Every time I see seomthing really witty I think to myself "there's no way someone can come up with a post that's funnier than this". And then you just came along.
Yes, but the US has a nice clear European example to work from so let's hope it can learn this lesson in less than 400 years. After all, the US has done a pretty decent job of getting up to speed in many other aspects of its culture.
> England sure has changed a lot over the past few decades...
For some background information on recent trends in British culture, here are some wikipedia articles to read: chav, asbo, happy slapping and Vicky Pollard.
Europeans learned not to go invading random countries for political gain back home. I think that Europe has done a much better job of learning from its imperialist history than the US.
From the article:
> Knowing a material's crystal structure means scientists can calculate other physical properties of the material, such as its elasticity or thermochemical properties
You can find its elasticity by squeezing it and looking at what happens. You can find its thermochemical properties by heating it and looking at what happens. What's more, you get more accurate results from squeezing and heating a sample than from calculating these properties from the crystal structure.
> What can *I do* to help stop this 64 million year cycle?
Launch rockets. Just launch as much stuff as you can in the direction of motion of the Sun. That way there will be a net thrust on the Earth (and consequently the solar system through gravity) that will eventually slow down its orbit. Of course we'd end up falling into the big black hole at the center of the Galaxy as a result. But c'est la vie, you can't always get everything you want.
> WHY should they expect to be taxed? What benefit do they receive in return for paying those taxes?
Why have you put these questions together? I don't see how they are related. As a result, I must be misunderstanding something you are saying. My expectation of whether or not I'm going to be taxed for something is completely independent of whether or not I get something in return for those taxes.
By the way, if you expect to get something in return for a payment, then the payment is probably not a tax. When you buy something, you hand over the money and expect goods in return. The very nature of tax is that you're forced to pay them regardless of whether or not you get something in return. For example, some of the taxes I pay go to pay for other people's education. I get nothing in return. That's normal, that's what a tax is. If you expect something in return it's called a 'sale'.
I don't think I'm working with a straw man here. If you create a self-contained marketplace in the real world and people buy and consume objects within that market place then they can expect to be taxed.
I don't know if you've noticed but the universe is a pretty big place and solar systems appear to be as common as can be. I'm worried about pollution on Earth, but I think you'll have to work harder than that if you want people to worry about pollution elsewhere in the universe.
> I would say that we have taxes to pay for the public infrastructure and the continuing operation of said infrastructure.
By your argument, someone could form a market, charge people for entering that market, and claim that the government has no right to tax sales made in that market, after all, its users have already paid the owners for the infrastructure of the market.
There are plenty of reasons not to tax income and sales in virtual worlds, but this isn't of of them.
> I guess you do not see the irony in arguing for the validity of the straight line progression using a family tree as an analogy eh?
I see no irony at all. I'm simply saying that it's entirely reasonable for people to focus on the tiny bit of the vast "tree of life" that interests them. I'm not denying that the tree exists, and that it is treelike (though sexual reproduction, viral DNA transfer and so on make it more complex than a simple branching tree). That would be insane. But if someone wants to show that their ancestor was Charles I of England, say, then it's entirely reasonable to go through their family tree and pick out just the line connecting them with their illustrious ancestor. Similarly it's reasonable for biologists to show images of their descent from early hominids. People, for whatever reason, like to know their own history and how it is that they came to be.
> And yet people ask questions like, "why are monkeys still around if we evolved from them?"
If we replace the word "monkey" with "common ancestor of monkeys and humans" then I don't see what's wrong with this question (at least from a non-expert). It's entirely reasonable and you can give a sensible and interesting answer.
Sometimes the standard icon we're talking about is presented with some of the ancestors presented as monkeys. This is of course wrong.
> You do realise, of course, that there are creatures in existence that have far larger brains than us?
Yes.
> If you set out with a predetermined conclusion you can find ways to make the data fit.
I've no idea what your point is. Take, say, a matrilineal ancestor of yours, and draw pictures of each member of this matrilineal descent and you'll see a clear gradual progression from that ancestor to yourself. (It might be best not to draw pictures of every generation as then you'll fail to see the wood for the trees, so to speak.) You seem to be denying this, which is pretty odd because it's one of the most important predictions of Darwinian evolution.
> the American Heritage Dictionary tells us that evolution...
That's a fine definition. 'Evolution' has both a meaning in general English usage which you just gave, and a specific meaning from biology which is also listed at the document you reference. Unfortunately, some people might conflate these two definitions. This is a common problem with technical jargon. This is a separate issue from people wanting to see pictures of their lineage.
