Humans aren't capable of long distance running 'in the wild' so to speak. In the context of Savannah marathons, we'd be dehydrated severely after a few miles. We have great cooling but it comes at a huge cost, it uses a lot of sweat up. If you run 5 miles in the blazing hot African sun without stopping to drink and there's no water at your destination, you're finished. Most mammals which don't use heavy sweating will have to stop in the shade a often to cool down when running distances but won't be as much at risk of dehydration.
We're designed for running in hot weather but not distance running.
Do you have any evidence at all for your beliefs, or are you just being obstinate? Because you might have a problem running 5 miles in the desert, humans are physically incapable of it?
The abstract of this scientific paper says that "The Tarahumara Indians of Northwestern Mexico have long been famous as endurance runners. These capabilities are best displayed in the traditional Tarahumara sport of kick-ball racing. Participants in such races may cover up to 100 miles in 24 hours and races lasting 48 hours are not uncommon."
There's been some hubbub the past several days about these Tarahumara Indians, but this is well-known in anthropological circles ( the "science of man"), and its not controversial. Do a little googling, it's very interesting.
You're sort of looking at the surface, and missing the deeper meaning. They've decided they need a little covering to keep thorns and perhaps glass from slashing their feet, not state-of-the-art space as foam cushioning the blows of their footfalls. Compared to the latest from Nike, they are virtually barefoot. A thin strip of leather is nothing more than an extra layer of skin.
That said, I'm extremely disappointed by this, I am disappointed that he can't find a single cabinet member who knows to pay their taxes, and I am even more disappointed in these Democrats who are committing tax evasion.
I'm happy we found out about it. I'm thinking it was commonplace during the Bush administration, probably earlier; we just never found out about it. Witness the fact that *all* of these nominees did it; that meant that there was a culture of corruption in DC and everyone knew they would get away with it. Obama broke this cycle.
I think that the human organism basis some of its healing on its perception of its role in society. We are a social creature. Every culture has some kind of 'theory of medicine' -- that disease has a cause, which can be treated by certain practices, procedures, and bitter plant concoction ( the taste of 'bitter' is the chemical recognition of alkaloids, or drug compounds, in a plant ).
If we are receiving 'treatment', or attention from the community when we are known to be sick, then our body's healing response will amp up.
Likewise, people can die basically 'on command' in certain circumstances, when a doctor or sorcerer pronounces them dead. In some tribe somewhere, if a shaman does a certain ritual called a 'bone-pointing', the person who gets cursed will sicken and die in about three days -- shorter than you would die from thirst or hunger. Likewise, back in the 80s when AIDS was first on the scene, people would sometimes die within days of a diagnosis. Doctors didn't find any physical cause; they just kind of willed themself to death, probably because of the severe social stigma and lack of hope that an AIDS diagnosis meant at that point.
So I think placebo medicine will be a big insight into understanding human health in the future.
Because a hate crime is not just a crime against the victim. It's intended to affect the class of poeple that the victim belongs to.
When the Klan burns a cross on a black family's lawn, or a gang beats up an apparently gay man on the street, they are not just tyring to harm their victims. They are threatening and intimidating all black homeowners in that area, or gay people going about their daily lives.
It's terrorism, plain and simple, against a class of people. The victim is just an example. That's why it's a different crime than plan or murder, or assault, or whatever.
I do subscribe to the notion that mathematics can ultimately explain the natural world, but it seems to me that we use whatever the latest math it is we understand to explain the universe. Like back in the day, they thought that the elemental building blocks of the universe were platonic solid. How much math did they have beyond platonic solids? How many different mathematical ideas could they have had, anyway? Now we've had fractals for some 40 or 50 years, and this can explain something.
Is all math going to be found to be expressed somewhere in the universe sooner or later? Is there one kind of math that explains the basis?
I kind of doubt it, because we can't even get silicon to do the simple things that insects or shrimp do, like foraging or finding a mate. If we haven't achieved a critical mass for walking or navigation, what evidence have to suspect that we could do something that we consider a quintessential human quality?
Well, I think there's several reasons that you would resell a commercial app over an open source app. If you're re-selling a commercial app, the developer has an incentive to provide updates and upgrades -- they need to keep a money flow. If you re-sell an open source app, what you do you if the bugfixes and upgrades stop? Become a software development house yourself? That's an okay idea for the home hobbyist, but not necessarily for the reseller business that only employs service techs. If the open source developers decide to stop developing, or the company that is paying the lone developer stops, development of the product might stop. ( Would you buy a Nissan if there was a chance that Nissan just decided to throw in the towel at any moment? ) Then you have to sell your clients on a migration to a whole other platform.
