Define plausible. An asteroid that could wipe out mankind, totally, comes around every 250 million years. I don't personally consider the Chicxulub event a humanity killer, though it would probably put a monstrous dent in our numbers. Humans are diverse enough IMHO to survive something like that. The Permian-Triassic extinction event, however, is another story.
But worrying about asteroid collisions on any time scale less than 100000 years is an execise in surrealism.
Fact: If humanity is going to survive, we have to get off this rock.
That's sounds more like a scifi buff talking point than a fact. Why can't we survive? Because the sun will kill us in 5 billion years? Because CERN will create a black hole that will eat the Earth? Global warming? Politics in the mideast?
None of these things are realistic extinction threats and flaunting space exploration as a means of survival for the species is an argument that no one with power will take seriously unless faced with nuclear armageddon or whatever. The going to the stars argument will be met with he's-a-crackpot stares from palestines and israelis alike.
Then there is this: if not us, who? The Chinese? Frankly the Chinese would be the type to land on the moon and start mining for resources and say: "Screw the moon treaty, what are you going to do about it?"
Oh yes, the evil Chinese are going to steal the moon! So what? Hey, if space exploration is ever going to take off in a real way, it will be because it is economically viable, not because of grand visions. If the Chinese can do that, then more power to them. It's not like they can claim the moon for their own.
I would want nothing more than to go off and colonize. In fact, i would be in line for the first ride up if i could. But spewing starry-eyed visions and ultra-long-term stratagems isn't what's going to make it happen. Money is what's going to make it happen. Until space exploration becomes commercialized(and more than just space tourists), it will never gain any real momentum. It'll just be exploration, not "getting off this rock".
If you'd bothered to RTFA, you'd find that the moon would be reclassified as a planet when the systems center of gravity no longer resides inside the Earth.
I would gladly send my kid to this elementary school if they could prove that they could teach concepts like orbital decay and barycenters to to nine-year-olds.
Many biologists theorize that life evolved out of (relatively)simple molecules clumping together and forming self-replicating crystals. These crystals would then by chance evolve into more complex, more self-replicating crystals, etc, until RNA was formed.
That's evolution to me.
Reference (not exactly a biology textbook, but then again, IANAB): Dennett, Daniel: "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".
I respect the fact that the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 was one of the worst natural disaster in history.
I also respect that it would be unacceptable not to make an early warning system to prevent a so massive death toll in a future tsunami.
But isn't it a bit political? I mean, how often do massive tsunamis occur in the Indian Ocean? As far as I know it's fairly rare. I think maybe UNESCO should play it safe and construct a worldwide system, or they'll look mighty stupid next time a tsunami hits someplace in the southern part of the Atlantic, like Rio de Janeiro.
Does it really require a massive disaster to get funding for these projects?
I've said it before and i'll say it again: wikipedia needs a moderation system that's more merit based. For example, an algorithmicly generated hierarchy of moderators and editors. People high in the hierarchy are selected by the lower levels. Categories are individual cells of government. The top levels have the broadest categories:
Categories are linked like in biologic classification of species.
The higher ranked editor has control of lower ranked ones.
That's a good philosophy for any student. But telling a person that has panic attacks to stop caring is like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.
In fact, it can make the problem worse if they suppress their nervousness under a superficial shell and then crack completely under the real pressure of an exam, especially one you're not sure of passing. I thought all my life that I don't have this problem, that I could always keep my cool, but then I realized that this was just a front I brought up for the examinators, though under this surface I was a nervous wreck.
Now, knowing that I actually have a jumpy nerves, I can work on them using some of the techniques others in this discussion have mentioned.
Though if you have a real problem, the solution is very simple: take a beta blocker in the morning of the exam. Trust me, works like a charm.
the choice isn't "Some people get healthcare in the US, everybody gets healthcare in Europe", the choices are "People who can/want to pay a lot for healthcare get great healthcare in the US, everybody gets mediocre healthcare in Europe."
This story reminds me of a time I was at a party for the physics class I was in.
The professor, in a cheerful stupor, started proclaiming to everyone the historical fact that Newton was a real asshole in his dealings with everyone who dared oppose him. He said he much preferred Leibniz. He then started hammering the table he was standing at, all the while yelling, "Newton is an asshole! Newton is an asshole!"
At which point a few newton decided to manifest themselves in the medium sized iron clock above his head, which fell on his head.
Except for "cool" that sentence feels either like a circular argument or a logical inconsistency(*snort*, *snort*). Someone here on/. said that geeks are people who know stuff and are cool, nerds are uncool and know things, and dorks are just losers.
Some videogames obviously have very few elements of art. But immediately when I read the summary i disagreed with the statement that videogames aren't art. And even with your statement that videogames don't produce good art. Why? Planescape: Torment
I must admit that when I think of this game, I turn into a sniveling fanboy. It had everything that I require from a good book: characterization, engaging dialogue, great plot and subtle themes that really do concern the human condition. It also had the elements i want in a good movie: visually stunning artwork and (in cutscenes) cinematography. Finally, in terms of the elements I want from good interactive entertainment, it produced a huge world filled with a host of details that are all products of great imagination.
