Some of you might remember the PC/XT and AT clones back on the day that had the flashy "TURBO" button on the front that would increase or even double your processor clock speed, and was marketed as something of an upgrade. The reality of it was that this switch actually cut your clock speed in half. Tons of old DOS programs used to just run as fast as the processor would let them, so older games would run at ridiculous speeds on these newer machines with their sweeet 16mhz processors or whatever. Manufacturers needed a way to slow the processor down to make the older programs usable, so they added the switch. Normal position had the clock speed set to half of maximum, or similar, while pressing that big TURBO button didn't really do anything except let the processors use it's full speed.
I know this is different, but it just sort of seems like the same type of bs.
OK, The republicans are trying to keep the democrats from further damaging the country...enough said? Actually, that's way more than enough said. You can stop talking now.
Using the word "Nipple" to describe the pointing stick device on these keyboards is crass and insensitive to our female readership. The proper descriptive term for this type of pointing device is "Clitoris".
Please try to be more progressive in the future.
Good Day.
The model M15 has the keypad detached as a separate unit. Really sweet in that you can get it out of the way and keep your mouse/trackball closer to your centerline. For me, M15 + Logitech Trackman Wheel = the perfect desktop environment.
One other cool thing about Unicomp is that they will repair the older IBM/Lexmark keyboards. This may not be interesting if you use a standard model M and can find a replacement but I have a Lexmark M15 split/tenting ergo keyboard that I LOVE and Unicomp was able to resuscitate the ole' girl a couple of years ago when I broke it. Mine has a birthdate of November 29 1995 and at that time cost over $300 (not sure of the exact price, Remedy bought it for me when I worked there in the '90s). Best. Keyboard. Ever.
It's not appropriate, and this is one of the things that bugs me the most when I have to work in Windows instead of my normal Debian environment. Having each program install it's own separate updater is bad enough in the first place, having pre-selected downloads of tools I don't want and didn't ask for is just plain wrong.
What are the reasons that MS doesn't open up Windows Update so that 3rd party suppliers can add hooks to update their own software? Wouldn't this allow me to setup preferences in Windows Update so that I could be notified and asked to approve any items that wanted to add themselves to my update queue? Sure would be nice not to have to worry about uninstalling the myriad of auto-updaters just to avoid giving large chunks of my system resources to Adobe, Apple, etc...
Absolutely agree, but I do think that Starbucks has served a purpose. I'll state up front that to my tastes it seems that Starbucks over-roasts their coffee, and it ends up being really nasty bitter. This is hidden by most Starbucks customers who seems to generally order Mochas and other super-sweet things, but if you ever drink their coffee or espresso straight up you'll see what I mean.
That being said, Starbucks has at least introduced the idea of better coffee to America at large. Think back to the pre-Starbucks days, and the sort of coffee that was generally available. Dunkin Donuts anyone? Winchells? Or god forbid, 7/11? Nowadays even though I pass up the Starbucks on every corner I only have to go a few minutes from my house to hit one of the decent locally-owned joints that have sprung up, or a few minutes more to get to Peet's (One of my favorites, local to Northern Cal originally). None of this was there before Starbucks.
So yeah, they make bad coffee IMO. Still an important company though...
I think you are definitely making a smart move looking for a diesel. Better torque, better mileage - the flex fuel options look like they have a very bright future, which is the icing on the cake. That's the route I would take if I was buying a pickup. I just read an article the other day (Fast Company mag) about a mechanic named Goodwin who is doing some cool things combining diesel/biodiesel with a hydrogen injection system that is getting ultra high mileage (approaching 100 MPG IIRC) in full-size cars and Hummers. He is currently doing a conversion for our Governator Schwartzenegger (sp?) on an older Jeep Wagoneer. Of course, now you have the problem of using TWO very hard to find fuels, but it is interesting anyway...
Good luck with the home renovation, by the way. You should have a lot of fun. My advice is to stock up on A) Tylenol, and B) friends that are handy with a hammer. Both will be really useful....:-)
So, I get your points. Obviously you are right that in the USA people can drive whatever they want, as long as it is legal. My position is simply that it is an illogical choice for many of the people that drive SUVs. Sure you can find people that are best served by an SUV. For every person in that category however, it is my experience that you will see 5 others that drive SUVs when another car would be much more logical. I understand completely that many people aren't driven by logic when they buy a car.