There are only a few open-source projects that have the long-term momentum of re-sold commercial apps.
In short: I'd rather deal with 2 or 3 independent vendors who know their shit (and know it well), than with 1 vendor who would - even when told differently - kept looking from the wrong POV.
You really think you're gonna get hooked up with three 'knowledgeable' vendors who know their shit and are willing to go to bat for each other, or are you more likely to get the same level of crappy support from 3 or 4, with hot potato tossing added into the mix?
What is meaning? Seriously? I hear a lot about people fretting that life doesn't have meaning if there isn't a God, but what really would we be missing out on? What does it mean to mean?
Yeah, but do you really think the end users of any certified open-source medical software ( i.e. Doctors, nurses, hospital staff ) are going to be messing with *any* source code, at all?
I think the more likely scenario is that certain versions or releases of any FOSS software would be certified. A health care organization is only going to be running binaries. If there's a concern about a bad actor within the health-care organization re-compiling FOSS code to run renegade binaries, I'll bet that person has enough technical savvy to get around HIPAA laws with much less effort -- screenshots, for example.
He's appointing people *SO* corrupt they can't even hide it until two years into their term
Yeah right. All these governors, etc that he's appointing are *so* corrupt, and nobody finds out about it until they're appointed to the Obama cabinet. These people don't come out of nowhere into the Obama cabinet.
If you really want to see a cheerleading media, look back at the past 8 years. Now the media is actually doing their job, investigating, and asking tough questions of people who do get appointed.
No, it doesn't. But, the GP's point is correct: if this had been a member of Bush's administration, this article would already have 500 comments of wailing about how it was Bush's fault, Cheney's fault, and the fault of neo-cons, the Illuminati, FBI, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, etc....
And, he would flutter gently into his new position, his apparent taint of criminality not having harmed his career in the slightest. Under Obama, he steps down. Can you say "Change"? I knew you could!:)
Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?
Did the previous president give any evidence of indication that he was a fluke ala JFK ( going against the interests of his class), or was he like JFK solely in the fact that, like JFK, he was born into a wealthy and politically powerful East Coast family?
Are slashdotters really this simple minded? "This guy seems to think both JFK and Obama don't necessarily represent the interests of the wealthy. I wonder if he would extend the same courtesy to Bush?" Well, can you name a few things Bush did that were more in the interests of the common person, rather than the wealthy?
Just like not paying taxes is bad when Republicans do it and is reason to not get confirmed to a Cabinet post, but when a Democrat does it, "No big deal".
I seem to recall that when an Obama cabinet nominee has a tax problem, they have to step down. However, in the past decade or so, when, say, DOJ attorneys are illegally fired, or gay male prostitutes are brought into the whitehouse as fake reporters, the media ignores it, and anyone who brings up the subject is said to have "Bush Derrangement Syndrome." Kinda like in the Soviet Union where those who didn't believe in communism were labeled as mentally ill and sent to Siberia...
I don't know, I think I could see how this might work for memorizing details ( i.e. "What's the syntax for x() function? In version 4.3? ) But I find that, the more I learn, the more structures I have in my personal cosmology. I believe there is a difference between details of knowledge and structures of knowledge. I think details probably compete for headspace, but once I have an insight or revelation about the structure of the world I live in, I don't think I forget that information -- just my internal map gets updated.
My personal cosmology is like the organizational structure that holds all the details I've picked up over the years. When I get a better structure, I'm able to hold and recall more details, because the whole system is better organized.
Quite the contrary - given the Egyptian's habits there is every reason to believe there would be pictures or drawings or some other account of the trade and consumption of the items. If they were used often enough for chemical traces to show up in the mummies, there's every reason to believe they would have been included in their grave goods.
Show me some hieroglyphics of some common, everyday plants that Egyptians grew and ate, on a daily basis. Show the distinguishing features in the hieroglyphs that allow to you botanically identify the plants ( we likely aren't going to identify coca or tobacco by any name Egyptians may have given it. )
Or to put it bluntly, for chemical traces to be present with no other evidence, and given the proclivity of the Egyptians to record and track their daily doings, and given the proclivity of the Egyptians to put things used in daily life into their tombs... the absence of things with regards to New World plants is very, very suspicious.
Show me some hieroglyphics of Egyptians going to the bathroom or having sex. If there aren't any, I think it's highly suspicious that they engaged in either activity.
