ask anyone with Botox in Hollywood and they would tell you they are definitely better than you think they are
Your original comment was:
I think that humanity's problem is that... We view ourselves as being superior to life on Earth.
Becuase of the fact that we are included in the group "life on earth" your original comment is about one feeling superior to oneself. Your example refers to how a second party feels about the first; therefore, t's unrelated and irrelevant. You can't feel superior to yourself. Superiority, by definition, refers to relating yourself to others.
I also don't understand what you mean by our "illusion as people". You mention eating animals and plants as food, but you do it in almost a negative light, and then turn around and say it's a positive thing. What are you trying to convey?
While I agree, there is obviosly alot of underhandedness going on, I don't think your analogy works quiet so well. Upper management limiting lower management's allotment of time for employee hours doesn't necissarily have to be asking them to break the law, it's always possible to do things more efficiently and there are stores out there that are managed without overtime. But asking someone to take 40 minutes to traverse a 55 mile road when the speed limit is 55mph is certainly asking employees to break the law because breaking the law is the only physically possible way to comply to that statement, it won't be even marginally difficult for a competent prosecuter to proove that. Upper management is allways going to put pressure on lower management to be more effitient. If lower management can't do that without breaking the law then they need to tell that to upper management. Yea, getting fired is a possibility. Upper management can always hire another manager who will either get the job done without going into overtime (in which case you weren't that great a manager and needed to be fired) or will shave hours (in which case he's the one breaking the law and he can suffer the consequences when he gets caught). Either way if you break the law you are accountable.
So why is hiring more employee's not an option? There are hourly wages, so if you have 10 employees working 40 hours a week at 10 dollars an hour your paying 4,000 a week. If you have 20 employees at 10 an hour working 20 hours a week you still get 400 man hours at 4,000 dollars. In addition your employee's schedules will be more flexible, sick days won't be a crisis. The training required for employees of places like walmart isn't that difficult and you'll have more leeway in getting people trained with there isn't such a strain on them to pick up the workload right away. What's the down side?
This is NASA, not a bunch of 5th graders and a shovel. There is no competent scientist in the world who is not aware of the dangers of contaminating one's results. It's one of the basic tennants of science.
just because these things do not exist in our current perceptions, dos not rule them out; it simply means we'll have to look harder to find them.
Your right, just because we haven't encountered something yet does not mean it cannot possibly exist. But neither does it mean that it definitly exists. Your assertion that we need to look harder to find them is based on an assumption that it definitly exists. But that's a false assumption. It may exist, it may not.
We view ourselves as being superior to life on Earth
The phrase life on earth includes us, you can't be superior to yourself.
We have a long way to go before we ever meet enlightened lifeforms; and yet not as long before we meet completely corrupt ones. Because oil and water separate, do they not? Yoda says so.:-)
By going and looking, we shed our life and therefore life does exist wherever we go.
Fine, but the question of is there life on Mars isn't asking if a tiny microrganism hitched a ride. It's asking if there is life native to mars. And we have never been to the sun so this in no way supports your assertion that there must be life on the sun.
Humility also rules that if we believe one thing, the opposite must be true in some form or another.
It certainly does not. Humility rules that we accept the possibility that we may be wrong. The possibility that we may be wrong does not equate to we must be wrong somehow. Humility does not mean that we believe we are always wrong.
Our behaviour is so inconsistent throughout history, that we have to admit that life exists on the Sun, because we know it does not.
That is a hugely unjustified jump in logic, if it qualifies as logic. 100 years ago we knew that ice was cold, we knew that the sun gave us light, we knew that we had one moon; the body of knowledge that we held 100 years ago that still remains true is immense. To use examples of the things that we were wrong about as evidence that everything we know is patently false is riddiculus.
Scientifically, our classification of life has to adapt to understand the universe, as we are but a very miniscule part of it.
Yes, our classification of life will need to expand, it's entirely possible to find an organism that doesn't fit into the animal/plant/fungus/etc classifications. But our definition of life is a fairly open one, I don't see that that will need any major reworking.
As time passes, we will find life in places we never thought to look, and that is simply probability, not theoretical; it's bound to happen.
The statistical certainty of finding something where we didn't expect it does not in any way guarontee that that something and that place will be life on the sun. If I have a six sided die, my chances of rolling any one side (in a fair roll) are 1/6. The chances of me rolling a number is 1, 100% certainty because it has to come up in one of the six possible positions, but that in no way increases the probability of any one side above 1/6.
dolo666 addendum: I think therefore I am; I think therefore they are.