One question you had that I want to answer is about the difference between modern SUVs and minivans. There are many exceptions to this rule, but in general full-sized SUVs have a truck based chassis that is less aerodynamic and has much more weight. One of the biggest issues is with the amount of "unsprung" weight (wheels, tires, braking assembly, hubs, etc) that the typical SUV carries. An extra few pounds of weight here has a dramatic effect in many areas of performance, from economy, to acceleration, braking and handling. SUVs are particularly ill-suited to daily transport with their over-sized wheels and tires. With the exception of some of the mini SUVs (which in some cases like the Honda and Toyota models are VERY logical cars, similar to a mini-van) most SUVs also have much larger engines, using more gas, emitting more emissions, all to get the same or worse performance of a smaller more efficient engine in a more logical car. Compare the engine choices on a Ford Expulsion to a Honda Odyssey for example. The Ford has a 300HP V8 getting 14 / 19 MPG, while the Honda has a 244HP V6 that gets 17 / 25 MPG and is a ULEV-2 low emissions vehicle. The Honda costs less, is faster, handles better, etc. The main reason that a large percentage of people will choose the Ford over the Honda is simply because they feel that SUVs look cool.
You asked who makes wagons these days, there are a lot of smaller wagons, those generally only seat 5 people. Volvo makes a wagon that seats 7 with a 3rd row seat, I *think* that Ford might make a Taurus wagon still, but I am not sure. The Volvo is probably the best to compare with an SUV, it seats 7 and you can even get some Volvo wagons with AWD.
**SUVs serve a need; decry SUVs all you like, I'll simply point out that a hybrid or EV SUV is still get better milage than many non-hybrid cars(no, you're not allowed to compare them against sub-compacts), and definitly better than traditionally powered SUVs. SUV's do serve the needs of a VERY small percentage of the population. I am referring here to people with large families or real needs to carry huge amounts of cargo everyday, that live in places with unpaved roads.
The problem is, that leaves out the vast majority of SUV drivers, who are making a very illogical choice. Most SUV owners are soccer moms or suburban dads with 2 kids that would be much better served by a wagon, sedan or mini-van. Next time you're on the road take a look at the SUV's around you - you'll likely see that most of them have between 1 and 4 people in the car, and are not currently navigating the Rubicon trail.:-)
Perhaps you have noticed a trend during this time toward larger, heavier vehicles? Then there are all the electronic safety features available on modern cars like ABS, airbags, traction/stability control, tire pressure monitoring, lane departure warning, active roll bars, etc. So please tell me, what is it about the larger, heavier vehicles that makes them safer? Is it the increased braking distance? Perhaps the slower handling? Maybe the fact that the taller ones tip over easier? Or maybe you are just referring to the extra protection provided by 2 more tons of steel wrapped around you - in that case you realize of course that the extra steel might afford you a bit of extra protection, but only at the expense of increased damage to the family in the Honda that you just hit?
Let's also discuss the modern safety features that you have cited. The GP was comparing Department of Homeland Security anti-terrorist spending to govermental spending on improving auto safety. You responded by listing a number of safety improvements that have been brought about by market pressures and competition amongst automakers. These are wonderful improvements that have nothing to do governmental regulation and spending, IIRC. Seatbelts are an example of government-mandated safety equiptment, none of the items that you mention (possible exception of airbags in new cars??) are required by law.
One of the books that turned me on to scientific though was Madeline L'Engle's "A Wrinkle in time". I still think that it is a powerful read today. I have suggested it to my 13YO son, and will suggest it to the 7YO triplets when the time is right. This book is firmly in the world of SF, and takes a lot of liberties with it's scientific content, but for me at least it really brought home the possibilities of a scientific/intellectual life. This is the sort of book that deftly encourages scientific curiosity through the use of an incredibly engaging story.
FYI, for others that grew up with a fascination for this book Madeline L'Engle passed away at the age of 88 just 3 days ago, September 6th, 2007. I had no idea until I did a quick Google search just now to check on the spelling of her name. Made me sad to read about it, actually. She had a great talent.
First off, for highly entertaining lightweight science content it is hard to beat the Mythbusters. Yes, they can be a bit sloppy some times, and sometimes Adam's zeal overshadows his abilities, but still the show presents a lot of highly entertaining experiments that the average person does not have nearly the resources to attempt. This will be especially entertaining for your class since extremely large explosions and mass destruction are recurring themes. Kari will also likely draw the interest of the boys in your class as well.