I.E. remains of plants in the tombs, records of their growth, examples in tomb or temple paintings, surviving examples, etc. etc.)
If they got hold of coca and/or tobacco as trade items ( i.e. bundled, dried leaves ), there's no reason to think they would have grown them or drawn pictures of them. I'm sure you've encountered a number of tobacco products in your life. Do you know what a tobacco plant looks like? Most people don't. Images of plants tend to be somewhat ambiguous, anyway.
Regardless of the veracity of the quote, it does say that tobacco remnants were found int he abdominal cavity of a mummy.
Anywho, the typical archaeological evidence for psychoactive plants are residues in pots -- which is certainly not a manner in which coca or tobacco is consumed today. You can find evidence of ayahuasca dating back thousands of years, because it's brewed in clay pots. However, you don't find much evidence of coca dating back thousands of years, because it's just consumed as a dried leaf. Leaves don't do a good job of hanging around for thousands of years. You look for pouches in graves or spit piles, if you're lucky.
IANAL, but I think in the US system, you are acquitted of a crime, regardless of the evidence. So, say you have some evidence that a a guy stole your VCR. It goes to trial, evidence is presented, and the guy is found not guilty. He cannot be re-tried for that crime, regardless of what future evidence of him doing the VCR theft you might find. However, if you find evidence that he stole your DVD player in that same trip, that is a separate crime, and he can be charged for that.
Ok. With a population numbering in the billions, do you think it might be possible that the rice paddies surrounding the villages aren't big enough to feed all the local villagers anymore?
There's a big difference between "the truth" and "The Truth." It's not a good idea to get them mixed up.
That's not a solution. The people who are capable of seeing the difference aren't the mass murderers. You and I may be able to handle these ideas, but it seems as if humanity on the whole is not. Evil megalomaniacs such as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin regularly capitalize on this idea of "the truth" and then hell on earth is unleashed.
I'm perfectly happy of getting rid of the idea of One True Truth, to prevent the slaughter of innocents.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans aren't capable of long distance running 'in the wild' so to speak. In the context of Savannah marathons, we'd be dehydrated severely after a few miles. We have great cooling but it comes at a huge cost, it uses a lot of sweat up. If you run 5 miles in the blazing hot African sun without stopping to drink and there's no water at your destination, you're finished. Most mammals which don't use heavy sweating will have to stop in the shade a often to cool down when running distances but won't be as much at risk of dehydration.
We're designed for running in hot weather but not distance running.
Do you have any evidence at all for your beliefs, or are you just being obstinate? Because you might have a problem running 5 miles in the desert, humans are physically incapable of it?
The abstract of this scientific paper says that "The Tarahumara Indians of Northwestern Mexico have long been famous as endurance runners. These capabilities are best displayed in the traditional Tarahumara sport of kick-ball racing. Participants in such races may cover up to 100 miles in 24 hours and races lasting 48 hours are not uncommon."
There's been some hubbub the past several days about these Tarahumara Indians, but this is well-known in anthropological circles ( the "science of man"), and its not controversial. Do a little googling, it's very interesting.
Here's another referenced research paper that provides evidence for long-distance running, also in cold weather places like Greenland.
You're sort of looking at the surface, and missing the deeper meaning. They've decided they need a little covering to keep thorns and perhaps glass from slashing their feet, not state-of-the-art space as foam cushioning the blows of their footfalls. Compared to the latest from Nike, they are virtually barefoot. A thin strip of leather is nothing more than an extra layer of skin.
That said, I'm extremely disappointed by this, I am disappointed that he can't find a single cabinet member who knows to pay their taxes, and I am even more disappointed in these Democrats who are committing tax evasion.
I'm happy we found out about it. I'm thinking it was commonplace during the Bush administration, probably earlier; we just never found out about it. Witness the fact that *all* of these nominees did it; that meant that there was a culture of corruption in DC and everyone knew they would get away with it. Obama broke this cycle.
I think that the human organism basis some of its healing on its perception of its role in society. We are a social creature. Every culture has some kind of 'theory of medicine' -- that disease has a cause, which can be treated by certain practices, procedures, and bitter plant concoction ( the taste of 'bitter' is the chemical recognition of alkaloids, or drug compounds, in a plant ).
If we are receiving 'treatment', or attention from the community when we are known to be sick, then our body's healing response will amp up.
