Wow, and I thought our crazy "18-year-old-boy sleeps with 17-year-old-girl on the boy's 18th birthday and thus becomes registered sex offender for life" was nuts.
But in Canada, it is illegal to depict having sex with a 14 year old, but it is legal to actually go out and boink a 14 year old (assuming no relationship of trust or authority or prostitution/pornography, apparently). That is truly insane.
Thanks for the link. I don't know if that's the journal I read that discussed this hunting tactic, but it sounds similar. One of the things I distinctly remember is that the prey would suffer from heat exhaustion due to an inability to shed heat, and the abstract refers to this factor. It also points out that I am mistaken that humans are efficient runners. Apparently we are good endurance runners in spite of not being efficient.
Uhm...weight supported by skeleton is worse than weight supported by muscle, in fact that is one of the major causes of joint problems is people don't have a strong enough muscular structure to support their weight and instead are using the fallback of bone structure to support it. When your weight is supported by bone structure your joints tend to grind together and wear down much faster, when its supported by muscle your bones 'float' and cause considerably less strain on your joints.
But it is more energy efficient to support weight with bone. If you stand upright, you are supporting a substantial portion of your weight with your skeleton. Consider that an active human hunter would have had a strong musculature to complement skeletal support, and that they weren't necessarily designed to be able to run for forty or sixty years.
I was going to question your assertion about running down prey because we really aren't all that efficient at running, however, I did some digging and found that while we really aren't well designed for running in the grand scheme of things, we are well designed for a running biped, and are more efficient than our prey which is really what matters when it comes down to it. So I am only challenging your assertion that we are better than most animals, because I find that highly suspect since as far as predators go we really aren't all that efficient.
I would be interested in where you found the comparison. As I mentioned in another post, this is from an offline journal I read several years ago, so I may be mistaking "efficient runners" for simply "good endurance runners" by assuming they are the same thing. The only predator I was aware of really approaching us in this regard is the wolf, who has a jogging gait that allows for long distance travel. But it seems my information is incomplete.
That having been said, the running things down applies more to the not so large animals, however we most certainly are designed to take down the big animals from the tool using and communal aspect of human behavior. It is far more efficient for a small group of tool using hunters to kill a large animal and feed an even larger number of tribe members.
Someone else linked this abstract which refers to Bushmen chasing down zebras, definitely not a small animal (especially compared to bushmen:P) It also says we aren't particularly efficient, but are good distance runners, so there you go.
But your point is well taken. Certainly even without weapons humans acting in concert would be able to take down prey that a single human would not. I think of tactics like the Buffalo Jump -- which, granted, was used by native americans who had long ago developed tools and weapons.
In fact, hunting is FAR more efficient than going to the store in terms of energy expenditure and return.
Problem with your "theory" is that you've neglected to recognize that most, if not all, four-legged animals can run significantly faster than any human (e.g., three to five times faster). In other words, long before you're starting to get tired, you've completely lost sight of the animal and it has had time to stop and have lunch.
Yes, most animals run faster, they also get tired much faster. In the plains of Africa where our ancestors first plied their trade, animals wouldn't run "out of sight" because "out of sight" was a very long way away. Ever watched a nature program, seen a jaguar chase down a herd of gazelle? If you have, you'd see that if the jaguar fails to catch the gazelle, they still won't run all that far away, certainly not out of eyesight, simply because they'd be exhausted if they did and unable to run if they encountered another predator. This works fine for the gazelle as the jaguar is also not an efficient runner and can't pursue the gazelle all day long. Humans, on the other hand, can.
The latest theory I read stated upright walk was a advancement in the name of "seeing far, in order to avoid predators".
There are lots of theories as to why we were selected for upright posture, my personal favorite being so that we could more readily display our genitals to each other. Of course evolution is rarely such a simple thing as "we devolped X specifically so we could do Y", there are almost always multiple factors that lead to a certain trait being selected for, such as that as our brains grew an upright posture was needed so that our necks could hold our heads up, and vice-versa, an upright posture lead to brain growth. Just as important is the fact that just because trait X developed due to advantage Y, that does not mean that the advantage of the fully-developed trait is restricted to the same thing. Basically, as our posture became more upright we were able to see farther and that may have selected for further upright posture developments. Once we were walking fully upright, however, the advantage of having our body weight supported by our skeletons as it pertains to running became important, and we were able to run down our prey. It may not be why it evolved, but it was one of the things the development allowed.
Do you have a source for your theory? I am not saying I don't trust you, it just sounds like an interresting read.
I read it in a journal offline, don't recall the name, it was an article a friend showed me. The other person who replied seemed to find something though.
And no, we are not designed at the most basic level to kill large mammals.
