Chicks are evolved to prefer men who seem capable of tackling beasts and bringing their meat home for dinner and protecting their families using the most rudimentary of weapons more than those capable of engineering rockets to land on the moon, for obvious reasons.
How about some real live teddy bears? I'm sure just about every child has dreamed about them. Any chance a modification of a bear's DNA will make them grow no bigger than dogs?
What's more, why should they feel any guilt about any unaffiliated third parties spamming them using the information they have provided? They didn't actually do the counter-spamming themselves. They just made the information available to the public, which is in itself not a crime nor a sin, and kept their hands off of the rest.
Heck, even if these spammers got murdered by some crazed anti-spam vigilantes using the information they released, they should still feel no guilt because of it. They should instead cheer loudly, knowing fully well that something good was accomplished without having to pull the trigger themselves, and not let any misguided conscience cost them any sleep at night.
In the movies, murdering bad guys usually don't have families that care about and love them. In the real world, they do. Then they too are at fault for sticking behind such garbage.
Hackers--sure, as long as they've grown out of their childish silliness. If you can think like a hacker, you're probably better at intercepting them than those who don't have experience at it.
Crackers--no. Once a thief, always a thief (or approach with such caution).
I find there are too many stoppages in play, which are all too long. How about a new rule, like the new rushed faceoff rule introduced to hockey this season, that requires the teams to scrimmage and resume play within a 15 second period, instead of thumping chests, jumping around like baboons, and taking their time chatting their strategy after the whistle?
Making academic institutions pay for themselves through private money and keeping their hands out of taxpayers' wallets isn't exactly anti-capitalist nor anti-libertarian, is it? Though it is certainly not without its flaws.
The concept of an eccentric alien travelling on an extradimensional spacetimeship that can morph to blend with its surroundings is a good one for a sci-fi, but to be taken seriously, it has to stop taking on the form of an outdated English police box all the time.
There's probably a whole generation of young people who's never seen a blue police box their entire lives, not to mention the rest of the world, to whom it just makes the TARDIS and the whole show just look silly.
So you think it's potato chips, fast food, movies and music that's pissing people in the middle east off? Or do you think that maybe the sponsoring of these corrupt powers is perhaps the source of people's anger?
"Decadent" unislamic movies and music, and the threat of other nonislamic religious and cultural influences infiltrating their societies and encouraging nonadherence and apostasy likely have more to do with it.
Think about it. Does it make any sense to carry out a suicide attack and die for a more favourable political system that you will never even live to enjoy? People don't just make the ultimate sacrifice on political gripes alone, and need a much greater motivator, like their fanatical religious beliefs and the promise of a better afterlife, like eternal paradise in heaven, with the 70 virgins and all, to carry out the otherwise unthinkable.
Do cases such as this fall under the jurisdiction of Islamic law in Nigeria? I hope so. Wouldn't it be great if they were to be stoned to death for it, or have their hands cut off? >:)
I remember reading somewhere that the pre-Columbian population of present-day Canada and USA was around 10 million, and the population of present-day Mexico was about 30 million. It makes sense that areas that had advanced civilizations and agriculture, such as Mexico (Aztecs) and Peru (Incas) had a higher population density and still have a relatively high native population, whereas the more sparsely populated areas of the Americas are now predominantly 'white'.
Recent evidence indicates that modern mongolian stock 'native americans' wiped out a caucasoid population (thought to be similar to the Ainu of northern Japan) that had arrived before them.
Ainus aren't caucasoids. They're more likely closely related to Southeast Asians and Polynesians.
Then they can take a page out of the DNA of grizzly bears. An 8-ft. grizzly has a better reach and can lift more weights than any human can. Add to that the genetics of a kangaroo, for jumping ability.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with this example. It seems to be the "People don't kill people, guns kill people" argument. Just because strength or whatever other characteristics you choose would give you the ability to beat the crap out of someone doesn't give you the motive also, you do it of your own volition. It all comes down to the person.