Likewise, people can die basically 'on command' in certain circumstances, when a doctor or sorcerer pronounces them dead. In some tribe somewhere, if a shaman does a certain ritual called a 'bone-pointing', the person who gets cursed will sicken and die in about three days -- shorter than you would die from thirst or hunger. Likewise, back in the 80s when AIDS was first on the scene, people would sometimes die within days of a diagnosis. Doctors didn't find any physical cause; they just kind of willed themself to death, probably because of the severe social stigma and lack of hope that an AIDS diagnosis meant at that point.
So I think placebo medicine will be a big insight into understanding human health in the future.
Executing the rulers? That's not exactly what happened here, but it is what happened in France some 230 years ago.
Because a hate crime is not just a crime against the victim. It's intended to affect the class of poeple that the victim belongs to.
When the Klan burns a cross on a black family's lawn, or a gang beats up an apparently gay man on the street, they are not just tyring to harm their victims. They are threatening and intimidating all black homeowners in that area, or gay people going about their daily lives.
It's terrorism, plain and simple, against a class of people. The victim is just an example. That's why it's a different crime than plan or murder, or assault, or whatever.
I do subscribe to the notion that mathematics can ultimately explain the natural world, but it seems to me that we use whatever the latest math it is we understand to explain the universe. Like back in the day, they thought that the elemental building blocks of the universe were platonic solid. How much math did they have beyond platonic solids? How many different mathematical ideas could they have had, anyway? Now we've had fractals for some 40 or 50 years, and this can explain something.
Is all math going to be found to be expressed somewhere in the universe sooner or later? Is there one kind of math that explains the basis?
Try smoking some salvia divinorum, you'll see some fractal space-time!
I kind of doubt it, because we can't even get silicon to do the simple things that insects or shrimp do, like foraging or finding a mate. If we haven't achieved a critical mass for walking or navigation, what evidence have to suspect that we could do something that we consider a quintessential human quality?
Well, I think there's several reasons that you would resell a commercial app over an open source app. If you're re-selling a commercial app, the developer has an incentive to provide updates and upgrades -- they need to keep a money flow.
If you re-sell an open source app, what you do you if the bugfixes and upgrades stop? Become a software development house yourself? That's an okay idea for the home hobbyist, but not necessarily for the reseller business that only employs service techs. If the open source developers decide to stop developing, or the company that is paying the lone developer stops, development of the product might stop. ( Would you buy a Nissan if there was a chance that Nissan just decided to throw in the towel at any moment? ) Then you have to sell your clients on a migration to a whole other platform.
There are only a few open-source projects that have the long-term momentum of re-sold commercial apps.
In short: I'd rather deal with 2 or 3 independent vendors who know their shit (and know it well), than with 1 vendor who would - even when told differently - kept looking from the wrong POV.
You really think you're gonna get hooked up with three 'knowledgeable' vendors who know their shit and are willing to go to bat for each other, or are you more likely to get the same level of crappy support from 3 or 4, with hot potato tossing added into the mix?
at 4:20 every night 1 of the servers in a cluster of 4 went down.
I think I found your problem. You might do a 'random' drug test of the server room.
What is meaning? Seriously? I hear a lot about people fretting that life doesn't have meaning if there isn't a God, but what really would we be missing out on? What does it mean to mean?
Yeah, but do you really think the end users of any certified open-source medical software ( i.e. Doctors, nurses, hospital staff ) are going to be messing with *any* source code, at all?
I think the more likely scenario is that certain versions or releases of any FOSS software would be certified. A health care organization is only going to be running binaries. If there's a concern about a bad actor within the health-care organization re-compiling FOSS code to run renegade binaries, I'll bet that person has enough technical savvy to get around HIPAA laws with much less effort -- screenshots, for example.
He's appointing people *SO* corrupt they can't even hide it until two years into their term
Yeah right. All these governors, etc that he's appointing are *so* corrupt, and nobody finds out about it until they're appointed to the Obama cabinet. These people don't come out of nowhere into the Obama cabinet.
If you really want to see a cheerleading media, look back at the past 8 years. Now the media is actually doing their job, investigating, and asking tough questions of people who do get appointed.
No, it doesn't. But, the GP's point is correct: if this had been a member of Bush's administration, this article would already have 500 comments of wailing about how it was Bush's fault, Cheney's fault, and the fault of neo-cons, the Illuminati, FBI, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, etc....
And, he would flutter gently into his new position, his apparent taint of criminality not having harmed his career in the slightest. Under Obama, he steps down. Can you say "Change"? I knew you could! :)
Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?