In case anyone doesn't remember or haven't heard of this RPG gem, the plot and theme is roughly as follows:
You wake up in a strange mortuary in the city of Sigil, the City of Doors, a warped nexus for an infinity of worlds. You do not remember who you are, but every inch of your body is covered in scars, some of which spell out instructions. You quickly realize that you have been separated from your very mortality and that this hubris has upset the balance of the multiverse and is bringing you and the people around you great despair. Over the course of the game, your character and your companions bound to you by this torment change personalty gradually as you realize that you have a great debt to pay back to the multiverse.
I can recommend this game to anyone who want proof that games aren't devoid of art. It will leave you feeling like you've been reading a great book. Don't buy the book though.
When you enter into a situation where neither side has proof of correctness, then you enter the realm of faith.
I hate to break this to you, but in the real world "proof of correctness" doesn't exist. On the contrary, believing in an absolute truth is the realm of faith. Read up on "falsification". There isn't even 100% proof on things like gravity.
While I also doubt the ideas expressed in TFA, saying that Steven Johnson is ignorant about games and the Internet just expresses your own ignorance. Check his credentials before slinging around insults.
Here's a few to get you started: "Emergence", "Everything Bad is Good for You", "Mind Wide Open", "Feed". The list goes on.
I honestly think that wikipedia has just fallen(arguably) to the same problem as/.: lack of scalability.
What they need is a solid, decentralised moderation system based on some kind of digital respect. For example, let everyone moderate a change in an article or a new one either up or down. But let those who have previously had good moderations have a greater voice.
It's just an example, and might not work, but a system the size and complexity that wikipedia has reached needs some kind of feedback mechanism that's more than just everybody screaming at the top of their lungs at each other.
Yeah, we had an at least equally stupid thing happening here(Denmark) a couple of weeks ago. A hospital gave a kindergarten a truckload of paper for the kids to draw on.
Only problem: the other side of the paper were discarded medical journals, complete with patient data.
On the other hand, they could probably do better than the 1991 version of Captain America, which is currently #76 on IMDB's bottom 100.
It also has the top user comments, "There is no God!" and "If even ONE actor in the movie could act, this film might be able to pass for a piece of crap"
Slashdot Mirror
Define plausible. An asteroid that could wipe out mankind, totally, comes around every 250 million years. I don't personally consider the Chicxulub event a humanity killer, though it would probably put a monstrous dent in our numbers. Humans are diverse enough IMHO to survive something like that. The Permian-Triassic extinction event, however, is another story.
But worrying about asteroid collisions on any time scale less than 100000 years is an execise in surrealism.
Fact: If humanity is going to survive, we have to get off this rock.
That's sounds more like a scifi buff talking point than a fact. Why can't we survive? Because the sun will kill us in 5 billion years? Because CERN will create a black hole that will eat the Earth? Global warming? Politics in the mideast?
None of these things are realistic extinction threats and flaunting space exploration as a means of survival for the species is an argument that no one with power will take seriously unless faced with nuclear armageddon or whatever. The going to the stars argument will be met with he's-a-crackpot stares from palestines and israelis alike.
Then there is this: if not us, who? The Chinese? Frankly the Chinese would be the type to land on the moon and start mining for resources and say: "Screw the moon treaty, what are you going to do about it?"
Oh yes, the evil Chinese are going to steal the moon! So what? Hey, if space exploration is ever going to take off in a real way, it will be because it is economically viable, not because of grand visions. If the Chinese can do that, then more power to them. It's not like they can claim the moon for their own.
I would want nothing more than to go off and colonize. In fact, i would be in line for the first ride up if i could. But spewing starry-eyed visions and ultra-long-term stratagems isn't what's going to make it happen. Money is what's going to make it happen. Until space exploration becomes commercialized(and more than just space tourists), it will never gain any real momentum. It'll just be exploration, not "getting off this rock".
If you'd bothered to RTFA, you'd find that the moon would be reclassified as a planet when the systems center of gravity no longer resides inside the Earth.
I would gladly send my kid to this elementary school if they could prove that they could teach concepts like orbital decay and barycenters to to nine-year-olds.
Plus, you actually have to be independantly wealthy or have tenure to be able to afford them. Only reason i don't have a subscription.
"The only meaning of life worth caring about is one that withstands our best efforts to examine it"
-D. Dennett
That's not exactly true.
Many biologists theorize that life evolved out of (relatively)simple molecules clumping together and forming self-replicating crystals. These crystals would then by chance evolve into more complex, more self-replicating crystals, etc, until RNA was formed.
That's evolution to me.
Reference (not exactly a biology textbook, but then again, IANAB): Dennett, Daniel: "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".
I respect the fact that the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 was one of the worst natural disaster in history.
I also respect that it would be unacceptable not to make an early warning system to prevent a so massive death toll in a future tsunami.
But isn't it a bit political? I mean, how often do massive tsunamis occur in the Indian Ocean? As far as I know it's fairly rare. I think maybe UNESCO should play it safe and construct a worldwide system, or they'll look mighty stupid next time a tsunami hits someplace in the southern part of the Atlantic, like Rio de Janeiro.
