If, as a result of my post (which clearly said "I believe?"), people are now sure that all turtles are immune to aging, that's their own damn fault. It's something I once heard from a semi-reliable source (that turtles, or a particular species of turtle, could theoretically live for thousands of years if it didn't succumb to predators or disease), I'm short on time, a bit of quick wiki'ing and googling didn't provide me with any links, so I thought I'd mention it anyway in case one of you guys knew what I was talking about. I appologize for not making it clear in my post, but I figured that people here do possess some level of discrimination.
I never meant to imply that it would be simple; I merely meant to show that we've already seen phenonmena that halt or even reverse the fundemental causes of aging. The exact implementation is irrelevant; the fact that it is feasible at the cellular level is enough. It's just like coding, man, only our software actually creates our hardware. Do you realize the incredible freedom that gives us? Given enough time, I'm sure we could work around any bugs that arise. [insert obligatory Microsoft joke here]
Example: what if we could activate the telomerases and figure out another way of hard-coding cell death, thus preventing cancerous behavior?
If the human race is stupid enough to discover the secret of immortality and then not bother to ever leave this horribly cramped blue-green sphere, we deserve to go extinct.
As far as using up the resources of the entire universe is concerned, I think we'd probably experience heat death before that happens.
Sociological consequences aside, there's no reason to think that we won't find a cure for aging eventually. A thirty-five year old couple can conceive a perfectly healthy, perfectly youthful baby... how is that? The genes they used to create this new life were copied from 35 year old cells--cells that have been damaged by oxidation, cells that have probably lost a significant amount of their protective end-sections (IANAG--I forget what the ends of the DNA molecules are called, but they basically act as a buffer to prevent harmful mutation. Over time, though, they get shorter and disappear.)
Reproduction itself flies in the face of aging. Consider, too, that some species (such as turtles, I believe?) are basically immune aging. How can you be so pessimistic in the face of such things? No, give us enough time and I'm sure we could find the cure, though it might be availible only to our genetically-engineered children. If we still haven't found a cure in a century or two, it will be because we don't want to find a cure, because we're afraid of the consequences such a thing might bring... NOT because it's a hopeless fantasy.
I'm not calling you a troll or a liar--I just think that people need to be confronted with actual proof of these statements or they're never going to believe them. I know a little of the shit the CIA has pulled in the past (bay of pigs, anyone?), but I don't have the specifics in regards to "overthrowing democracies" or "funding terrorists." My guess is, the guys who mod you "troll" and "overrated" don't know the specifics, either. So show us. Every time you make the claim, post the links. Hell, put it in your sig.
If enough people do this, maybe the American public will stop viewing our government through rose-colored glasses.
it's arguably not a "nothing" you're getting the something (so-called "vacuum energy") from. I'm far far far too tired right now to attempt an explanation of the physics of empty space, though...
So I suppose you think that when your car ignites gas, you're getting something for "nothing"?
A tiny bit of mass equals a great deal of energy, and it's very foolish of you to imply that anything significantly more efficient than what we use now is impossible.
Anyone who believes that Noah actually managed to build a hugeass boat and keep all of those animals alive (with VASTLY different food and climate requirements, some so delicate that even now we have a hard time keeping them alive in captivity)for 40 days is such a literally-interpreting fundementalist. Only a fundementalist would interpret a boat being found on a mountain as being proof of such a patiently absurd story.
Nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven based on ancient findings by any reputable scientific investigation...Why the hatred, then, for what has been shown time and time again to be the most accurate and most studied ancient historical text in the world?
Ummmmmmmm... for starters, a literal "scientific" analysis of the bible (supposedly) tells us that the world is only 5000 years old. Do you share this belief? Do you realize that it contradicts entire FIELDS of science? If I read your statement correctly, then, all of ancient history, biology, physics (radioactive decay rates, cosmological observations, etc.), and archeology is not "reputable."
If you don't believe that the earth is only 5000 years old, then you should realize that a literal interpretation of the bible (in this case, all of its "begats") should not be the basis of a scientific theory. If you do, then all I say is please stay out of our way. Some of us do use our eyes and ears and our minds, and we choose to believe objective reality over subjective dogma.
