First of all, you'll always lose betting on human nature to be beneficial.
Secondly, your first and third points are practically the same thing.
"How's that?" you might ask, "One is a vision of Utopia, a place of plenty. The other is a crumbled society where only robots are useful"
The answer to that is time, human nature, and the human method of learning.
Take an average human. Leave him unemployed for a week. A month. A year. Chances are, he isn't going to devote his time to the study of the genome. He is going to camp in front of his TV, watching shows until 3:00 in the morning. Without motivation (work to eat) humans will do nothing. (Other than the self-motivated... rarer than you might imagine)
And when it comes to self-motivation, where does that come from? Does that come from within? Or is it taught to us by our parents? A work-ethic taught from birth?
What happens when the parents in question don't do anything. When you grow up around people who don't do anything. Do you think that person would decide on his own to become an engineer, or a scientist? Why would he even graduate high-school? What need is there for anything beyond basic reading skills?
Certainly, there would be rare individuals with the drive to become true scientists and engineers. Those who are truly entralled by what they do and enjoy it. However, the vast majority of people don't like what they do. They do it because they have to in order to eat (shelter, etc.).
Therefore, I submit, that a place without outside motivation, would, in the end, result in as drab a future as is presented in your first statement.
Labor Union: "If you don't stop with this whole workforce replacement thing, we'll strike!" Company: "... All right... you're all replaced by robots then." Labor Union: "D'oh"
Personally, I prefered taking my designated Sniper and flying him onto the roof of the ship. Then I'd wander around with all the others while killing all the enemies from the top of the ship.
(Beat Xcom II in superhuman)
And just to keep this -slightly- on topic...
The gauss weapons suck compared to the laser weapons of the original.
"...13.7 billion years old, plus or minus 200 million years. I would say she doesn't look a day over 8 million years old....and then change the subject."
Let's put this in context:
13.7 Billion is 1712.5 times 8 million. So if we were to use the same formula on a 50 year old woman...
"My dear, you don't look a day over.029197 years old!"
Or perhaps:
"My dear, you don't look an hour over 11 days old!"
We recieved word that the San Francisans had been harboring terrorist cells. When we came to investigate, they opened fire upon us. The following was the result.
I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one that got that out of the article.
Oh the poor children, they spend all this time around computers that have so-and-so toxic chemical, working 9 hour days!
I was feeling bad for them (As the article was shooting for) when I suddenly realized: Hey... I spend almost every waking hour next to computers. Are those toxic chemicals in my computer as well? (I also tend to have a bunch of old computer stuff lying around... including several broken monitors)
I'd finish this post... but I've been feeling so tired lately...
*Slumps over side of chair, yet another victim of the chemical cocktail that is computing*
I have the explanation then. Ever since whales have become a protected species they have been multiplying in record numbers! As a result, the plankton have suffered. The whales are a danger to us all! Destroy all whales!
Dropping a bomb at mach 7 would cause all sorts of problems.
First of all, aiming it. The computer didn't time it to the nanosecond? You missed the factory and hit the orphanage.
Secondly, having bombs strapped to the outside would screw up the aerodynamics of the plane horribly. Having a bomb door open while the plane is traveling at mach 7 would probably rip it apart.
Of course, you could just fly real low over the town and do damage via sonic-boom.
He also tried bribing the judge, but because he had just been turned on for the first time just a couple of hours ago he was penniless. The judge also wasn't "into" box-shaped flying-simulation robots.
The robot's self-estime was crushed by the incident and he was found sobbing in a corner later.
This explains those stupid commercials with the: "Can you hear me now? Good" guy. It turns out that he is just a robot looking for the perfect cellular transmission spot.
You accuse me of drawing to a conclusion out of ignorance, yet you fully support the idea that a creature once existed that -no one has ever found any evidence of- solely because the theory of evolution claims it should be there.
Science is the study of things that are occuring. It involves testing and observing. How can you call evolution science when no one has ever observed it? No one has ever tested it? The core of science is true; observe, record, test. The problem is when the field is squeezed into a certain viewpoint.
I believe that that starting with the Bible as a basis for science is as bad as starting with evolution as the basis. Either way, the results will be skewed. Personally, I believe that the results will back up the Biblical account, so science from a Biblical standpoint is unnecessary.
