I've been working my way through the stargate series for a while now and I have a theory on the replicators.
They appear to be a technology eradication system perhaps invented by some highly advanced space luddites. Please ignore any apparent contradictions in the preceding sentence.
Consider this; they 'feed' on technology, taking whatever tech they find and turning it into more replicator blocks.
The only time they come into conflict with organic beings is when the organics try to protect their technology from the replicators.
If the organics simply let the replicators convert all traces of tech and reverted to a feral lifestyle, the replicators would (probably) leave them alone; I doubt the replicators would be interested in stone tools or sharpened sticks. Mud huts would also probably be safe from them.
Perhaps their ultimate purpose is to force organic beings to give up technology and live a more 'natural' lifestyle.
Of course for the Asgard this isn't going to work out, but humans may be able to coexist with replicators...
This is indeed true when it comes to important matters. And the info in it changes as the geopolitical situation changes.
If you ever get a chance, take a diff between a pre-2001 edition and a post-2001 edition, especially the parts that deal with military manpower, particularly that of the USA.
Presumably its a culture where many people know about guns and know that, for example, a 'machine gun' is not a 'semi-automatic' and that someone pretending to speak knowledgably and who conflates these terms is full of shit.
"That's extremely clever, though even 10 years on from Windows 95 I still regularly install programs in a Programs directory rather than Program Files"
I do the same, except with a tools, net, media, hardware etc subdirectories.
One thing about using c:\Programs\ whenever you are given a choice is that you get to see the things you *don't* have a choice in that goes in c:\Program Files\ without even asking. Symantec shite seems to do this a *lot*, for example.
"Nice theory, except 'chased' means you leave location A and go to location B. Humans didn't do that: they stayed in location A and expanded to location B."
Or, alternatively, those that could left and those that couldn't stayed. Maybe they got chased away by the lucky sods leaving, like a lost puppy trying to follow you home...
(Personally, I think that the only reason that any human being lives in the tropics is because all the good spots were already taken so some people have to put up with hot, sticky, disease and parasite ridden home-ranges.)
I just checked and indeed the question was to do with 'belief' in the existance of life on other planets, not knowledge, not scientific theory.
That such a high proportion of Americans don't *believe* that there exists life elsewhere surely has some interesting implications regarding the rest of their belief structures, no?
I'd be more interested in a cross-cultural sample.
and how about actual democracy as opposed to representative?
Ie: being able to represent yourself instead of having to take a choice between the shit sandwich and a giant douche that the two main parties present to you as your only choices?
Party political democracy may as well not be democracy at all.
"I was looking at a list of wars that the U.S. has been involved in over the last 200+ years, and was surprised that the "war on terror" is the first war for U.S. freedom since the war of 1812."
Its been what? 20 major wars?
Lets face it America is a warlike nation, America is good at war, they get a lot of practice.
And its a good job they are good at war, they arn't good at much else. Can't make a decent TV set or a car worth a damn but they can bomb the hell out of other peoples countries!
Especially if that country is full of *brown* people. They love doing that, bombing brown people.
When was the last time the USA bombed white people? That was the Serbs. And before that the Germans.
Why? Because they were moving in on Americas action! World domination? Thats Americas f*cking job! Bombing Muslims? Thats Americas f*cking job!
"My guess is that in two years (or less?), your right to think freely will also be considered a danger as it might be linked to terrorism in some way (as of yet to be discovered)."
I thought the UK already had laws banning anything that 'may be useful to a terrorist'... like oh I don't know, all knowledge for example
You know, your list could apply to almost any nation state.
Lets see now;
"Human society can only be organized upon the basis of one or the other of the two principles of authority or of liberty. From these two principles are derived two political systems, equally broad and far reaching, though diametrically opposite in their effects, that of the one being the happiness, and of the other the misery of mankind."
Joseph Lane, 1887.
And I defy anyone to tell me that the governments of the USA or UK or the various 'corporate republics' are, today, based on liberty rather than authority.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlike the borg, if you have no technology they arn't interested in you.
The borg make use of biological components.
I havn't got to that episode yet (though have seen the end of season 8).
Still, I think *my* idea is way better.
I've been working my way through the stargate series for a while now and I have a theory on the replicators.
They appear to be a technology eradication system perhaps invented by some highly advanced space luddites. Please ignore any apparent contradictions in the preceding sentence.
Consider this; they 'feed' on technology, taking whatever tech they find and turning it into more replicator blocks.
The only time they come into conflict with organic beings is when the organics try to protect their technology from the replicators.
If the organics simply let the replicators convert all traces of tech and reverted to a feral lifestyle, the replicators would (probably) leave them alone; I doubt the replicators would be interested in stone tools or sharpened sticks. Mud huts would also probably be safe from them.
Perhaps their ultimate purpose is to force organic beings to give up technology and live a more 'natural' lifestyle.
Of course for the Asgard this isn't going to work out, but humans may be able to coexist with replicators...
"The CIA Factbook has little to say"
This is indeed true when it comes to important matters. And the info in it changes as the geopolitical situation changes.
If you ever get a chance, take a diff between a pre-2001 edition and a post-2001 edition, especially the parts that deal with military manpower, particularly that of the USA.