Does it really require a massive disaster to get funding for these projects?
I've said it before and i'll say it again: wikipedia needs a moderation system that's more merit based.
For example, an algorithmicly generated hierarchy of moderators and editors. People high in the hierarchy are selected by the lower levels. Categories are individual cells of government. The top levels have the broadest categories:
Categories are linked like in biologic classification of species. The higher ranked editor has control of lower ranked ones.
Isn't that just an interpretation of special relativity?
That's a good philosophy for any student. But telling a person that has panic attacks to stop caring is like telling a clinically depressed person to cheer up.
In fact, it can make the problem worse if they suppress their nervousness under a superficial shell and then crack completely under the real pressure of an exam, especially one you're not sure of passing. I thought all my life that I don't have this problem, that I could always keep my cool, but then I realized that this was just a front I brought up for the examinators, though under this surface I was a nervous wreck.
Now, knowing that I actually have a jumpy nerves, I can work on them using some of the techniques others in this discussion have mentioned.
Though if you have a real problem, the solution is very simple: take a beta blocker in the morning of the exam. Trust me, works like a charm.
the choice isn't "Some people get healthcare in the US, everybody gets healthcare in Europe", the choices are "People who can/want to pay a lot for healthcare get great healthcare in the US, everybody gets mediocre healthcare in Europe."
Bullshit!
Yes, because I have to invest a shitload of money on a new Acrobat Reader when my Microsoft Reader doesn't work. Get real.
This story reminds me of a time I was at a party for the physics class I was in.
The professor, in a cheerful stupor, started proclaiming to everyone the historical fact that Newton was a real asshole in his dealings with everyone who dared oppose him. He said he much preferred Leibniz. He then started hammering the table he was standing at, all the while yelling, "Newton is an asshole! Newton is an asshole!"
At which point a few newton decided to manifest themselves in the medium sized iron clock above his head, which fell on his head.
Don't mess with the ghosts of dead scientists!
But apparent transparency is prerequisite for tyranny.
Geeks are cool, nerds are dorks.
/. said that geeks are people who know stuff and are cool, nerds are uncool and know things, and dorks are just losers.
Except for "cool" that sentence feels either like a circular argument or a logical inconsistency(*snort*, *snort*). Someone here on
What's your definiton?
Some videogames obviously have very few elements of art. But immediately when I read the summary i disagreed with the statement that videogames aren't art. And even with your statement that videogames don't produce good art. Why? Planescape: Torment
I must admit that when I think of this game, I turn into a sniveling fanboy. It had everything that I require from a good book: characterization, engaging dialogue, great plot and subtle themes that really do concern the human condition.
It also had the elements i want in a good movie: visually stunning artwork and (in cutscenes) cinematography.
Finally, in terms of the elements I want from good interactive entertainment, it produced a huge world filled with a host of details that are all products of great imagination.
In case anyone doesn't remember or haven't heard of this RPG gem, the plot and theme is roughly as follows:
You wake up in a strange mortuary in the city of Sigil, the City of Doors, a warped nexus for an infinity of worlds. You do not remember who you are, but every inch of your body is covered in scars, some of which spell out instructions. You quickly realize that you have been separated from your very mortality and that this hubris has upset the balance of the multiverse and is bringing you and the people around you great despair. Over the course of the game, your character and your companions bound to you by this torment change personalty gradually as you realize that you have a great debt to pay back to the multiverse.
I can recommend this game to anyone who want proof that games aren't devoid of art. It will leave you feeling like you've been reading a great book. Don't buy the book though.
50$ says you don't know the meaning of the word "liberal".
I hate to break this to you, but in the real world "proof of correctness" doesn't exist. On the contrary, believing in an absolute truth is the realm of faith. Read up on "falsification". There isn't even 100% proof on things like gravity.
While I also doubt the ideas expressed in TFA, saying that Steven Johnson is ignorant about games and the Internet just expresses your own ignorance. Check his credentials before slinging around insults.
Here's a few to get you started: "Emergence", "Everything Bad is Good for You", "Mind Wide Open", "Feed". The list goes on.
I think you were just the victim of a very obvious troll.
Well, how often do you browse at -1 to see how many posts saying that got modded troll?
I honestly think that wikipedia has just fallen(arguably) to the same problem as /.: lack of scalability.
What they need is a solid, decentralised moderation system based on some kind of digital respect. For example, let everyone moderate a change in an article or a new one either up or down. But let those who have previously had good moderations have a greater voice.
It's just an example, and might not work, but a system the size and complexity that wikipedia has reached needs some kind of feedback mechanism that's more than just everybody screaming at the top of their lungs at each other.
They also go great lightly wok'ed in hoisin sauce with a side of fried noodles.
Yeah, we had an at least equally stupid thing happening here(Denmark) a couple of weeks ago.
A hospital gave a kindergarten a truckload of paper for the kids to draw on.
Only problem: the other side of the paper were discarded medical journals, complete with patient data.
On the other hand, they could probably do better than the 1991 version of Captain America, which is currently #76 on IMDB's bottom 100.
It also has the top user comments, "There is no God!" and "If even ONE actor in the movie could act, this film might be able to pass for a piece of crap"