However, beginning research, any kind of research, with a built in bias will color the results.
"That's not the evolution story. Evolution is a theory in biology. You're talking about the Big Bang theory, in cosmology."
A valid point. However, almost always evolution is tied into several other theories. Survival of the fittest and the Big Bang theory are two of them. I started with the Big Bang to emphasize the utter "Randomness" of the event. You'll have to let me have a bit of literary license.
"Again, this is not really part of the theory of evolution. But you can be forgiven for that misstep, since you're at least somewhere between organic chemistry and biology here. You do realize that modern abiogenesis (life from non-life) theories speculate that the first "living" things were very simple self-replicating peptides, chains of maybe a dozen amino acids, and amino acids are known to form spontaneously under varied conditions?"
Once again, I do understand that this is not, precisely, the theory of evolution. However, it can be stated that this is the -basis- of the theory of evolution, or perhaps just the beginnings.
If I remember correctly, amino-acid chains cannot exist in the current atmosphere (I don't know that for sure). If that is the case, then at some point along the way the atmosphere changed, and at this moment life would have had to change with it. The chances of this happening are extroirdinary (Explosion in a print-shop extroirdinary: See Parent).
"No, Evolution states that a rat and a bat have a common ancestor, not that one turned into the other. And if you really believe that a creature with rudimentary wings would be ill-equipped to survive, I suppose you've never seen a flying squirrel or any species of gliding lizard."
Very well, let us assume that the gliding pre-bat was equipped to survive. Why isn't it still around? Why isn't there any fossil record of it? If they were a viable species why didn't they continue to live? And if they didn't continue to live, how did they live for long enough to mutate into something else?
"Judging by your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, I think Jesus might be telling you something about a plank and a splinter right about now"
I am aware of my faults. I use information I've gathered second- and third-hand, just like you. I've even forgotten most of it. However, if you'll read the original parent, you have to admit that he wasn't exactly the best representative for the evolution viewpoint. I was merely pointing out some of his more obvious fallacies, just as you pointed out mine (Thanks by the way).
To accept anything without question is dangerous. Dissenting opinions clarify your own ideas.
No, I'm saying that the parent believed that cows were some sort of stock brand. No variation. One set of genes. When, in reality, cows have a -huge- variance in what they can end up like, depending on their parentage. I'm not arguing that occasional mutations do not occur. They do (Most of them are -very- bad for the critter and result in its death). I do not, however, agree that all life branched from a single point creating all known critters. The chances of a "Missing link" surviving are astronomical. Not only that, but the "Missing link" would have to survive another million years or so before it developed into the next species capable of survival. That would mean it would have to be more capable of survival than the previous creature. Wouldn't that result in the wiping out of the previous creature? If bats are better suited than rats... why are there still rats?
I'm not saying evolution isn't evolution because it isn't complicated enough. I'm saying evolution doesn't occur because we have no evidence of it. We look at a little thing like a mutation and use it to attempt to prove that man evolve from glop. It is too much of a leap of the imagination. Perhaps evolution is true. (I hold that it is not) However, we don't have enough information to prove it at this point (In fact, many things detract from the probability of evolution)
Slashdot Mirror
They couldn't come up with a color for "Modern day torture"... or, more accurately, it was already taken by the "Games" section.
Close... everyone will change their names to 'Z' until the RIAA finishes with the 'A's.
Then all of a sudden there will be a rash of Adams and Abrams and Aaa's.
-Mr Aaa.
"(I'm giving human nature some credit)"
First of all, you'll always lose betting on human nature to be beneficial.
Secondly, your first and third points are practically the same thing.
"How's that?" you might ask, "One is a vision of Utopia, a place of plenty. The other is a crumbled society where only robots are useful"
The answer to that is time, human nature, and the human method of learning.
Take an average human. Leave him unemployed for a week. A month. A year. Chances are, he isn't going to devote his time to the study of the genome. He is going to camp in front of his TV, watching shows until 3:00 in the morning. Without motivation (work to eat) humans will do nothing. (Other than the self-motivated... rarer than you might imagine)
And when it comes to self-motivation, where does that come from? Does that come from within? Or is it taught to us by our parents? A work-ethic taught from birth?