That's absurd. I think therefore I am is a statement that goes to the heart of self awareness and reality. It has no connection whatsoever to your addon which seems to be saying that something exists in the universe merely because you think it does? If someone out their truely believes in Star Wars does that mean there is a Death Star floating around out there?? No it doesn't. Hell, there may well be a Death Star floating around out there but it isn't there because you thought it was.
That's a good point, or why not reduce your output by 1 billionth of a percent and put that energy into a rocket. So maybe sun people don't have it so hard after all.....
I'm not sure I follow you. Your saying that because the sun sustains life on earth, it must therefore also sustain life on itself? I don't think I agree with that, the sun itself isn't what is sustaining life per se, it's the dulled emmisions of the sun. There are many layers of protection between us and the sun that allow us to recieve it's warmth without being fried by it. Life as we know it couldn't exist on the sun, and while its a possiblity that life in another form does, I don't think it's as obviose a conclusion as you have made it to be.
that I truly believe there is life on the Sun (although there must be)(emphasis mine)
Please explain that?
Contamination is bound to happen. How far in the future is a matter of question, but if humans continue to invent and expand as we have allways done then inevitably we will settle other planets or the moon maybe even other galaxies. Are you arguing that the lake should be left as it is never to be touched? I think it's inevitable that exploring the scientific finds will contaminate the lake but I also think that nasa can figure out ways to reduce that contamination maybe even to the point of irrelevance.
Also... if a "sun scientist" were smart enough to build a probe an launch it out of the suns gravity to the earth (keep in mind that that is exponentially harder then us sending probes to mars as they don't have orbital dynamics working in their favor), don't you think they would also be smart enough to build said probe out of something solid and non-molten, as to not destroy the planet they intend to explore?
Your argument is based on the presumption that the new rail system will be useless, but not everyone agrees with your presumptions. If they did they wouldn't support a rail system. You need to hold off on the main argument and justify your presumptions first. Why do you believe knowone will use it? The rail system in europe is hugely popular. The deficiencies of the american rail system can certainly be related to its inefectiveness; a problem that would be cured if a better system were to be built.
I agree that people have diffrent opinions about what they would like to listen to. But don't you think that there's a higher standard then just 'oh that guy likes it' to qualify something as truely great. The truely great such as Motzart, Bethoven, and Bach have stood the test of time, people today still consider them some of the greatest composers ever centuries after their time has passed. That simply doesn't compare to something that has an average shelf life of a couple weeks.
I have never ever been unwilling to accept subjectivity, I have allways said people can like whatever they want to like. What I'm saying is that on the larger scale of things, on what is going to stand the test of time and become truely recognized as great art vs. what is going to be forgot about in a week when the next single comes out, the bar is set signifigantly higher.
And for pete's sake, can even go one post without using the word snobby, your like a preschooler who just yell's 'is too stupid'. Do you know the definition of snobby?
1. One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.
2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.
1. The only one being patronizing here is you and tell me how I have imitated, admired, or seeked an association with any of the artist mentioned here?
2. I have said that there are plenty of songs that I like that certainly wouldn't be considered good art as I have also said that my judgement alone does not deem something good art.
Well Columbia had to withstand reentry, the ISS doesn't. So I don't think the situation is exactly the same, but I do agree that if it needs another spacewalk give it another spacewalk, and I doubt NASA disagree's either. They don't want another public disaster like the Columbia, and that's in addition to the fact that they are at heart good guys and are going to do their best to make sure their astronaughts are as safe as possible.
Re:Must we always take the company line?Re:A thoug
on
Simpsons Actors on Strike
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think voice talent getting half of the profits is a bit unfair. There are writers, producers, artists, all of which deserve a piece of that pie in addition to the fact that fox needs to show signifigant profit for it to be worth promoting. Voice talent in a cartoon is signifigantly less of a contribution to the final product then say acting on a TV series. That's just based on your numbers though. Often the publically released numbers can be somewhat misleading as to the actuall size and direction of cashflow. I would have to see more numbers before I decided if I really thought this was unfair or not.
Well, there's a diffrence between tracking visitors and being aware that they are in the country. I think the latter is common sense, the former is where I get nervous.
So then terrorists just start using people that haven't been photographed yet, and the photographed individuals stick to planning. There certainly isn't a shortage of people willing to commit terrorism, it won't be hard to find someone who's never done any major jobs for a terrorist organization and use him.
