Probably not some "Delayed sleep phase syndrome"...from what I can tell, it works that way for pretty much anybody (not many people do it regularly enough to analyze their state though). A "cliff" / crisis in the morning, some time after you would wake up normally - and once it passes, one can mostly carry on throughout the day.
But still mostly with illusion of full wakefulness, probably constantly falling into microsleeps. And what this guy is almost certainly doing - with how dysfunctional his mind is now, it's easy to convince oneself of few continuos weeks without sleep just because it isn't done in a proper way (similar to fantasies of "polyphasic sleep" faithful)
By that you just said to all those with jobs in top10 that what they do (while risking their life more than police, fireman and soldiers) is worthless to the society.
"Placing them in the line of fire" - well, the thing is it demonstrably doesn't do that, or at least far less than for many other occupations.
Don't just repeat the myth, always stressed by police officials and their family members, attached to any news about death of a cop or fireman. Don't you see how it is in their best interest to propagate it? (dealing with grief or indeed influencing the perception of the institution / public relations)
All the while you are so dismissive of motivations of loggers, fisherman, etc. (what, do you think they don't know their accident rates? Do you think a random policeman doesn't wager that the chance of injury won't strike him?); it's at least inconsistent.
Cops, firemen, etc. are not even in the top10 of most dangerous jobs by mortality rates.
By your standard, the level of heroism of loggers (doing the job for other people, so they can have all the wood they need - in the past warmth saving from disease and death, now construction material (which must be safe) or paper (for education or functioning of public services - think how many deaths were saved by information kept on those pieces of paper)), fishermen (so other people will have food, won't starve) or construction workers of various kinds (so other people will have safe buildings to live in, work in, play in; roads to drive on, et al.) - dwarfs what cops, firemen, etc. are doing.
They are not even in the top10 of most dangerous jobs, by fatality rates; but I'm sure they like the attention brought on them thanks to this fact remaining obscure.
Or a side effect of expanding their network in Nepal (which they apparently do, also in rural areas), a very useful thing - at some point allowing close enough line-of-sight view of the mountain from some cellular base stations primarily serving local population; or maybe at most via trivial expansion of nearby infrastructure.
In a place where there's a rotating group of people with lots of money (a rarity there), valuing ability to stay in contact and of decently fast internet access.
Some Eurocopter landed on the summit few years ago - so just wait a while? A matter of setting up the service to assure safety of those willing to pay for it...
Considering the network on the Chinese side can almost certainly carry SMS - transferring data via this channel, in a way similar to how WAP could use it, would be probably more straightforward, reliable and faster (considering voice-optimised compression)
Compressed air is really not a very efficient way of storing and transporting energy... (really, why would you want to throw away all the experiences with mechanical design of, well, cars?)
I do think there will be uproars when accidents do occur, like we have seen with the Toyota problem...
More precisely, uproars at perceived problems with autonomous cars. Certainly perceived chiefly by drivers - 80% of which think they are in the top 50%.
Rethinking our habits would be required with autonomous cars anyway (for starters - how to deal with 80-90% of drivers thinking they are in the top 50%?). We might as well not limit ourselves to just one wundersolution...
Not giving away the cities to cars, not building them primarily around the requirements of cars, would be a good start. Would help in not inhibiting bikes, too. Which BTW, in the form of folding(*) or "rental" bikes, nicely expand the utility of public transport ((*)and such bike is often a very handy addition to a car - easy to keep in the trunk most of the time, often gets useful at some destination to which only car travel is practical; but once there...). And certainly many more examples.
Cute, now you put words in my mouth. Or really like fantasizing.
Where did I say the possibility does not exist? Where?
I said "only" how we had good reasons to assume their lack of existence (which would of course require throwing a very large part of what we know about evolution of life on this planet out the window...), how there isn't a trace, and indeed all the evidence pointing to the contrary - we have no justifiable reason assume such large discrepancies.