What happens when the parents in question don't do anything. When you grow up around people who don't do anything. Do you think that person would decide on his own to become an engineer, or a scientist? Why would he even graduate high-school? What need is there for anything beyond basic reading skills?
Certainly, there would be rare individuals with the drive to become true scientists and engineers. Those who are truly entralled by what they do and enjoy it. However, the vast majority of people don't like what they do. They do it because they have to in order to eat (shelter, etc.).
Therefore, I submit, that a place without outside motivation, would, in the end, result in as drab a future as is presented in your first statement.
Labor Union: "If you don't stop with this whole workforce replacement thing, we'll strike!"
Company: "... All right... you're all replaced by robots then."
Labor Union: "D'oh"
Could be worse. Upon starting to play Medieval: Total war, the Pope sent assassins after me for 20 turns straight.
I mean, geez! What kind of a Pope uses assassins?
Personally, I prefered taking my designated Sniper and flying him onto the roof of the ship. Then I'd wander around with all the others while killing all the enemies from the top of the ship.
(Beat Xcom II in superhuman)
And just to keep this -slightly- on topic...
The gauss weapons suck compared to the laser weapons of the original.
Did anyone other than me, after defeating DWIII all the way through decide to try it with only one character?
I made it to the pyramids, but all the paralysis people kept insta-killing me. Either way, it was one of my favorite games of all time.
"...13.7 billion years old, plus or minus 200 million years. I would say she doesn't look a day over 8 million years old....and then change the subject."
.029197 years old!"
Let's put this in context:
13.7 Billion is 1712.5 times 8 million. So if we were to use the same formula on a 50 year old woman...
"My dear, you don't look a day over
Or perhaps:
"My dear, you don't look an hour over 11 days old!"
We recieved word that the San Francisans had been harboring terrorist cells. When we came to investigate, they opened fire upon us. The following was the result.
"It's coming right at us" -Southpark.
Considering that this is Slashdot, I'm rather shocked that the parent isn't moderated up "Informative" or "Insightful"
You mean there's more than one!?
Who knew?
Ooops. I cured AIDS. Huh.
*In the background you hear 20,000 disgusted AIDS researchers throwing their clipboards to the ground in disgust*
Dumb luck. Gotta love it.
"I have enough money to last me the rest of my life, unless I buy something."
Or die within the next 25 seconds. 24... 23...
I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one that got that out of the article.
Oh the poor children, they spend all this time around computers that have so-and-so toxic chemical, working 9 hour days!
I was feeling bad for them (As the article was shooting for) when I suddenly realized: Hey... I spend almost every waking hour next to computers. Are those toxic chemicals in my computer as well? (I also tend to have a bunch of old computer stuff lying around... including several broken monitors)
I'd finish this post... but I've been feeling so tired lately...
*Slumps over side of chair, yet another victim of the chemical cocktail that is computing*
"I mean, when's the last time you saw a headline, "Child stabbed to death with XBox joystick"? "
Nah, they aren't pointy enough for that.
However, as a bludgeon, they are the best of their class. They have the weight for it.
Tie together three of them and you'd have a pretty decent flail.
"The games say Mature on them, mom - if your kids play them, maybe the fault lies in the mirror."
DAMN YOU MIRROR! You've corrupted my children!
Another feather over lead moment by:
"They also feed fish and whales..."
I have the explanation then. Ever since whales have become a protected species they have been multiplying in record numbers! As a result, the plankton have suffered. The whales are a danger to us all! Destroy all whales!
Nuke the whales!
Dropping a bomb at mach 7 would cause all sorts of problems.
First of all, aiming it. The computer didn't time it to the nanosecond? You missed the factory and hit the orphanage.
Secondly, having bombs strapped to the outside would screw up the aerodynamics of the plane horribly. Having a bomb door open while the plane is traveling at mach 7 would probably rip it apart.
Of course, you could just fly real low over the town and do damage via sonic-boom.
"That is, other then getting drunk on jet fuel and then lighting my own farts."
I'm standing by with a Darwin Award should you fail.
In you succede, I've also got venture capital.
Gambling on stupidity-
He also tried bribing the judge, but because he had just been turned on for the first time just a couple of hours ago he was penniless. The judge also wasn't "into" box-shaped flying-simulation robots.