Yes we are. Even before the invention of tools, we were perfectly capable of killing large animals. We may not have the obvious biological weapons of sharp claws and teeth, nor particularly strong limbs, but we do have equally potent biological advantages. Specifically (but not exhaustively), our upright posture where most of our weight is supported by our skeletons, knee joints optimized for jogging, and a musculature optimized for endurance over strength. Basically, we are more efficient runners than most animals, and we would hunt them by simply chasing after them until they collapsed from heat exhaustion. At which point you don't need sharp claws or teeth, you just need to be able to walk up to the immobile animal and break its neck or crush its skull with a rock.
Because of bouyancy, melting the ice which is floating in water will not raise sea level. The ice is less dense than water, ergo it floats on the water, but it displaces an amount of water equal to its mass. So when it melts into water, the level will stay the same.
You can try this yourself with a glass of water and ice cubes. Mark the water line with the ice cubes floating, then let the ice melt and notice that it hasn't moved. This is elementary school physics.
There are two things that will raise sea level: First, any ice that is on land (not displacing sea water) that melts and flows into the ocean. Thus why Antarctica is a much bigger concern as far as rising sea levels are concerned. Second, thermal expansion of the ocean as it becomes warmer. I believe that the latter will actually end up being the dominant effect.
I don't think there are actually that many people who say "we must halt all technological development".
That's usually the hyperbolic strawman of the anti-conservationist who extrapolates spending money on better alternatives to current tech and trying to use less of what we do now (e.g. drive more fuel efficient cars) into some crazy luddite back-to-nature wildlife.
Personally I think that point of view is retarded. I'm a conservationist and environmentalist because I like the benefits of civilization, and I would like for myself and as many generations of descendents as possible to be able to keep them.
One of the tradeoffs of civilization is figuring out how to make it sustainable. Our current method is not sustainable. Refusing to change because you want to keep your lifestyle is to guarantee that you lose that lifestyle.
Anyway, I think slug-slime pain killers are awesome.
you just proved that this type of marketing works - here you are talking about their product and speaking on their behalf whether you like it or not. Some people think that there is no such thing as bad marketing and I'm still not sure if I believe it or not.
Yeah, all the coverage on the Sony exploding batteries was a marketing coup for them. And why are convicted sex offenders so upset at having to go door to door to announce their presence -- there's no such thing as bad pr!
I'm sure my "Fuck Sony!" comments are really the response they wanted.
Anyway, I didn't say it didn't work. I said it was fucking despicable.
Why is everyone so offended by false advertising anyways?
Yeah, why would anyone be offended by lies? Why would I be upset that someone portraying themselves as an average joe is really a corporate shill?
It's been around for years and people aren't serious about getting rid of it. If they were, they would push to have a law passed where the penalties are so severe that it would deter the offenders. You can ignore it and enjoy life or focus your "anger" and spout obscenities.
We do have laws about it, but the problem is that since an unfortunate court decision on the 14th Ammendment, corporations are granted all the rights of human beings and thus any effective truth-in-advertising laws would run afowl of the 1st ammendment. Thus it joins a thousand other issues that you might want to just hand-wave away with "people aren't serious" that are actually more difficult to solve than it would seem at first glance, and which no, it doesn't make sense to devote all our resources to.
I'm not sure what that last sentence means... as if because I author a post on/. containing the word "fuck" I'm not enjoying life? Fuck, venting about evil marketroids' works is a great way to increase my enjoyment of life. Fuck Sony in their lying ass! See? I feel better already!
Well, the editor is actually designed to help you when you are controlling the module with the DM client, which is something, and is why it is, once again, the combination of the two that is special.
But anyway, what's your point? I was never talking about just the editor.
Yeah, he'd be real worried about Slashdot and whatever it is you think Marxist means. Uh huh.
I deduce that the phrase "if he was really that good" means that you've never actually heard any Bill Hicks. It's a shame, you really should, regardless of your own politics, because he doesn't spare anybody. Of course he's most brutal towards idiots, so you may just be offended.
Very good point, and I agree. While we may all have suffered a great loss with his passing, for him, leaving this world before he had to experience the U.S. voting for G.W. twice was a kindness.
Slashdot Mirror
Every so often, against all odds and despite all expectations, I learn something on /.
Wow, and I thought our crazy "18-year-old-boy sleeps with 17-year-old-girl on the boy's 18th birthday and thus becomes registered sex offender for life" was nuts.
But in Canada, it is illegal to depict having sex with a 14 year old, but it is legal to actually go out and boink a 14 year old (assuming no relationship of trust or authority or prostitution/pornography, apparently). That is truly insane.
... and in the franchise bind them?
The GP made no indication that the post was about any specific Bruce, so I don't know how you can claim it was about the wrong Bruce.