No, I think you're missing the point. People are interested in their own lineage and the standard icon represents this lineage. Sure, there are lots of other branches to the tree. But just as people like to construct their own family trees, rather than those of complete strangers, people like to see the history by which they came about, rather than a bunch of branches that went elsewhere or didn't go anwhere at all. When I go to this web site I can form a line going back a few hundred years showing my 'ancestry'. If I publish this line, nobody is going to make the mistake of thinking that I'm claiming that I am the inevitable outcome of people completing PhDs, they're going to to know that this is my own specific lineage.
You seem to be presuming that people are incredibly stupid. Given that it is common knowledge that there are things like bacteria, mice, earthworms and mosquitoes in existence, it should be fairly clear to anyone that nobody is proposing a theory in which bigger brains are an inevitable outcome. (Maybe you can demonstrate that there are people who do believe this.) So I am still at a complete loss to know what is supposed to be wrong with the standard icon which gives a rough outline of our own lineage.
And of course there is a sense in which brain size increase is inevitable. After all, any intelligent organism, anywhere in the universe, that is a product of evolution by natural selection, investigating its own history, is going to see an average upward trend, even if at some points in their ancestry brain sizes decreased.
> So there was no 'progression' towards homo sapiens, we're just an end point of a huge exploration of a genetic search space
The lineage of homo sapiens is a progression towards homo sapiens. This is a fact. If someone wants to see the lineage of modern humans, the iconic picture is fine representation of this. For example, if you take my ancestors over the last 20,000,000 years there has been an average upward trend in brain size. It may have had ups and downs, but there is an undeniable trend.
This complaint is a bit like someone (whose ancestor is Abraham Lincoln) saying "Abraham Lincoln was my ancestor" and someone else saying "no, that's wrong, he was my ancestor too". The fact that other branches exist is true, but it doesn't change the truth of the original statement.
What exactly is wrong with the iconic "ape to man progression"? I don't know if the details are correct, but in broad outline it seems like a reasonable depiction of our lineage given our state of knowledge at this time.
This is exactly the point Kasparov has been trying to make. An important part of playing chess is understanding how to assess your own strength impartially. Kasparov fully understands he is playing from a weak position (he said so on BBC Radio last week). Let's hope he can use this knowledge to do better than others who might rush in foolhardily thinking they are in a psoition of strength.
> We are the greatest country precisely because...
It's the greatest country because that's what you were taught as a kid, just like everyone else in the world who thinks that their country is the greatest.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this will result in fewer tax dollars being spent on Medicare in 40 years time. Maybe.
This is said frequently. But I'm yet to see any kind of confirmation.
Every time I see seomthing really witty I think to myself "there's no way someone can come up with a post that's funnier than this". And then you just came along.
And Earth has the Bermuda triangle. Hey! You're really onto something.
You seriously need to recalibrate your sense of what is and isn't likely to appear at random.
Yes, but the US has a nice clear European example to work from so let's hope it can learn this lesson in less than 400 years. After all, the US has done a pretty decent job of getting up to speed in many other aspects of its culture.
For some background information on recent trends in British culture, here are some wikipedia articles to read: chav, asbo, happy slapping and Vicky Pollard.
Yes you can.
Europeans learned not to go invading random countries for political gain back home. I think that Europe has done a much better job of learning from its imperialist history than the US.
From the article: > Knowing a material's crystal structure means scientists can calculate other physical properties of the material, such as its elasticity or thermochemical properties You can find its elasticity by squeezing it and looking at what happens. You can find its thermochemical properties by heating it and looking at what happens. What's more, you get more accurate results from squeezing and heating a sample than from calculating these properties from the crystal structure.
Launch rockets. Just launch as much stuff as you can in the direction of motion of the Sun. That way there will be a net thrust on the Earth (and consequently the solar system through gravity) that will eventually slow down its orbit. Of course we'd end up falling into the big black hole at the center of the Galaxy as a result. But c'est la vie, you can't always get everything you want.
The word you want is 'assertion'.
> WHY should they expect to be taxed? What benefit do they receive in return for paying those taxes?
Why have you put these questions together? I don't see how they are related. As a result, I must be misunderstanding something you are saying. My expectation of whether or not I'm going to be taxed for something is completely independent of whether or not I get something in return for those taxes.
By the way, if you expect to get something in return for a payment, then the payment is probably not a tax. When you buy something, you hand over the money and expect goods in return. The very nature of tax is that you're forced to pay them regardless of whether or not you get something in return. For example, some of the taxes I pay go to pay for other people's education. I get nothing in return. That's normal, that's what a tax is. If you expect something in return it's called a 'sale'.
I don't think I'm working with a straw man here. If you create a self-contained marketplace in the real world and people buy and consume objects within that market place then they can expect to be taxed.