The most important thing a database of photographs and thumbprints could do is accurately match those entering the country with those leaving the country.
Yes, I believe as a country we have a right to know who is within our borders. That is exactly why people already have to display visa's when entering the country, so we know who they are. Any arguments about knowing who is in our country need to be centered on improoving the visa system, not adding new systems. And what good are fingerprints going to do us? Achmed bin-assal bin-whocares has never been fingerprinted. When he's done committing whatever terrorist crime he came to commit there's probably barely enough left for a dna test let alone fingerprints.
Slashdot Mirror
Your original comment was:
I think that humanity's problem is that ... We view ourselves as being superior to life on Earth.
Becuase of the fact that we are included in the group "life on earth" your original comment is about one feeling superior to oneself. Your example refers to how a second party feels about the first; therefore, t's unrelated and irrelevant. You can't feel superior to yourself. Superiority, by definition, refers to relating yourself to others.
I also don't understand what you mean by our "illusion as people". You mention eating animals and plants as food, but you do it in almost a negative light, and then turn around and say it's a positive thing. What are you trying to convey?
So why is hiring more employee's not an option? There are hourly wages, so if you have 10 employees working 40 hours a week at 10 dollars an hour your paying 4,000 a week. If you have 20 employees at 10 an hour working 20 hours a week you still get 400 man hours at 4,000 dollars. In addition your employee's schedules will be more flexible, sick days won't be a crisis. The training required for employees of places like walmart isn't that difficult and you'll have more leeway in getting people trained with there isn't such a strain on them to pick up the workload right away. What's the down side?
Why take their picture? It's already on the passport and where does the fingerprinting come in?
This is NASA, not a bunch of 5th graders and a shovel. There is no competent scientist in the world who is not aware of the dangers of contaminating one's results. It's one of the basic tennants of science.
Touche :)
Your right, just because we haven't encountered something yet does not mean it cannot possibly exist. But neither does it mean that it definitly exists. Your assertion that we need to look harder to find them is based on an assumption that it definitly exists. But that's a false assumption. It may exist, it may not.
We view ourselves as being superior to life on Earth
The phrase life on earth includes us, you can't be superior to yourself.
We have a long way to go before we ever meet enlightened lifeforms; and yet not as long before we meet completely corrupt ones. Because oil and water separate, do they not? Yoda says so. :-)
That phrase makes absolutely no sense....
Fine, but the question of is there life on Mars isn't asking if a tiny microrganism hitched a ride. It's asking if there is life native to mars. And we have never been to the sun so this in no way supports your assertion that there must be life on the sun.
Humility also rules that if we believe one thing, the opposite must be true in some form or another.
It certainly does not. Humility rules that we accept the possibility that we may be wrong. The possibility that we may be wrong does not equate to we must be wrong somehow. Humility does not mean that we believe we are always wrong.
That is a hugely unjustified jump in logic, if it qualifies as logic. 100 years ago we knew that ice was cold, we knew that the sun gave us light, we knew that we had one moon; the body of knowledge that we held 100 years ago that still remains true is immense. To use examples of the things that we were wrong about as evidence that everything we know is patently false is riddiculus.
Scientifically, our classification of life has to adapt to understand the universe, as we are but a very miniscule part of it.
Yes, our classification of life will need to expand, it's entirely possible to find an organism that doesn't fit into the animal/plant/fungus/etc classifications. But our definition of life is a fairly open one, I don't see that that will need any major reworking.
As time passes, we will find life in places we never thought to look, and that is simply probability, not theoretical; it's bound to happen.
The statistical certainty of finding something where we didn't expect it does not in any way guarontee that that something and that place will be life on the sun. If I have a six sided die, my chances of rolling any one side (in a fair roll) are 1/6. The chances of me rolling a number is 1, 100% certainty because it has to come up in one of the six possible positions, but that in no way increases the probability of any one side above 1/6.
dolo666 addendum: I think therefore I am; I think therefore they are.
That's absurd. I think therefore I am is a statement that goes to the heart of self awareness and reality. It has no connection whatsoever to your addon which seems to be saying that something exists in the universe merely because you think it does? If someone out their truely believes in Star Wars does that mean there is a Death Star floating around out there?? No it doesn't. Hell, there may well be a Death Star floating around out there but it isn't there because you thought it was.
