"...the air enters their body through the entire surface of their carapace..."
They have spiracles. Tubes running around similar to your veins. The air can be pumped through these by rudimentary bellows, but it's basically passive.
"Gravity would collapse lungs over a certain size."
True, but not Kong's. Brachiosaurus was much bigger.
"... I would hazard that the size of the biggest dinosaurs that did exist was probably the size of the biggest that could exist."
Maybe. But, they probably weren't cold-blooded either. Definitely not reptiles.
"Apes have the largest brains in land mammals (besides ours) and... King Kong could never actually exist."
No. Elephants have a brain weighing 7500g, opposed to a human 1400+.
"But I will ignore that and go watch the movie anyway."
Enjoy.
Not really. Both articles (and others) indicate normal mammalian trends would be shrinking. The only 'problem' is the lack of precursor H.erectus fossils. This is because they haven't been found yet or because H.floriensis boated it. If the latter, they still came from other islands to this one.
The tone was flaming, but I'll answer you as an athiest anyway.
"Why should I?"
It increases the odds of your living longer.
"Based on your thinking why should I be nice to anyone unless it serves my own self-interest."
You don't, I don't, don't nobody don't. Just don't narrow the definition of 'best interest' too severely.
"Why should I follow the rule of law, etc?"
See response one.
"Why shouldn't I just become a totally self-centered anarchist--kill or be killed?"
See response one.
"Survival of the fittest and all that, right?"
Just be sure you don't overly relax the definition of 'fittest'.
"Where in evolutionary theory does it tell me that I have to or even necessarily should be 'nice' to anyone?"
Kinda the definition of a community or social group. You're in one from which you can always leave or become ostracised.
"Just because you want me to and it might make your life better?"
Yes, but let's be perfectly frank. The only people who would want a chatoic environ are those who think they could profit by cruel behavior if they believed retaliation beyond the moment was removed.
It's also a self-limiting affair, this chaotic state you promote. The actual 'fitter' don't want their environ disrupted any more than you or I. They tend to terminate those who don't cooperate with their wishes.
Most people don't fit the definition of 'fittest', and the laws are actually in place to limit those people (the fittest), not you or I. So, yes, I want you to be 'nice' like I will be, it prevents heavy-duty confrontation.
"Take a look at your dollar bills "In god we thrust", how can a country be cosmopolite if there is a predominant religion which I bet your constitution embraces."
"I think it would be much more understandable if the people pushing it didn't have their bible in their hands while screaming about it."
No, it would not. It is no more than a cover for trying to slide religion into the science class. It is NOT science. There is no hypothesis and no testing going on.
Je-heez-us, what a bunch of conflationary horse crap.
Re:Here's a really good foot in mouth story...
on
2005 Foot In Mouth Awards
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Very true. It's just a shame that the professor(s) couldn't find the time or inclination to investigate the story (as you say) before shooting their mouths off to the press.
No. The professors had their foots firmly in their mouths because the story as told them by the student very conviently fit into their "gov is bad" paradigm. The student played them like fish.
You can tell when someone has a shaky or no foundation for their thoughts. They wander into the absurd; equating hands and feet with owned property, for instance.
Your point is what? Just because you wish to tax smoking to "reduce smoking" (an unproven anyway) means absolutely nothing for other forms of taxation. One example will suffice. Gas tax is used for road improvement, not to reduce travel.
democracy - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Nowhere in that definition does it state that the people cannot preclude the participation of some disruptive and/or harmful subset of those same people.
You do understand that Europe would be totalitarian in some form if the US's "giant military" had not prevented that, don't you? You're not anti-social so much as myopic and blindered.
PS: Eurpoe's socialist systems are currently collapsing. Check back with your sentiments in 5-10 years time and compare and contrast with the US's state then.
"... yet copyrights last that long even against the wishes of the original content creators (Happy Birthday, for a start)."
Baloney. Just give it to public domain. Please provide some reference as to the "wishes of the original content creators" of Happy Birthday. That sounds like a made-up thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You are incorrect. Recent evidence from the formar KGB supports their farming secrets out.
Basically, none. They suspend frogs inside of a doughnut field.
Almost, but no.
... King Kong could never actually exist."
"...the air enters their body through the entire surface of their carapace..."
They have spiracles. Tubes running around similar to your veins. The air can be pumped through these by rudimentary bellows, but it's basically passive.
"Gravity would collapse lungs over a certain size."
True, but not Kong's. Brachiosaurus was much bigger.
"... I would hazard that the size of the biggest dinosaurs that did exist was probably the size of the biggest that could exist."
Maybe. But, they probably weren't cold-blooded either. Definitely not reptiles.
"Apes have the largest brains in land mammals (besides ours) and
No. Elephants have a brain weighing 7500g, opposed to a human 1400+.
"But I will ignore that and go watch the movie anyway."