Secondly, the "How it's Made" show has proven to be pretty cool. Not necessarily always hard-core scientific content, but a nuts-and-bolts look at how a variety of different objects are constructed. Everything from a basic multi-colored lapel pin (casting and shaping through painting) to one of those new office coffee machines that can brew everything from tea and drip coffee to a cappuccino.
Discovery channel has at least proven to be very thought provoking for my 13YO son, and my 7YO triplets. YMMV, but it's worth a try.
Bull. Outside the company, you can use something like PDF. Or simply enforce a policy that your documents must be saved in the earlier version of office.
I guess you never do anything collaboratively with your customers or suppliers, such as a Statement of Work where both parties need to add/edit line items? Or maybe a draft version of a document that you send to a partner for markup/feedback? If you did, you would immediately understand the limitations of PDF.
Interesting, I've never heard of companies letting their order be modified. We sure don't allow that; if there's a change needed, they need to tell us, and we will change it. Ok, fine then - use a different document example, such as the above mentioned SOW. Any document that might need edits from both parties. If you never see documents like this, congratulations, and keep using PDF. You will find that this is not the use case for the majority of people in the world, likely including others in your own organization.
Remember, there is also the problem that someday you will want to upgrade in order to use some nifty new feature in Word/Excel/Powerpoint and unless you have a really, really small company not everyone is going to be upgraded in the same nanosecond. Enjoy the problems that occur when the upgraded folks on Office 2007 are creating documents that are incompatible with the Office 2000 suite being used by the rest of the company. You may see that productivity loss as a cost of doing business, but in reality it is only a cost of doing business using a protected proprietaty document format.
Sorry Plague, but there is a known penalty for using proprietary document formats. It has just been a penalty most have been willing to endure, as MS Office was the closest thing we had to a standard - that isn't the case anymore.
There is no way to prevent it from happening, if you'standardize' on MS Office document formats.
Even if every company that you ever have to deal with in the history of your company's existance uses MS Office, you will still have a multitude of problems sharing documents between people that use Office 2007, Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000, and god forbid, even earlier versions. Don't believe me? Get a random sampling of Office 2007 documents and open them up on the equivalent tools in an Office 2003 or Office XP suite.
All it takes is for one customer to modify a sales order that you sent them in Word 2003 format, and save it in Word 2007 format before sending it back to you to cause you a load of grief. If you haven't experienced this with the MS formats, perhaps you have been in a position where you are only sharing documents with other folks internal to your company that are on the same version? Or perhaps the documents you use are simple enough thta the differences in formatting between versions was not evident?
The problem is real, as this is how MS has designed the formats - to produce false incentives to 'upgrade' to the latest version of Office.
Unfortunately, a lot more people seem to know about the extra leg room in exit rows these days, so it's gotten to the point now that arriving any less than an hour before departure means there's none left:(.
I feel for you there...
Being 6'3" myself (193 centimeters) tall, I have seen it get a lot more difficult to score an exit row seat over the past few years. The thing that irritates me a bit is when you are denied an exit row, and upon entering the plane you find that a lot of the exit row seats are occupied by people less than 5'8" (172 cm) in height. Last time this happened, one of the gentlemen in the exit row isle had legs that barely even reached the ground!
So, a public service announcement: Slashdotters - if you have the physical dimensions of an Oompa-Loompa, please do not take the exit row on a plane! You will make the day of all those tall geeks that otherwise might have had their knees in their faces the entire trip!:-)
Because you're not talking about innate fear. If fear of vacuum cleaners was innate, they'd all have it.
No, they wouldn't. An "innate fear" is simply a fear that you have at birth, that is not developed through learning and conditioning. The fact that not all of the kids have the same fears has nothing to do with whether the fears are innate for a particular child. My kids had other attributes that they inherited differently (eye color etc) why should they be born with identical fears? Perhaps you are thinking of a word other than 'innate'?
The data that I use to backup my point is simply the observation that given a (fairly) controlled set of circumstances the three children had different fears that appeared, and that some fears or predispositions to fears are present at birth. I don't claim that the hypothesis is fully tested, just that I have *some* data to back it up. I also understand and agree with a number of the points that you made in earlier posts. My statements were meant to further the discourse on the subject, but somehow I seem to have managed to say something that has got your ass all in a pucker. I am sorry for that, it wasn't my intention.
I disagree, and I think I have some pretty substantial data to back up my point.
I am the father of 7 year old triplets (turned 7 on 7/7/07, no less!) and I can say that the evidence that I have seen with my kids is that each of them does have certain innate fears. Realize that these children have only *minutely* small differences in individual experiences and external stimulus, as they have spent probably 98-99 percent of their time together, doing the same things.