That's a good point, or why not reduce your output by 1 billionth of a percent and put that energy into a rocket. So maybe sun people don't have it so hard after all.....
I'm not sure I follow you. Your saying that because the sun sustains life on earth, it must therefore also sustain life on itself? I don't think I agree with that, the sun itself isn't what is sustaining life per se, it's the dulled emmisions of the sun. There are many layers of protection between us and the sun that allow us to recieve it's warmth without being fried by it. Life as we know it couldn't exist on the sun, and while its a possiblity that life in another form does, I don't think it's as obviose a conclusion as you have made it to be.
What alternative do you propose?? That we never try?
Please explain that?
Contamination is bound to happen. How far in the future is a matter of question, but if humans continue to invent and expand as we have allways done then inevitably we will settle other planets or the moon maybe even other galaxies. Are you arguing that the lake should be left as it is never to be touched? I think it's inevitable that exploring the scientific finds will contaminate the lake but I also think that nasa can figure out ways to reduce that contamination maybe even to the point of irrelevance.
Also... if a "sun scientist" were smart enough to build a probe an launch it out of the suns gravity to the earth (keep in mind that that is exponentially harder then us sending probes to mars as they don't have orbital dynamics working in their favor), don't you think they would also be smart enough to build said probe out of something solid and non-molten, as to not destroy the planet they intend to explore?
Your argument is based on the presumption that the new rail system will be useless, but not everyone agrees with your presumptions. If they did they wouldn't support a rail system. You need to hold off on the main argument and justify your presumptions first. Why do you believe knowone will use it? The rail system in europe is hugely popular. The deficiencies of the american rail system can certainly be related to its inefectiveness; a problem that would be cured if a better system were to be built.
I agree that people have diffrent opinions about what they would like to listen to. But don't you think that there's a higher standard then just 'oh that guy likes it' to qualify something as truely great. The truely great such as Motzart, Bethoven, and Bach have stood the test of time, people today still consider them some of the greatest composers ever centuries after their time has passed. That simply doesn't compare to something that has an average shelf life of a couple weeks.
And for pete's sake, can even go one post without using the word snobby, your like a preschooler who just yell's 'is too stupid'. Do you know the definition of snobby?
1. One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.
2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.
1. The only one being patronizing here is you and tell me how I have imitated, admired, or seeked an association with any of the artist mentioned here?
2. I have said that there are plenty of songs that I like that certainly wouldn't be considered good art as I have also said that my judgement alone does not deem something good art.
It does make your point..... but then it makes his too....
That's kind of a weak argument.... Reguardless of whether he came here or not he did name the continent.
Well Columbia had to withstand reentry, the ISS doesn't. So I don't think the situation is exactly the same, but I do agree that if it needs another spacewalk give it another spacewalk, and I doubt NASA disagree's either. They don't want another public disaster like the Columbia, and that's in addition to the fact that they are at heart good guys and are going to do their best to make sure their astronaughts are as safe as possible.
I think voice talent getting half of the profits is a bit unfair. There are writers, producers, artists, all of which deserve a piece of that pie in addition to the fact that fox needs to show signifigant profit for it to be worth promoting. Voice talent in a cartoon is signifigantly less of a contribution to the final product then say acting on a TV series. That's just based on your numbers though. Often the publically released numbers can be somewhat misleading as to the actuall size and direction of cashflow. I would have to see more numbers before I decided if I really thought this was unfair or not.
Well, there's a diffrence between tracking visitors and being aware that they are in the country. I think the latter is common sense, the former is where I get nervous.
So then terrorists just start using people that haven't been photographed yet, and the photographed individuals stick to planning. There certainly isn't a shortage of people willing to commit terrorism, it won't be hard to find someone who's never done any major jobs for a terrorist organization and use him.
Semantics really.... but instead of hiding it in heroin... why not just hire the same guy to smuggle it out....
I think thats a fair point. But I think that only remains fair if people are allowed to obtain a visa and skip the extra check.
Computationally I don't think thats feasible.
Yes, I believe as a country we have a right to know who is within our borders. That is exactly why people already have to display visa's when entering the country, so we know who they are. Any arguments about knowing who is in our country need to be centered on improoving the visa system, not adding new systems. And what good are fingerprints going to do us? Achmed bin-assal bin-whocares has never been fingerprinted. When he's done committing whatever terrorist crime he came to commit there's probably barely enough left for a dna test let alone fingerprints.