Oh yeah? So how many Bruces do you know of that had a position at Open Source Risk Management ?
I though it was about Bruce Scheiner myself.
Sarcasm?
You should submit a bug report.
Thanks for the link. I don't know if that's the journal I read that discussed this hunting tactic, but it sounds similar. One of the things I distinctly remember is that the prey would suffer from heat exhaustion due to an inability to shed heat, and the abstract refers to this factor. It also points out that I am mistaken that humans are efficient runners. Apparently we are good endurance runners in spite of not being efficient.
:(
Now I want to read the whole thing.
Uhm...weight supported by skeleton is worse than weight supported by muscle, in fact that is one of the major causes of joint problems is people don't have a strong enough muscular structure to support their weight and instead are using the fallback of bone structure to support it. When your weight is supported by bone structure your joints tend to grind together and wear down much faster, when its supported by muscle your bones 'float' and cause considerably less strain on your joints.
:P) It also says we aren't particularly efficient, but are good distance runners, so there you go.
:)
But it is more energy efficient to support weight with bone. If you stand upright, you are supporting a substantial portion of your weight with your skeleton. Consider that an active human hunter would have had a strong musculature to complement skeletal support, and that they weren't necessarily designed to be able to run for forty or sixty years.
I was going to question your assertion about running down prey because we really aren't all that efficient at running, however, I did some digging and found that while we really aren't well designed for running in the grand scheme of things, we are well designed for a running biped, and are more efficient than our prey which is really what matters when it comes down to it. So I am only challenging your assertion that we are better than most animals, because I find that highly suspect since as far as predators go we really aren't all that efficient.
I would be interested in where you found the comparison. As I mentioned in another post, this is from an offline journal I read several years ago, so I may be mistaking "efficient runners" for simply "good endurance runners" by assuming they are the same thing. The only predator I was aware of really approaching us in this regard is the wolf, who has a jogging gait that allows for long distance travel. But it seems my information is incomplete.
That having been said, the running things down applies more to the not so large animals, however we most certainly are designed to take down the big animals from the tool using and communal aspect of human behavior. It is far more efficient for a small group of tool using hunters to kill a large animal and feed an even larger number of tribe members.
Someone else linked this abstract which refers to Bushmen chasing down zebras, definitely not a small animal (especially compared to bushmen
But your point is well taken. Certainly even without weapons humans acting in concert would be able to take down prey that a single human would not. I think of tactics like the Buffalo Jump -- which, granted, was used by native americans who had long ago developed tools and weapons.
In fact, hunting is FAR more efficient than going to the store in terms of energy expenditure and return.
Yeah, but it's more efficient for me.
Problem with your "theory" is that you've neglected to recognize that most, if not all, four-legged animals can run significantly faster than any human (e.g., three to five times faster). In other words, long before you're starting to get tired, you've completely lost sight of the animal and it has had time to stop and have lunch.
Yes, most animals run faster, they also get tired much faster. In the plains of Africa where our ancestors first plied their trade, animals wouldn't run "out of sight" because "out of sight" was a very long way away. Ever watched a nature program, seen a jaguar chase down a herd of gazelle? If you have, you'd see that if the jaguar fails to catch the gazelle, they still won't run all that far away, certainly not out of eyesight, simply because they'd be exhausted if they did and unable to run if they encountered another predator. This works fine for the gazelle as the jaguar is also not an efficient runner and can't pursue the gazelle all day long. Humans, on the other hand, can.
The latest theory I read stated upright walk was a advancement in the name of "seeing far, in order to avoid predators".
There are lots of theories as to why we were selected for upright posture, my personal favorite being so that we could more readily display our genitals to each other. Of course evolution is rarely such a simple thing as "we devolped X specifically so we could do Y", there are almost always multiple factors that lead to a certain trait being selected for, such as that as our brains grew an upright posture was needed so that our necks could hold our heads up, and vice-versa, an upright posture lead to brain growth. Just as important is the fact that just because trait X developed due to advantage Y, that does not mean that the advantage of the fully-developed trait is restricted to the same thing. Basically, as our posture became more upright we were able to see farther and that may have selected for further upright posture developments. Once we were walking fully upright, however, the advantage of having our body weight supported by our skeletons as it pertains to running became important, and we were able to run down our prey. It may not be why it evolved, but it was one of the things the development allowed.
Do you have a source for your theory? I am not saying I don't trust you, it just sounds like an interresting read.
I read it in a journal offline, don't recall the name, it was an article a friend showed me. The other person who replied seemed to find something though.
probably the most liberal city you'll find in Texas
Probably? Are there any other cities even in the running?
And no, we are not designed at the most basic level to kill large mammals.