Give this similarity of experience and stimulation, why is it that one of my children was DEATHLY afraid of the vacuum cleaner from birth to 2 years old, while the other two were not afraid of it in the least? Another of the triplets has been overly fearful of the water her entire life, while the other 2 are not. The third wouldn't until recently climb on any playground equipment over about 4-5 feet high, while the other two have always been fearless in this regard.
Because of our situation we have had the good fortune to meet a lot of other families with twins/triplets, and the story is apparently the same with all of these children. Given identical circumstances multiple-birth children will grow up with their own unique personalities and attitudes, and this certainly includes unique individual fears.
People are born with certain fears, or at least a predisposition to certain fears.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of you might remember the PC/XT and AT clones back on the day that had the flashy "TURBO" button on the front that would increase or even double your processor clock speed, and was marketed as something of an upgrade. The reality of it was that this switch actually cut your clock speed in half. Tons of old DOS programs used to just run as fast as the processor would let them, so older games would run at ridiculous speeds on these newer machines with their sweeet 16mhz processors or whatever. Manufacturers needed a way to slow the processor down to make the older programs usable, so they added the switch. Normal position had the clock speed set to half of maximum, or similar, while pressing that big TURBO button didn't really do anything except let the processors use it's full speed. I know this is different, but it just sort of seems like the same type of bs.
These are made by Panasonic, not Toshiba.
I probably should have mentioned that it lags behind the Windows version by a substantial amount, but hey - it does exist.
Skype is available for Linux, FYI.
Ad on test: $20
Being able to spell "precident": Priceless.
Yes, being able to spell "precedent" correctly would be priceless, wouldn't it?
Technically it uses WINE, so it isn't really a Linux version. That said, it works well for me on Kubuntu/64
PLEASE tell me that you aren't tracking the ejaculations that do not result in conception as the "dot releases"...
Using the word "Nipple" to describe the pointing stick device on these keyboards is crass and insensitive to our female readership. The proper descriptive term for this type of pointing device is "Clitoris". Please try to be more progressive in the future. Good Day.
The model M15 has the keypad detached as a separate unit. Really sweet in that you can get it out of the way and keep your mouse/trackball closer to your centerline. For me, M15 + Logitech Trackman Wheel = the perfect desktop environment.
One other cool thing about Unicomp is that they will repair the older IBM/Lexmark keyboards. This may not be interesting if you use a standard model M and can find a replacement but I have a Lexmark M15 split/tenting ergo keyboard that I LOVE and Unicomp was able to resuscitate the ole' girl a couple of years ago when I broke it. Mine has a birthdate of November 29 1995 and at that time cost over $300 (not sure of the exact price, Remedy bought it for me when I worked there in the '90s). Best. Keyboard. Ever.
What are the reasons that MS doesn't open up Windows Update so that 3rd party suppliers can add hooks to update their own software? Wouldn't this allow me to setup preferences in Windows Update so that I could be notified and asked to approve any items that wanted to add themselves to my update queue? Sure would be nice not to have to worry about uninstalling the myriad of auto-updaters just to avoid giving large chunks of my system resources to Adobe, Apple, etc...
Absolutely agree, but I do think that Starbucks has served a purpose. I'll state up front that to my tastes it seems that Starbucks over-roasts their coffee, and it ends up being really nasty bitter. This is hidden by most Starbucks customers who seems to generally order Mochas and other super-sweet things, but if you ever drink their coffee or espresso straight up you'll see what I mean.
That being said, Starbucks has at least introduced the idea of better coffee to America at large. Think back to the pre-Starbucks days, and the sort of coffee that was generally available. Dunkin Donuts anyone? Winchells? Or god forbid, 7/11? Nowadays even though I pass up the Starbucks on every corner I only have to go a few minutes from my house to hit one of the decent locally-owned joints that have sprung up, or a few minutes more to get to Peet's (One of my favorites, local to Northern Cal originally). None of this was there before Starbucks.
So yeah, they make bad coffee IMO. Still an important company though...
I think you are definitely making a smart move looking for a diesel. Better torque, better mileage - the flex fuel options look like they have a very bright future, which is the icing on the cake. That's the route I would take if I was buying a pickup. I just read an article the other day (Fast Company mag) about a mechanic named Goodwin who is doing some cool things combining diesel/biodiesel with a hydrogen injection system that is getting ultra high mileage (approaching 100 MPG IIRC) in full-size cars and Hummers. He is currently doing a conversion for our Governator Schwartzenegger (sp?) on an older Jeep Wagoneer. Of course, now you have the problem of using TWO very hard to find fuels, but it is interesting anyway...