Otherwise thats one extremely expensive computer game.
Hardly even a strategy game. Hell, not even real time!
Maybe the graphics are decent though, they've obviously found someone willing to pay to watch other people play it.
Presumably its a culture where many people know about guns and know that, for example, a 'machine gun' is not a 'semi-automatic' and that someone pretending to speak knowledgably and who conflates these terms is full of shit.
"MP5 semi-automatic machine guns"
I particularly like that part.
Evidently the USA isn't as much of a gun culture as I'd thought if they could get away with such blatant bullcrap.
Shit, thats almost as many wars that the USA has started in the same time period...
Ouch troll alert, my karma is going to take a sizzling from that one!
"That's extremely clever, though even 10 years on from Windows 95 I still regularly install programs in a Programs directory rather than Program Files"
I do the same, except with a tools, net, media, hardware etc subdirectories.
One thing about using c:\Programs\ whenever you are given a choice is that you get to see the things you *don't* have a choice in that goes in c:\Program Files\ without even asking. Symantec shite seems to do this a *lot*, for example.
"Not climate driven. They were nomadic, not farmers."
So... you are saying that herdsmen are immune to the effects of climate change?
bizarre.
"Face it, unless you have any counterexamples, population growth drives new settlement. Climate change never has."
Counterexample?
Mongols and their various expansions into Europe and China.
"Ah, I'm living in a nice mudbrick house, but I'm drawn to the pioneers trying to establish a new village. I'm a magnetic puppy!"
No, more like, the weather is getting crappy, crops are failing.. you get the picture?
"Nice theory, except 'chased' means you leave location A and go to location B. Humans didn't do that: they stayed in location A and expanded to location B."
Or, alternatively, those that could left and those that couldn't stayed. Maybe they got chased away by the lucky sods leaving, like a lost puppy trying to follow you home...
(Personally, I think that the only reason that any human being lives in the tropics is because all the good spots were already taken so some people have to put up with hot, sticky, disease and parasite ridden home-ranges.)
'Just how many times do people have to see the "humans show up, large animals die out" pattern before you start seeing the connection?'
How about this for an alternative; humans are running around the globe being 'chased' by climate change, trying to find a nice place to live?
It could still be purely coincidental, maybe the climate changes that don't favor the megafauna are attractive to humans?
I just checked and indeed the question was to do with 'belief' in the existance of life on other planets, not knowledge, not scientific theory.
That such a high proportion of Americans don't *believe* that there exists life elsewhere surely has some interesting implications regarding the rest of their belief structures, no?
I'd be more interested in a cross-cultural sample.
There is a bit of a difference between saying that some particular form of being exists to saying that some generic kind of being exists.
I don't think I require any proof that there are, 'out there', some sort of living beings.
However, I'd require a gold tablet and some magical ruby glasses or some such to believe in a (monotheistic) deity.
I mean, seriously, why would anyone believe that the only planet in the universe that supports life is this one?
The only reason I can imagine is religiously encouraged ignorance and America has that by the bushel. Metric fuckton. Imperial assload.
Yeah yeah, troll, flamebait, whatever. Its true.
will Angelina Jolie be in it, starring as Lara Croft?
"And if it killed someone, they could just sell the titanium, and it would be OK, right?"
I don't know... how much titanium is there in a human body?
I did say 'IIRC' maybe I did not :)
and how about actual democracy as opposed to representative?
Ie: being able to represent yourself instead of having to take a choice between the shit sandwich and a giant douche that the two main parties present to you as your only choices?
Party political democracy may as well not be democracy at all.
"I was looking at a list of wars that the U.S. has been involved in over the last 200+ years, and was surprised that the "war on terror" is the first war for U.S. freedom since the war of 1812."
Its been what? 20 major wars?
Lets face it America is a warlike nation, America is good at war, they get a lot of practice.
And its a good job they are good at war, they arn't good at much else. Can't make a decent TV set or a car worth a damn but they can bomb the hell out of other peoples countries!
Especially if that country is full of *brown* people. They love doing that, bombing brown people.
When was the last time the USA bombed white people? That was the Serbs. And before that the Germans.
Why? Because they were moving in on Americas action! World domination? Thats Americas f*cking job! Bombing Muslims? Thats Americas f*cking job!
(apologies to Jello Biafra (IIRC)).
'But with this -- next person to use "terrorism" in a sentence arguing for stricter US IP laws needs a good slap in the face'
You *terrorist*!
"My guess is that in two years (or less?), your right to think freely will also be considered a danger as it might be linked to terrorism in some way (as of yet to be discovered)."
I thought the UK already had laws banning anything that 'may be useful to a terrorist'... like oh I don't know, all knowledge for example
You know, your list could apply to almost any nation state.
Lets see now;
"Human society can only be organized upon the basis of one or the other of the two principles of authority or of liberty. From these two principles are derived two political systems, equally broad and far reaching, though diametrically opposite in their effects, that of the one being the happiness, and of the other the misery of mankind."
Joseph Lane, 1887.
And I defy anyone to tell me that the governments of the USA or UK or the various 'corporate republics' are, today, based on liberty rather than authority.