The robot's self-estime was crushed by the incident and he was found sobbing in a corner later.
This explains those stupid commercials with the:
"Can you hear me now? Good" guy. It turns out that he is just a robot looking for the perfect cellular transmission spot.
Maybe, maybe, maybe...
You accuse me of drawing to a conclusion out of ignorance, yet you fully support the idea that a creature once existed that -no one has ever found any evidence of- solely because the theory of evolution claims it should be there.
Science is the study of things that are occuring. It involves testing and observing. How can you call evolution science when no one has ever observed it? No one has ever tested it? The core of science is true; observe, record, test. The problem is when the field is squeezed into a certain viewpoint.
I believe that that starting with the Bible as a basis for science is as bad as starting with evolution as the basis. Either way, the results will be skewed. Personally, I believe that the results will back up the Biblical account, so science from a Biblical standpoint is unnecessary.
However, beginning research, any kind of research, with a built in bias will color the results.
"That's not the evolution story. Evolution is a theory in biology. You're talking about the Big Bang theory, in cosmology."
A valid point. However, almost always evolution is tied into several other theories. Survival of the fittest and the Big Bang theory are two of them. I started with the Big Bang to emphasize the utter "Randomness" of the event. You'll have to let me have a bit of literary license.
"Again, this is not really part of the theory of evolution. But you can be forgiven for that misstep, since you're at least somewhere between organic chemistry and biology here. You do realize that modern abiogenesis (life from non-life) theories speculate that the first "living" things were very simple self-replicating peptides, chains of maybe a dozen amino acids, and amino acids are known to form spontaneously under varied conditions?"
Once again, I do understand that this is not, precisely, the theory of evolution. However, it can be stated that this is the -basis- of the theory of evolution, or perhaps just the beginnings.
If I remember correctly, amino-acid chains cannot exist in the current atmosphere (I don't know that for sure). If that is the case, then at some point along the way the atmosphere changed, and at this moment life would have had to change with it. The chances of this happening are extroirdinary (Explosion in a print-shop extroirdinary: See Parent).
"No, Evolution states that a rat and a bat have a common ancestor, not that one turned into the other. And if you really believe that a creature with rudimentary wings would be ill-equipped to survive, I suppose you've never seen a flying squirrel or any species of gliding lizard."
Very well, let us assume that the gliding pre-bat was equipped to survive. Why isn't it still around? Why isn't there any fossil record of it? If they were a viable species why didn't they continue to live? And if they didn't continue to live, how did they live for long enough to mutate into something else?
"Judging by your lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, I think Jesus might be telling you something about a plank and a splinter right about now"
I am aware of my faults. I use information I've gathered second- and third-hand, just like you. I've even forgotten most of it. However, if you'll read the original parent, you have to admit that he wasn't exactly the best representative for the evolution viewpoint. I was merely pointing out some of his more obvious fallacies, just as you pointed out mine (Thanks by the way).
To accept anything without question is dangerous. Dissenting opinions clarify your own ideas.
Alright, but I'm patenting oxygen itself.
Everytime you use my product in -your- product you own me royalties.
I enjoy being at the top of a pyramid scam.
No, I'm saying that the parent believed that cows were some sort of stock brand. No variation. One set of genes. When, in reality, cows have a -huge- variance in what they can end up like, depending on their parentage. I'm not arguing that occasional mutations do not occur. They do (Most of them are -very- bad for the critter and result in its death). I do not, however, agree that all life branched from a single point creating all known critters. The chances of a "Missing link" surviving are astronomical. Not only that, but the "Missing link" would have to survive another million years or so before it developed into the next species capable of survival. That would mean it would have to be more capable of survival than the previous creature. Wouldn't that result in the wiping out of the previous creature? If bats are better suited than rats... why are there still rats?
I'm not saying evolution isn't evolution because it isn't complicated enough. I'm saying evolution doesn't occur because we have no evidence of it. We look at a little thing like a mutation and use it to attempt to prove that man evolve from glop. It is too much of a leap of the imagination. Perhaps evolution is true. (I hold that it is not) However, we don't have enough information to prove it at this point (In fact, many things detract from the probability of evolution)