:-)
Good luck with the home renovation, by the way. You should have a lot of fun. My advice is to stock up on A) Tylenol, and B) friends that are handy with a hammer. Both will be really useful....
So, I get your points. Obviously you are right that in the USA people can drive whatever they want, as long as it is legal. My position is simply that it is an illogical choice for many of the people that drive SUVs. Sure you can find people that are best served by an SUV. For every person in that category however, it is my experience that you will see 5 others that drive SUVs when another car would be much more logical. I understand completely that many people aren't driven by logic when they buy a car.
One question you had that I want to answer is about the difference between modern SUVs and minivans. There are many exceptions to this rule, but in general full-sized SUVs have a truck based chassis that is less aerodynamic and has much more weight. One of the biggest issues is with the amount of "unsprung" weight (wheels, tires, braking assembly, hubs, etc) that the typical SUV carries. An extra few pounds of weight here has a dramatic effect in many areas of performance, from economy, to acceleration, braking and handling. SUVs are particularly ill-suited to daily transport with their over-sized wheels and tires. With the exception of some of the mini SUVs (which in some cases like the Honda and Toyota models are VERY logical cars, similar to a mini-van) most SUVs also have much larger engines, using more gas, emitting more emissions, all to get the same or worse performance of a smaller more efficient engine in a more logical car. Compare the engine choices on a Ford Expulsion to a Honda Odyssey for example. The Ford has a 300HP V8 getting 14 / 19 MPG, while the Honda has a 244HP V6 that gets 17 / 25 MPG and is a ULEV-2 low emissions vehicle. The Honda costs less, is faster, handles better, etc. The main reason that a large percentage of people will choose the Ford over the Honda is simply because they feel that SUVs look cool.
You asked who makes wagons these days, there are a lot of smaller wagons, those generally only seat 5 people. Volvo makes a wagon that seats 7 with a 3rd row seat, I *think* that Ford might make a Taurus wagon still, but I am not sure. The Volvo is probably the best to compare with an SUV, it seats 7 and you can even get some Volvo wagons with AWD.
The problem is, that leaves out the vast majority of SUV drivers, who are making a very illogical choice. Most SUV owners are soccer moms or suburban dads with 2 kids that would be much better served by a wagon, sedan or mini-van. Next time you're on the road take a look at the SUV's around you - you'll likely see that most of them have between 1 and 4 people in the car, and are not currently navigating the Rubicon trail.
Let's also discuss the modern safety features that you have cited. The GP was comparing Department of Homeland Security anti-terrorist spending to govermental spending on improving auto safety. You responded by listing a number of safety improvements that have been brought about by market pressures and competition amongst automakers. These are wonderful improvements that have nothing to do governmental regulation and spending, IIRC. Seatbelts are an example of government-mandated safety equiptment, none of the items that you mention (possible exception of airbags in new cars??) are required by law.
FYI, for others that grew up with a fascination for this book Madeline L'Engle passed away at the age of 88 just 3 days ago, September 6th, 2007. I had no idea until I did a quick Google search just now to check on the spelling of her name. Made me sad to read about it, actually. She had a great talent.
First off, for highly entertaining lightweight science content it is hard to beat the Mythbusters. Yes, they can be a bit sloppy some times, and sometimes Adam's zeal overshadows his abilities, but still the show presents a lot of highly entertaining experiments that the average person does not have nearly the resources to attempt. This will be especially entertaining for your class since extremely large explosions and mass destruction are recurring themes. Kari will also likely draw the interest of the boys in your class as well.
Secondly, the "How it's Made" show has proven to be pretty cool. Not necessarily always hard-core scientific content, but a nuts-and-bolts look at how a variety of different objects are constructed. Everything from a basic multi-colored lapel pin (casting and shaping through painting) to one of those new office coffee machines that can brew everything from tea and drip coffee to a cappuccino.
Discovery channel has at least proven to be very thought provoking for my 13YO son, and my 7YO triplets. YMMV, but it's worth a try.
PS - Good luck, it's a noble effort!
I guess you never do anything collaboratively with your customers or suppliers, such as a Statement of Work where both parties need to add/edit line items? Or maybe a draft version of a document that you send to a partner for markup/feedback? If you did, you would immediately understand the limitations of PDF. Interesting, I've never heard of companies letting their order be modified. We sure don't allow that; if there's a change needed, they need to tell us, and we will change it.