The most important thing I'm saying, and the other poster in almost completely not-quoted part agrees, is - let me spell this out for you - that fossil evidence (or lack thereof(*)) is a much more probable point of data than the lack of technological artifacts. Artifacts which might have been simply almost not created in the first place (I was assuming I'm speaking with somebody who can guess, when I tell about what some distant civilisation might had most likely not done, that it would require their existence in the first place; required to even contemplate what they could do or not do)
(*)That ALL the available evidence, and constantly being unearthed, evidence paints certain picture is only too convenient. But hey, since you mention Dawkins - maybe there were giants, who knows...
Oh, don't forget about selectively choosing to disregard important parts of quoted posts, just so what's left suits your fantasies... (but missing the ending sentence of used section)...how cute.
Lineages which follow very different paths that all the available ones - don't conveniently forget that "small" detail.
But funnily enough, he concluded more in line with what I'm saying - "traces of civilization just don't fossilize as well as bones do" (though I also point out how, demonstrably (still on our example, and of our evolutionary relatives), most of the time is spent before that stage - and without guarantee (again, demonstrably) of achieving it at all)
The point was that lack of technological artifacts isn't the best argument - simply because (demonstrably) civilisations don't have produce any substantial ones.
Yes, brain to body mass ratios which are very robust at roughly estimating the intelligence of group of species (groups unrelated for a long time, too, most importantly). Lower rates of metabolism in some major groups of the past wouldn't help...
You are acting like our fossil sample would be totally biased to exclude that particular lineage, supposedly changing at vastly different rates and directions than the other. That is ignoring fossils records. And check again sizes of "our" brains from one million years ago, they were already quite big. The issue here isn't mankind, we of course already developed many prominent technological artifacts (though most of them would be wiped away anyway) - but we did so only very recently.
Slashdot Mirror
And it could be so easy, just hooking up EEG... (but that would show he constantly falls into microsleep for most of those few weeks)
Probably not some "Delayed sleep phase syndrome"...from what I can tell, it works that way for pretty much anybody (not many people do it regularly enough to analyze their state though). A "cliff" / crisis in the morning, some time after you would wake up normally - and once it passes, one can mostly carry on throughout the day.
But still mostly with illusion of full wakefulness, probably constantly falling into microsleeps. And what this guy is almost certainly doing - with how dysfunctional his mind is now, it's easy to convince oneself of few continuos weeks without sleep just because it isn't done in a proper way (similar to fantasies of "polyphasic sleep" faithful)
Awful in what way?
Well, it's in solar orbit already...
By that you just said to all those with jobs in top10 that what they do (while risking their life more than police, fireman and soldiers) is worthless to the society.
"Placing them in the line of fire" - well, the thing is it demonstrably doesn't do that, or at least far less than for many other occupations.
Don't just repeat the myth, always stressed by police officials and their family members, attached to any news about death of a cop or fireman. Don't you see how it is in their best interest to propagate it? (dealing with grief or indeed influencing the perception of the institution / public relations)
All the while you are so dismissive of motivations of loggers, fisherman, etc. (what, do you think they don't know their accident rates? Do you think a random policeman doesn't wager that the chance of injury won't strike him?); it's at least inconsistent.
Googling mortality rate by job (or similar) isn't that hard...
If only during the time the Chilean miners were trapped, an order of magnitude more miners wouldn't die worldwide...
Cops, firemen, etc. are not even in the top10 of most dangerous jobs by mortality rates.
By your standard, the level of heroism of loggers (doing the job for other people, so they can have all the wood they need - in the past warmth saving from disease and death, now construction material (which must be safe) or paper (for education or functioning of public services - think how many deaths were saved by information kept on those pieces of paper)), fishermen (so other people will have food, won't starve) or construction workers of various kinds (so other people will have safe buildings to live in, work in, play in; roads to drive on, et al.) - dwarfs what cops, firemen, etc. are doing.
They are not even in the top10 of most dangerous jobs, by fatality rates; but I'm sure they like the attention brought on them thanks to this fact remaining obscure.
Police officers and firefighters are not even in the top 10 of most dangerous jobs, by fatality rates; soldiers probably likewise.
Conventional wisdom is often wrong; logger, fisherman, construction worker, drivers, etc. are much more dangerous.
It's very easy to find situations / areas that would call for true heroism...
And while people can easily say they are conscious of certain risk, there's always the effect of hoping how I will cheat it.