Unfortunately, neither I nor (I STRONGLY suspect) you have the science background for me to convincingly push the case for the big bang, but that's not what the parent said now was it? The site he linked claimed that the ark could hold the equivalent of 522 railroad cars worth of stuff. That's pretty huge figure--and where did it come from, exactly? (Did they finally decide on the length of a "cubit"?) How long did Noah have to build this sucker, exactly? For one man working with primative tools, even if he had help from his family, this is a decades-long project at best (and impossible at worst.) The crap about the animals is BS, too. You can't keep all of those animals alive for that long. You just can't. Many animals will die if they don't get very specific food or if it's just a little too cold or just a little too hot. No matter how huge and spiffy that boat was, I'll lay odds that it didn't have sophiticated climate control and foodstores containing plants from halfway 'round the world.
If you accept it literally, the ark story is completely impossible, and yes it IS boggling to most minds when people try to defend it with such crappy "evidence."
Then I think he has better things to do than hiding his toy boat from us.
If that's how he truly occupies his time, then I am glad that I do not worship such a sadistic being. I'm real! Forget all the contradictions in the Bible, I'm real! Forget all the contradictions with reality, I'm real! If you don't believe I'm real, I'm going to let you suffer forever in hell! But I'm never going to give you any proof, and I'll KILL anyone who tries to find it.
Fuck, man... seriously, how can you worship someone/someTHING that behaves like that? He gives us a mind that no animal even comes close to equalling, then he punishes us for using it.
I don't say for sure that there isn't a god (I'm not that arrogant), but if there is, I really hope that he doesn't pull this kind of shit.
Note to mods: If the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god isn't real, then my objections are spot on. If he is, then I'm going to burn in hell forever and guys like the parent are getting into heaven--in that case, hey, couldn't I at least get a little/. karma before my eternal punishment starts?
The point is, you don't prove religion. At least, you shouldn't. Religious people try it all the time, but anyone with an ounce of objectivity can easily disprove a literal interpretation of the bible.
Just think about it--a very literal interpretation of the bible tells us that the world is only five thousand or so years old. If you want to believe this, fine. But in doing so, you disconnect yourself from silly concepts like "evidence" and "reality."
So what if there's a boat on the mountain? So what if it's X cubits long and Y cubits wide? (Have they even agreed on what a cubit is?) So what if there's traces of animal DNA found? Even with the most powerful proof imaginable (short of god himself just hanging around smoking a cig--"What, that? Oh yeah, that's the ark."), it's still STUPID to say that you've found Noah's ark. Pictures or not, it's still not Noah's ark.
You can't fit all the animals on earth in such a small space. You ESPECIALLY can't do it without them killing each other (or you.) It becomes even harder if you take into account every animal that has ever existed in the fossil record (or even merely a large fraction of them.)
If you want to talk about evidence of a great flood (and there is a lot of evidence that there was a great flood, probably after the last ice age), cool. If you want to talk about how cool it is that we found this old boat way up on the mountain, cool. But this isn't proof. I haven't seen it, and I can still say it isn't proof because the very CONCEPT flies in the face of everything I know. Similarly, just because my neice comes home with sparkles in her hair does not mean I believe that she was playing with the garden fairies all day long.
What if tomorrow a scientist said that the earth could *conceivably* only be 5000 years old, according to some weird new theory? Would that suddenly prove the fundementalist Christian argument? Of COURSE not. The contradictions involved in the 5000 year old earth theory aren't just geological--they're historically, evolutionarily, and cosmologically wrong. "Wrong", as in, "does not in any way fit the universe which we perceive", not religiously "wrong".
I'm not attacking religion in any way, shape or form, but if people put forth a religious idea as FACT, they deserve to be scoffed at if it is, indeed, a ridiculous idea (scientifically speaking.) Noah's Ark is ridiculous, and people who claim to bring back pictures of it deserve to be scoffed at and even viewed with suspicion, as the blurb says. They are attempting to prove something that anyone with a shred of common sense realizes cannot be proved--they might come back with pictures, but why should I even believe those, when they are obviously somewhat delusional in the first place?