Yes we are. Even before the invention of tools, we were perfectly capable of killing large animals. We may not have the obvious biological weapons of sharp claws and teeth, nor particularly strong limbs, but we do have equally potent biological advantages. Specifically (but not exhaustively), our upright posture where most of our weight is supported by our skeletons, knee joints optimized for jogging, and a musculature optimized for endurance over strength. Basically, we are more efficient runners than most animals, and we would hunt them by simply chasing after them until they collapsed from heat exhaustion. At which point you don't need sharp claws or teeth, you just need to be able to walk up to the immobile animal and break its neck or crush its skull with a rock.
Cool idea! And you can come down and visit me at my cottage on the shores of Arizona Bay.
We use what's right in front of us: reality.
Careful! Reality has a well-known liberal bias!
Yeah I'm a dolt. I was thinking for some dumb reason that the ice cap would be frozen salt water.
Duh, I didn't think of that. Mod me retarded.
Because of bouyancy, melting the ice which is floating in water will not raise sea level. The ice is less dense than water, ergo it floats on the water, but it displaces an amount of water equal to its mass. So when it melts into water, the level will stay the same.
You can try this yourself with a glass of water and ice cubes. Mark the water line with the ice cubes floating, then let the ice melt and notice that it hasn't moved. This is elementary school physics.
There are two things that will raise sea level: First, any ice that is on land (not displacing sea water) that melts and flows into the ocean. Thus why Antarctica is a much bigger concern as far as rising sea levels are concerned. Second, thermal expansion of the ocean as it becomes warmer. I believe that the latter will actually end up being the dominant effect.
I don't think there are actually that many people who say "we must halt all technological development".
That's usually the hyperbolic strawman of the anti-conservationist who extrapolates spending money on better alternatives to current tech and trying to use less of what we do now (e.g. drive more fuel efficient cars) into some crazy luddite back-to-nature wildlife.
Personally I think that point of view is retarded. I'm a conservationist and environmentalist because I like the benefits of civilization, and I would like for myself and as many generations of descendents as possible to be able to keep them.
One of the tradeoffs of civilization is figuring out how to make it sustainable. Our current method is not sustainable. Refusing to change because you want to keep your lifestyle is to guarantee that you lose that lifestyle.
Anyway, I think slug-slime pain killers are awesome.
Microsoft was a better company when Minesweeper was the only game in town.
Screw you, Minesweeperite! Solitaire or death!
If "I came away with a sense" doesn't imply that the following is an opinion to you, then I don't know what can help you.
His point was basically that it's good that Bill's dead, because otherwise - he'd be dead!
Yeah, but I bet he would have said something hilarious before his head exploded.
you just proved that this type of marketing works - here you are talking about their product and speaking on their behalf whether you like it or not. Some people think that there is no such thing as bad marketing and I'm still not sure if I believe it or not.
/. containing the word "fuck" I'm not enjoying life? Fuck, venting about evil marketroids' works is a great way to increase my enjoyment of life. Fuck Sony in their lying ass! See? I feel better already!
Yeah, all the coverage on the Sony exploding batteries was a marketing coup for them. And why are convicted sex offenders so upset at having to go door to door to announce their presence -- there's no such thing as bad pr!
I'm sure my "Fuck Sony!" comments are really the response they wanted.
Anyway, I didn't say it didn't work. I said it was fucking despicable.
Why is everyone so offended by false advertising anyways?
Yeah, why would anyone be offended by lies? Why would I be upset that someone portraying themselves as an average joe is really a corporate shill?
It's been around for years and people aren't serious about getting rid of it. If they were, they would push to have a law passed where the penalties are so severe that it would deter the offenders. You can ignore it and enjoy life or focus your "anger" and spout obscenities.
We do have laws about it, but the problem is that since an unfortunate court decision on the 14th Ammendment, corporations are granted all the rights of human beings and thus any effective truth-in-advertising laws would run afowl of the 1st ammendment. Thus it joins a thousand other issues that you might want to just hand-wave away with "people aren't serious" that are actually more difficult to solve than it would seem at first glance, and which no, it doesn't make sense to devote all our resources to.
I'm not sure what that last sentence means... as if because I author a post on
Well, the editor is actually designed to help you when you are controlling the module with the DM client, which is something, and is why it is, once again, the combination of the two that is special.
But anyway, what's your point? I was never talking about just the editor.
Yeah, he'd be real worried about Slashdot and whatever it is you think Marxist means. Uh huh.
I deduce that the phrase "if he was really that good" means that you've never actually heard any Bill Hicks. It's a shame, you really should, regardless of your own politics, because he doesn't spare anybody. Of course he's most brutal towards idiots, so you may just be offended.
Merci.
Very good point, and I agree. While we may all have suffered a great loss with his passing, for him, leaving this world before he had to experience the U.S. voting for G.W. twice was a kindness.