And we know just how much of a scourge to society guns have become.
An effective and invisible weapon that can be so well concealed by injecting into the veins or DNA, just seems too good for many sociopaths and cowards to pass up. Its use will be next to impossible to prove.
And suppose your target has had the same improvements to his genes. Then you're dead even and no worse off than now: you can't beat him up without harm, nor can he beat you up, however, you're both better of because you have the strength and are able to put it to positive uses.
Well, that doesn't exactly level the field for those of us who choose to play clean.
IANABiologist/Geneticist, but 200 year of semi-selective breeding in humans would work out to about 20 generations.
How do you get these numbers, unless people start reproducing at 10 years of age?
Anyways, I wonder if it really has more to do with evolving in an environment with big game, such as wilderbeests, and elephants, and big predators, such as lions in their midst, than being selectively bred over a relatively short period to serve as slaves. I also understand that larger bodies are also more advantageous in hot and arid climates, such as the African savannah, to provide more surface area for sweat to cool the body with.
Ahnold isnt in sports anymore. But steroids in body building is accepted, just not weight lifting.
WWF isnt a sport, therefore there is no "enhancement" involved. The winner is scripted fool.
Well, a big and strong appearance is essential for their product to be marketable in both these cases. Can you imagine a skinny and scrawny Conan the Barbarian?
In fact for the NFL they probably don't care, but if they condoned steroids at the pro level, it would bleed more into the college and high school level, where things are supposed to be "pure"
Slashdot Mirror
So now that we have the technology to modify the pigmentation of living organisms, soon, will every newborn baby girl be a blue-eyed blonde?
Chicks are evolved to prefer men who seem capable of tackling beasts and bringing their meat home for dinner and protecting their families using the most rudimentary of weapons more than those capable of engineering rockets to land on the moon, for obvious reasons.
How about some real live teddy bears? I'm sure just about every child has dreamed about them. Any chance a modification of a bear's DNA will make them grow no bigger than dogs?
What's more, why should they feel any guilt about any unaffiliated third parties spamming them using the information they have provided? They didn't actually do the counter-spamming themselves. They just made the information available to the public, which is in itself not a crime nor a sin, and kept their hands off of the rest.
Heck, even if these spammers got murdered by some crazed anti-spam vigilantes using the information they released, they should still feel no guilt because of it. They should instead cheer loudly, knowing fully well that something good was accomplished without having to pull the trigger themselves, and not let any misguided conscience cost them any sleep at night.
In the movies, murdering bad guys usually don't have families that care about and love them. In the real world, they do.
Then they too are at fault for sticking behind such garbage.
Hackers--sure, as long as they've grown out of their childish silliness. If you can think like a hacker, you're probably better at intercepting them than those who don't have experience at it.
Crackers--no. Once a thief, always a thief (or approach with such caution).
How about a music database as well, complete with full credits and biographical information of all personnel involved?
I find there are too many stoppages in play, which are all too long. How about a new rule, like the new rushed faceoff rule introduced to hockey this season, that requires the teams to scrimmage and resume play within a 15 second period, instead of thumping chests, jumping around like baboons, and taking their time chatting their strategy after the whistle?
Coming soon to a high school and elementary school near you also.
Making academic institutions pay for themselves through private money and keeping their hands out of taxpayers' wallets isn't exactly anti-capitalist nor anti-libertarian, is it? Though it is certainly not without its flaws.
The concept of an eccentric alien travelling on an extradimensional spacetimeship that can morph to blend with its surroundings is a good one for a sci-fi, but to be taken seriously, it has to stop taking on the form of an outdated English police box all the time.
There's probably a whole generation of young people who's never seen a blue police box their entire lives, not to mention the rest of the world, to whom it just makes the TARDIS and the whole show just look silly.
And Pertwee didn't do his share of "Venusian karate"?