Enjoy.
"...observes quite the opposite..."
Not really. Both articles (and others) indicate normal mammalian trends would be shrinking. The only 'problem' is the lack of precursor H.erectus fossils. This is because they haven't been found yet or because H.floriensis boated it. If the latter, they still came from other islands to this one.
The tone was flaming, but I'll answer you as an athiest anyway.
"Why should I?"
It increases the odds of your living longer.
"Based on your thinking why should I be nice to anyone unless it serves my own self-interest."
You don't, I don't, don't nobody don't. Just don't narrow the definition of 'best interest' too severely.
"Why should I follow the rule of law, etc?"
See response one.
"Why shouldn't I just become a totally self-centered anarchist--kill or be killed?"
See response one.
"Survival of the fittest and all that, right?"
Just be sure you don't overly relax the definition of 'fittest'.
"Where in evolutionary theory does it tell me that I have to or even necessarily should be 'nice' to anyone?"
Kinda the definition of a community or social group. You're in one from which you can always leave or become ostracised.
"Just because you want me to and it might make your life better?"
Yes, but let's be perfectly frank. The only people who would want a chatoic environ are those who think they could profit by cruel behavior if they believed retaliation beyond the moment was removed.
It's also a self-limiting affair, this chaotic state you promote. The actual 'fitter' don't want their environ disrupted any more than you or I. They tend to terminate those who don't cooperate with their wishes.
Most people don't fit the definition of 'fittest', and the laws are actually in place to limit those people (the fittest), not you or I. So, yes, I want you to be 'nice' like I will be, it prevents heavy-duty confrontation.
That simple.
No. That would be your opinion. Reality is that which does ont disappear when you quit believing in it. Reality is not a personal thing.
"Take a look at your dollar bills "In god we thrust", how can a country be cosmopolite if there is a predominant religion which I bet your constitution embraces."
I'll put $10 on that bet.
"I think it would be much more understandable if the people pushing it didn't have their bible in their hands while screaming about it."
No, it would not. It is no more than a cover for trying to slide religion into the science class. It is NOT science. There is no hypothesis and no testing going on.
Je-heez-us, what a bunch of conflationary horse crap.
Very true. It's just a shame that the professor(s) couldn't find the time or inclination to investigate the story (as you say) before shooting their mouths off to the press.
No. The professors had their foots firmly in their mouths because the story as told them by the student very conviently fit into their "gov is bad" paradigm. The student played them like fish.
You can tell when someone has a shaky or no foundation for their thoughts. They wander into the absurd; equating hands and feet with owned property, for instance.
"Remember, the value of something is the price you could arguably get if you resell it."
You state this as if it were fact. Is it just your opinion, or can you provide some precedence by link?
Your point is what? Just because you wish to tax smoking to "reduce smoking" (an unproven anyway) means absolutely nothing for other forms of taxation. One example will suffice. Gas tax is used for road improvement, not to reduce travel.
Cute, brief and trite, but displaying a complete lack of understanding as to what a COC does.
Webster's
democracy - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Nowhere in that definition does it state that the people cannot preclude the participation of some disruptive and/or harmful subset of those same people.
"Genuine political discussion ... insulting your enemies is about it.
BTW how is it that conservatives still ... "
Irony, thy name is miu.
Link, please. I searched and found nothing.
"No divine creator would create so many ass hats and set them loose on the rest of us."
Bullshit! His Highness the Spegetti Monster would do exactly such a thing. You lose you sacriligious bastard!
I'm an athiest. It is neither a pursuit or interest and I do not "follow" anything, much less with devotion.
"Actually, strictly pedantic scientists would never say that evolution or gravity is a fact."
Baloney. From Webster's:
fact - something that actually exists; reality; truth.
Name one single scientist that would state that gravity does not exist.
"Tomorrow, the force of gravity could double or halve."
Which would do nothing for the base fact that gravity exists.
"At that point, we'd all go back to the drawing board and try to figure out exactly where the current theory of gravity is flawed."
We'll change the attraction variable.
Since the electro-magnetic forces do model the world in every real sense, perhaps you should rethink.
No. Where do you stop? Nursery Rhymes?
You do understand that Europe would be totalitarian in some form if the US's "giant military" had not prevented that, don't you? You're not anti-social so much as myopic and blindered.
PS: Eurpoe's socialist systems are currently collapsing. Check back with your sentiments in 5-10 years time and compare and contrast with the US's state then.
Just how did you conflate "helping the Iraqis build" -- as in: 'not done yet' -- with "immediately moving" -- as in: it's already done?
"... yet copyrights last that long even against the wishes of the original content creators (Happy Birthday, for a start)."
Baloney. Just give it to public domain. Please provide some reference as to the "wishes of the original content creators" of Happy Birthday. That sounds like a made-up thing.