Ok, fine then - use a different document example, such as the above mentioned SOW. Any document that might need edits from both parties. If you never see documents like this, congratulations, and keep using PDF. You will find that this is not the use case for the majority of people in the world, likely including others in your own organization.
Remember, there is also the problem that someday you will want to upgrade in order to use some nifty new feature in Word/Excel/Powerpoint and unless you have a really, really small company not everyone is going to be upgraded in the same nanosecond. Enjoy the problems that occur when the upgraded folks on Office 2007 are creating documents that are incompatible with the Office 2000 suite being used by the rest of the company. You may see that productivity loss as a cost of doing business, but in reality it is only a cost of doing business using a protected proprietaty document format.
Sorry Plague, but there is a known penalty for using proprietary document formats. It has just been a penalty most have been willing to endure, as MS Office was the closest thing we had to a standard - that isn't the case anymore.
Even if every company that you ever have to deal with in the history of your company's existance uses MS Office, you will still have a multitude of problems sharing documents between people that use Office 2007, Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000, and god forbid, even earlier versions. Don't believe me? Get a random sampling of Office 2007 documents and open them up on the equivalent tools in an Office 2003 or Office XP suite.
All it takes is for one customer to modify a sales order that you sent them in Word 2003 format, and save it in Word 2007 format before sending it back to you to cause you a load of grief. If you haven't experienced this with the MS formats, perhaps you have been in a position where you are only sharing documents with other folks internal to your company that are on the same version? Or perhaps the documents you use are simple enough thta the differences in formatting between versions was not evident?
The problem is real, as this is how MS has designed the formats - to produce false incentives to 'upgrade' to the latest version of Office.
Unfortunately, a lot more people seem to know about the extra leg room in exit rows these days, so it's gotten to the point now that arriving any less than an hour before departure means there's none left :(.
I feel for you there...
Being 6'3" myself (193 centimeters) tall, I have seen it get a lot more difficult to score an exit row seat over the past few years. The thing that irritates me a bit is when you are denied an exit row, and upon entering the plane you find that a lot of the exit row seats are occupied by people less than 5'8" (172 cm) in height. Last time this happened, one of the gentlemen in the exit row isle had legs that barely even reached the ground!
So, a public service announcement: Slashdotters - if you have the physical dimensions of an Oompa-Loompa, please do not take the exit row on a plane! You will make the day of all those tall geeks that otherwise might have had their knees in their faces the entire trip! :-)
No, they wouldn't. An "innate fear" is simply a fear that you have at birth, that is not developed through learning and conditioning. The fact that not all of the kids have the same fears has nothing to do with whether the fears are innate for a particular child. My kids had other attributes that they inherited differently (eye color etc) why should they be born with identical fears? Perhaps you are thinking of a word other than 'innate'?
The data that I use to backup my point is simply the observation that given a (fairly) controlled set of circumstances the three children had different fears that appeared, and that some fears or predispositions to fears are present at birth. I don't claim that the hypothesis is fully tested, just that I have *some* data to back it up. I also understand and agree with a number of the points that you made in earlier posts. My statements were meant to further the discourse on the subject, but somehow I seem to have managed to say something that has got your ass all in a pucker. I am sorry for that, it wasn't my intention.
I am the father of 7 year old triplets (turned 7 on 7/7/07, no less!) and I can say that the evidence that I have seen with my kids is that each of them does have certain innate fears. Realize that these children have only *minutely* small differences in individual experiences and external stimulus, as they have spent probably 98-99 percent of their time together, doing the same things.
Give this similarity of experience and stimulation, why is it that one of my children was DEATHLY afraid of the vacuum cleaner from birth to 2 years old, while the other two were not afraid of it in the least? Another of the triplets has been overly fearful of the water her entire life, while the other 2 are not. The third wouldn't until recently climb on any playground equipment over about 4-5 feet high, while the other two have always been fearless in this regard.
Because of our situation we have had the good fortune to meet a lot of other families with twins/triplets, and the story is apparently the same with all of these children. Given identical circumstances multiple-birth children will grow up with their own unique personalities and attitudes, and this certainly includes unique individual fears.
People are born with certain fears, or at least a predisposition to certain fears.
In that case...just sit down and wait for death. If you have a cameraphone, please snap some pics and upload them for our enjoyment.