How about developing an algorithm to predict the likelihood of David Beckham kicking another player in the calf?
So you think it's potato chips, fast food, movies and music that's pissing people in the middle east off? Or do you think that maybe the sponsoring of these corrupt powers is perhaps the source of people's anger?
"Decadent" unislamic movies and music, and the threat of other nonislamic religious and cultural influences infiltrating their societies and encouraging nonadherence and apostasy likely have more to do with it.
Think about it. Does it make any sense to carry out a suicide attack and die for a more favourable political system that you will never even live to enjoy? People don't just make the ultimate sacrifice on political gripes alone, and need a much greater motivator, like their fanatical religious beliefs and the promise of a better afterlife, like eternal paradise in heaven, with the 70 virgins and all, to carry out the otherwise unthinkable.
Do cases such as this fall under the jurisdiction of Islamic law in Nigeria? I hope so. Wouldn't it be great if they were to be stoned to death for it, or have their hands cut off? >:)
Actually, they are caucasoids, and there are caucasoid (note: not caucasian!) characteristics in the polynesians.
You mean australoid?
I remember reading somewhere that the pre-Columbian population of present-day Canada and USA was around 10 million, and the population of present-day Mexico was about 30 million. It makes sense that areas that had advanced civilizations and agriculture, such as Mexico (Aztecs) and Peru (Incas) had a higher population density and still have a relatively high native population, whereas the more sparsely populated areas of the Americas are now predominantly 'white'.
Recent evidence indicates that modern mongolian stock 'native americans' wiped out a caucasoid population (thought to be similar to the Ainu of northern Japan) that had arrived before them.
Ainus aren't caucasoids. They're more likely closely related to Southeast Asians and Polynesians.
the best catholics, however, have no kids, because they're priests and nuns
...and therefore have sex mostly with those of the same sex, especially with those that have not yet reached reproductive maturity.
They can make them to have 20-inch dongs, that can squirt out a litre every time.
Basketball players make lousy power-lifters.
Then they can take a page out of the DNA of grizzly bears. An 8-ft. grizzly has a better reach and can lift more weights than any human can. Add to that the genetics of a kangaroo, for jumping ability.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with this example. It seems to be the "People don't kill people, guns kill people" argument. Just because strength or whatever other characteristics you choose would give you the ability to beat the crap out of someone doesn't give you the motive also, you do it of your own volition. It all comes down to the person.
And we know just how much of a scourge to society guns have become.
An effective and invisible weapon that can be so well concealed by injecting into the veins or DNA, just seems too good for many sociopaths and cowards to pass up. Its use will be next to impossible to prove.
And suppose your target has had the same improvements to his genes. Then you're dead even and no worse off than now: you can't beat him up without harm, nor can he beat you up, however, you're both better of because you have the strength and are able to put it to positive uses.
Well, that doesn't exactly level the field for those of us who choose to play clean.
I believe their higher bone density also makes them unsuitable for swimming, though I'm no expert on this subject.
IANABiologist/Geneticist, but 200 year of semi-selective breeding in humans would work out to about 20 generations.
How do you get these numbers, unless people start reproducing at 10 years of age?
Anyways, I wonder if it really has more to do with evolving in an environment with big game, such as wilderbeests, and elephants, and big predators, such as lions in their midst, than being selectively bred over a relatively short period to serve as slaves. I also understand that larger bodies are also more advantageous in hot and arid climates, such as the African savannah, to provide more surface area for sweat to cool the body with.
Ahnold isnt in sports anymore. But steroids in body building is accepted, just not weight lifting.
WWF isnt a sport, therefore there is no "enhancement" involved. The winner is scripted fool.
Well, a big and strong appearance is essential for their product to be marketable in both these cases. Can you imagine a skinny and scrawny Conan the Barbarian?
In fact for the NFL they probably don't care, but if they condoned steroids at the pro level, it would bleed more into the college and high school level, where things are supposed to be "pure"
It already has.