of it. That's gross to me. End of story.
Am I legally guilty if I only downloaded the movie, but did not watch it in its entirety? If I only viewed certain portions?
IANAL, but my guess is that the act of downloading is the illegal bit.
What is the second wrong? I watched Matrix Reloaded on the big screen (right), and downloaded a VCD afterwords (arguably wrong). What else?
1) Violating the law simply because you "feel" it's ok. This is not conducive to a constructive society.
2) Violating the wishes of the copyright holder. Whether they are wrong, stupid, or anything else, I believe they have the right to choose how others obtain content they create.
Is there anything morally wrong with downloading an esoteric release of Reloaded online? I went to the movies, paid my money, contributing to the $44 billion or so profit of Warner Brothers. I don't feel guilty downloading a crappy quality VCD to notice all the details and things I missed. (But I did notice the terminal with ssh and nmap on it).
Nothing wrong at all.
It's irrelevant how you feel. Guilt is based on legality, under which you clearly are guilty. Whether it's wrong or not is an entirely different matter, but as a matter of principle I've always operated under "two wrongs don't make a right".
The general gaming community would tend to disagree with you. This site [gamerankings.com] which basically ranks games based on reviews from users and various gaming sources has Zelda: Ocarina of Time ranked as the #1 game out of over 6000. Also, another Nintendo Exclusive game Metroid Prime comes in at #2 and Zelda: The Wind Waker comes in at #7. So I would say that Nintendo games are that good.
Oh I agree with you. I merely meant that others debate it.
George Harrison, a vice president at Nintendo of America, noted that much of the competition's success has been built on socially questionable games such as the street-crime romp "Grand Theft Auto 3." He promised Nintendo wouldn't go down that alley. "Mario will never start shooting hookers," he vowed.
Kind of reaching there huh guys? Rockstar told you to go piss up a rope didn't they? Lets face it, with games like GTA and Metal Gear as exclusive titles you guys didn't stand a chance. Zelda isn't _that_ good.
Nintendo has had that stance for, oh, 20 years now. Whether it's successful, or even reasonable, is debatable... but it's definitely NOT some new reaction to Sony. It is to a large part based on Miyamoto's attitude and design philosophy, visible from his earliest games.
Well then wouldn't normal use also include 16 hours of down time for every 8 hours of up time?
Sure, thus the quotes around normal use. Anyone truly seeking to understand should have taken the time to read the article before posting and would have seen the testing methodology on the page two. The original poster was wasting everyone's time and deserved a little public ridicule. Stupidiy should be painful.
Ten months...500 days...something's wrong here.
Sure, but if you practice "stopping and thinking" for a moment, I'm sure you'll figure out what. You'd be surprised, this "stopping and thinking" behavior comes in handy in all sorts of situations.
Hint: the length of the study does not have to be as long as the length of time during which a monitor might undergo "normal use". If you're still having trouble, try asking your Mother. Or perhaps the dog.
Chuckle. I figured you were just trying to be funny... not even sure why I bothered replying but I'm glad I did... have to rent that sometime.
How can you pluralize The Lone Gunman?
I'm assuming this is intended to be a clever reference to the Kennedy assasination.
Specifically the Warren Commission Report stated that there was a "lone gunman", despite abundant evidence that many claim shows there were multiple shooters.
The term "Lone Gunmen" therefore cleverly ridicules the widely accepted "truth" and indicates that those taking the name disagree with mainstream "facts".
Of course what I was really referring to was a spoiler made by another editor last year!
One butterfly flapping its wings cannot lead to the destruction of the sun. Nature has built in redundancy. So do human societies. Diamond's book (Guns Germ and Steel) is a hodgepodge of deterministic gibberish.
The butterfly doesn't CAUSE the destruction of the sun. The conditions exist that it is possible and the butterfly is the proverbial straw (or first domino).
The possibilities are both endless and quite frightening...
Good for you. Eventually your Slashdot front page can be blank because every editor has, at one point, posted something you found objectionable. For shame! How utterly human of them to make a mistake!
It's irrelevant whether it's a mistake. They chose to do it, therefore they are gone. Now I've been reading Slashdot for two years, and I've garbaged 3 editors (~10%). Two for spoilers and one for repeatedly posting moronic things (Jon Katz). At this rate, providing they add no new editors, I'll run out of content in 20 years. Hmmm, I'll take my chances. Also if I'm not using this feature correctly, can you tell me exactly what this feature was intended for then?
There are going to be lots of Star Wars mini-spoilers before the movie is released. As another reader pointed out, just block Star Wars content. Better yet, stop reading the internet altogether and turn off your TV, then you'll be sure to be completely surprised when you see it.
Killfiling Star Wars was a great idea as well, though it's a bummer to miss all the anti-Jar Jar talk. Ridiculous suggestions aside, I and many of my friends managed to avoid pretty much everything about Star Wars (and LOTR) and that's what we'd like. How hard is it to put "Original Cast Member to Reprise Role in Star Wars: Episode III (spoilers)". Really, how hard is it to turn on his brain for one second?
...with "The Lone Gunmen are Dead". What an ass.
Another editor in my killfile.
FYI to remove an editor, go to your Preferences->User->Homepage, Exclude Authors (timothy in this case) and then hit save at the bottom.
I've got three in there so far.