Did the previous president give any evidence of indication that he was a fluke ala JFK ( going against the interests of his class), or was he like JFK solely in the fact that, like JFK, he was born into a wealthy and politically powerful East Coast family?
Are slashdotters really this simple minded? "This guy seems to think both JFK and Obama don't necessarily represent the interests of the wealthy. I wonder if he would extend the same courtesy to Bush?" Well, can you name a few things Bush did that were more in the interests of the common person, rather than the wealthy?
Just like not paying taxes is bad when Republicans do it and is reason to not get confirmed to a Cabinet post, but when a Democrat does it, "No big deal".
I seem to recall that when an Obama cabinet nominee has a tax problem, they have to step down. However, in the past decade or so, when, say, DOJ attorneys are illegally fired, or gay male prostitutes are brought into the whitehouse as fake reporters, the media ignores it, and anyone who brings up the subject is said to have "Bush Derrangement Syndrome." Kinda like in the Soviet Union where those who didn't believe in communism were labeled as mentally ill and sent to Siberia...
I don't know, I think I could see how this might work for memorizing details ( i.e. "What's the syntax for x() function? In version 4.3? ) But I find that, the more I learn, the more structures I have in my personal cosmology. I believe there is a difference between details of knowledge and structures of knowledge. I think details probably compete for headspace, but once I have an insight or revelation about the structure of the world I live in, I don't think I forget that information -- just my internal map gets updated.
My personal cosmology is like the organizational structure that holds all the details I've picked up over the years. When I get a better structure, I'm able to hold and recall more details, because the whole system is better organized.
Quite the contrary - given the Egyptian's habits there is every reason to believe there would be pictures or drawings or some other account of the trade and consumption of the items. If they were used often enough for chemical traces to show up in the mummies, there's every reason to believe they would have been included in their grave goods.
Show me some hieroglyphics of some common, everyday plants that Egyptians grew and ate, on a daily basis. Show the distinguishing features in the hieroglyphs that allow to you botanically identify the plants ( we likely aren't going to identify coca or tobacco by any name Egyptians may have given it. )
Or to put it bluntly, for chemical traces to be present with no other evidence, and given the proclivity of the Egyptians to record and track their daily doings, and given the proclivity of the Egyptians to put things used in daily life into their tombs... the absence of things with regards to New World plants is very, very suspicious.
Show me some hieroglyphics of Egyptians going to the bathroom or having sex. If there aren't any, I think it's highly suspicious that they engaged in either activity.
I.E. remains of plants in the tombs, records of their growth, examples in tomb or temple paintings, surviving examples, etc. etc.)
If they got hold of coca and/or tobacco as trade items ( i.e. bundled, dried leaves ), there's no reason to think they would have grown them or drawn pictures of them. I'm sure you've encountered a number of tobacco products in your life. Do you know what a tobacco plant looks like? Most people don't. Images of plants tend to be somewhat ambiguous, anyway.
Regardless of the veracity of the quote, it does say that tobacco remnants were found int he abdominal cavity of a mummy.
Anywho, the typical archaeological evidence for psychoactive plants are residues in pots -- which is certainly not a manner in which coca or tobacco is consumed today. You can find evidence of ayahuasca dating back thousands of years, because it's brewed in clay pots. However, you don't find much evidence of coca dating back thousands of years, because it's just consumed as a dried leaf. Leaves don't do a good job of hanging around for thousands of years. You look for pouches in graves or spit piles, if you're lucky.
IANAL, but I think in the US system, you are acquitted of a crime, regardless of the evidence. So, say you have some evidence that a a guy stole your VCR. It goes to trial, evidence is presented, and the guy is found not guilty. He cannot be re-tried for that crime, regardless of what future evidence of him doing the VCR theft you might find. However, if you find evidence that he stole your DVD player in that same trip, that is a separate crime, and he can be charged for that.
Ok. With a population numbering in the billions, do you think it might be possible that the rice paddies surrounding the villages aren't big enough to feed all the local villagers anymore?
There's a big difference between "the truth" and "The Truth." It's not a good idea to get them mixed up.
That's not a solution. The people who are capable of seeing the difference aren't the mass murderers. You and I may be able to handle these ideas, but it seems as if humanity on the whole is not. Evil megalomaniacs such as Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin regularly capitalize on this idea of "the truth" and then hell on earth is unleashed.
I'm perfectly happy of getting rid of the idea of One True Truth, to prevent the slaughter of innocents.
One of the scariest things to me is how many millions of people have been slaughtered by those who know "The Truth".