Or a side effect of expanding their network in Nepal (which they apparently do, also in rural areas), a very useful thing - at some point allowing close enough line-of-sight view of the mountain from some cellular base stations primarily serving local population; or maybe at most via trivial expansion of nearby infrastructure.
In a place where there's a rotating group of people with lots of money (a rarity there), valuing ability to stay in contact and of decently fast internet access.
Some Eurocopter landed on the summit few years ago - so just wait a while? A matter of setting up the service to assure safety of those willing to pay for it...
But I am a little jealous of our forebearers, for whom there existed unknown frontiers. And solitude is extinct.
Only if one chooses it to be so... (both not willing to give up our modern toys and acting disgusted about them)
Considering the network on the Chinese side can almost certainly carry SMS - transferring data via this channel, in a way similar to how WAP could use it, would be probably more straightforward, reliable and faster (considering voice-optimised compression)
I suspect that might still be a problem - with a Verizon phone, in a network of GSM family...
Compressed air is really not a very efficient way of storing and transporting energy... (really, why would you want to throw away all the experiences with mechanical design of, well, cars?)
As was the case with elevators for a long time...even when not strictly needed.
I do think there will be uproars when accidents do occur, like we have seen with the Toyota problem...
More precisely, uproars at perceived problems with autonomous cars. Certainly perceived chiefly by drivers - 80% of which think they are in the top 50%.
Rethinking our habits would be required with autonomous cars anyway (for starters - how to deal with 80-90% of drivers thinking they are in the top 50%?). We might as well not limit ourselves to just one wundersolution...
Not giving away the cities to cars, not building them primarily around the requirements of cars, would be a good start. Would help in not inhibiting bikes, too. Which BTW, in the form of folding(*) or "rental" bikes, nicely expand the utility of public transport ((*)and such bike is often a very handy addition to a car - easy to keep in the trunk most of the time, often gets useful at some destination to which only car travel is practical; but once there...). And certainly many more examples.
Cute, now you put words in my mouth. Or really like fantasizing.
Where did I say the possibility does not exist? Where?
I said "only" how we had good reasons to assume their lack of existence (which would of course require throwing a very large part of what we know about evolution of life on this planet out the window...), how there isn't a trace, and indeed all the evidence pointing to the contrary - we have no justifiable reason assume such large discrepancies.
The most important thing I'm saying, and the other poster in almost completely not-quoted part agrees, is - let me spell this out for you - that fossil evidence (or lack thereof(*)) is a much more probable point of data than the lack of technological artifacts. Artifacts which might have been simply almost not created in the first place (I was assuming I'm speaking with somebody who can guess, when I tell about what some distant civilisation might had most likely not done, that it would require their existence in the first place; required to even contemplate what they could do or not do)
(*)That ALL the available evidence, and constantly being unearthed, evidence paints certain picture is only too convenient. But hey, since you mention Dawkins - maybe there were giants, who knows...
Oh, don't forget about selectively choosing to disregard important parts of quoted posts, just so what's left suits your fantasies... (but missing the ending sentence of used section) ...how cute.
Lineages which follow very different paths that all the available ones - don't conveniently forget that "small" detail.
But funnily enough, he concluded more in line with what I'm saying - "traces of civilization just don't fossilize as well as bones do" (though I also point out how, demonstrably (still on our example, and of our evolutionary relatives), most of the time is spent before that stage - and without guarantee (again, demonstrably) of achieving it at all)
The point was that lack of technological artifacts isn't the best argument - simply because (demonstrably) civilisations don't have produce any substantial ones.
Yes, brain to body mass ratios which are very robust at roughly estimating the intelligence of group of species (groups unrelated for a long time, too, most importantly). Lower rates of metabolism in some major groups of the past wouldn't help...
You are acting like our fossil sample would be totally biased to exclude that particular lineage, supposedly changing at vastly different rates and directions than the other. That is ignoring fossils records.
And check again sizes of "our" brains from one million years ago, they were already quite big.
The issue here isn't mankind, we of course already developed many prominent technological artifacts (though most of them would be wiped away anyway) - but we did so only very recently.