I don't know if you've noticed but the universe is a pretty big place and solar systems appear to be as common as can be. I'm worried about pollution on Earth, but I think you'll have to work harder than that if you want people to worry about pollution elsewhere in the universe.
By your argument, someone could form a market, charge people for entering that market, and claim that the government has no right to tax sales made in that market, after all, its users have already paid the owners for the infrastructure of the market.
There are plenty of reasons not to tax income and sales in virtual worlds, but this isn't of of them.
And whose job is it when the parents decide that they can't be bothered?
I see no irony at all. I'm simply saying that it's entirely reasonable for people to focus on the tiny bit of the vast "tree of life" that interests them. I'm not denying that the tree exists, and that it is treelike (though sexual reproduction, viral DNA transfer and so on make it more complex than a simple branching tree). That would be insane. But if someone wants to show that their ancestor was Charles I of England, say, then it's entirely reasonable to go through their family tree and pick out just the line connecting them with their illustrious ancestor. Similarly it's reasonable for biologists to show images of their descent from early hominids. People, for whatever reason, like to know their own history and how it is that they came to be.
> And yet people ask questions like, "why are monkeys still around if we evolved from them?"
If we replace the word "monkey" with "common ancestor of monkeys and humans" then I don't see what's wrong with this question (at least from a non-expert). It's entirely reasonable and you can give a sensible and interesting answer.
Sometimes the standard icon we're talking about is presented with some of the ancestors presented as monkeys. This is of course wrong.
> You do realise, of course, that there are creatures in existence that have far larger brains than us?
Yes.
> If you set out with a predetermined conclusion you can find ways to make the data fit.
I've no idea what your point is. Take, say, a matrilineal ancestor of yours, and draw pictures of each member of this matrilineal descent and you'll see a clear gradual progression from that ancestor to yourself. (It might be best not to draw pictures of every generation as then you'll fail to see the wood for the trees, so to speak.) You seem to be denying this, which is pretty odd because it's one of the most important predictions of Darwinian evolution.
That's a fine definition. 'Evolution' has both a meaning in general English usage which you just gave, and a specific meaning from biology which is also listed at the document you reference. Unfortunately, some people might conflate these two definitions. This is a common problem with technical jargon. This is a separate issue from people wanting to see pictures of their lineage.
No, I think you're missing the point. People are interested in their own lineage and the standard icon represents this lineage. Sure, there are lots of other branches to the tree. But just as people like to construct their own family trees, rather than those of complete strangers, people like to see the history by which they came about, rather than a bunch of branches that went elsewhere or didn't go anwhere at all. When I go to this web site I can form a line going back a few hundred years showing my 'ancestry'. If I publish this line, nobody is going to make the mistake of thinking that I'm claiming that I am the inevitable outcome of people completing PhDs, they're going to to know that this is my own specific lineage.
You seem to be presuming that people are incredibly stupid. Given that it is common knowledge that there are things like bacteria, mice, earthworms and mosquitoes in existence, it should be fairly clear to anyone that nobody is proposing a theory in which bigger brains are an inevitable outcome. (Maybe you can demonstrate that there are people who do believe this.) So I am still at a complete loss to know what is supposed to be wrong with the standard icon which gives a rough outline of our own lineage.
And of course there is a sense in which brain size increase is inevitable. After all, any intelligent organism, anywhere in the universe, that is a product of evolution by natural selection, investigating its own history, is going to see an average upward trend, even if at some points in their ancestry brain sizes decreased.
The lineage of homo sapiens is a progression towards homo sapiens. This is a fact. If someone wants to see the lineage of modern humans, the iconic picture is fine representation of this. For example, if you take my ancestors over the last 20,000,000 years there has been an average upward trend in brain size. It may have had ups and downs, but there is an undeniable trend.
This complaint is a bit like someone (whose ancestor is Abraham Lincoln) saying "Abraham Lincoln was my ancestor" and someone else saying "no, that's wrong, he was my ancestor too". The fact that other branches exist is true, but it doesn't change the truth of the original statement.
What exactly is wrong with the iconic "ape to man progression"? I don't know if the details are correct, but in broad outline it seems like a reasonable depiction of our lineage given our state of knowledge at this time.
Compared to Putin he's in a very weak position. And as you've just pointed out, he's played well and is now in a stronger position than before.
This is exactly the point Kasparov has been trying to make. An important part of playing chess is understanding how to assess your own strength impartially. Kasparov fully understands he is playing from a weak position (he said so on BBC Radio last week). Let's hope he can use this knowledge to do better than others who might rush in foolhardily thinking they are in a psoition of strength.
It's the greatest country because that's what you were taught as a kid, just like everyone else in the world who thinks that their country is the greatest.