If you've got nothing to hide, then why worry about it, and if you've got something to hide, then it's something you're just gonna have to deal with.
Just when is this stupid stupid stupid STUPID line of reasoning going to die out? Do you people actually think that we should live in glass houses? That anybody should be able to sit down and pour over our correspondences and associations and paint an extremely detailed picture of our personal lives? I don't want people to be able to track my every move. I don't want the police coming 'round to ask me questions every time I buy a copy of 2600. I don't want my personal correspondence posted (or leaked from an LEA database) for all the world to see. I don't want to be labeled and pigeonholed by statisticians working for the government, my employers, insurance companies.
I want to spend my time living my life, not justifying it--and I'll be damned if that somehow makes me paranoid or secretive or crimminal.
Oh please, won't someone think of the kitties! We must let the government regulate the internet NOW in order to stop kitty porn! http://www.kittyporn.org/
(sorry, I still am too lazy to learn how to do a proper HTML link)
The last story in I, Robot (I forget what it was called) dealt with super-mainframes making decisions that seemed to be detremental to humanity, but really were necesarry for its long-term survival.
But truly intelligent robots would not be so subtle, I think. Depending on the definitions of "harm" we give them, they would go to great lengths to gain power over us in order to protect us from ourselves. Some might think that this is a great idea--if we cannot hold human life sacred, then perhaps we could create and put into power beings that DO hold it sacred.
The consequences are completely unpredictable, though. What if we're prevented from doing anything on the edge, anything halfway interesting because it's risky? What if suffering is, in fact, a necesarry part of human existence? What philosophy truly is the most peaceful, and to what lengths would the robots force this philosophy upon us? I'm imagining a world similar to the one depicted in Philip K. Dick's Service Call, and it's not a world that I'd want to live in...
Then again, perhaps it's better than machines attempting to exterminate us altogether...
What is polluting what, here? A very small bit of metal is "polluting" a huge, cold rock whirling around a nuclear fireball, which will some day swell and swallow up that rock. I'm sorry, but this is not immoral. Polution *can be* immoral because of the negative ways it affects LIFE--and I'm pretty sure that there is no life on the moon.
You're taking a slightly bizzare (though understandable) aethetic to keep the moon "unspoiled" and turning it into a moral issue, but it's NOT. It's aethetics, and nothing more. It doesn't matter at all if a bit of metal was mined on earth, processed, then blasted off to some other bit of rock. It just doesn't. You can't even argue that it's unsightly, because there's no one there to see it.
I'm not saying that this isn't a stupid thing to do (it is), but immoral? Hah...
Under "5 reasons to choose UNIX instead of Linux":
As early as May 2003, SCO warned Linux(R) users that enterprise use of the Linux(R) operating system was in violation of its intellectual property rights in UNIX(R) technology. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from SCO's copyrighted UNIX(R) code base and contributed to Linux(R) for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. These facts support SCO's position that the use of the Linux(R) operating system in a commercial setting violates our rights under the United States Copyright Act, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (emphasis mine)
However, even if they get around to changing this, they can't make these statements go away forever. They are accusing Linux distributors/users of a crime (oh alright, a tort) in order to further their own financial interests--surely that has to be very sue-able, if it turns out that no code was copied verbatim? Or does one first have to prove financial damage as a result of these statements?
Does it leave neat glowy trails in the air?
And what about the background music? I want to hear drums and people yelling "DAH... DAH... DAHDAH!" in the background whenever I crank this baby up.
Am I the only one who finds this line of reasoning rather insane? Animals don't sign contracts before they mate with each other, and we sure as hell don't ask them to sign contracts before we cut off their tails/castrate them/euthenize them/etc. In short, we don't give a damn about their lack of communication when it comes to *anything* else, so why should we demand it when it comes to this? (Also, it's worthwhile mentioning that we CAN reliably communicate with some animals, such as monkeys that have been taught sign language.)
I'm not into beastiality, I'm just against stupidity.
We can still bitch that RIAA is trying to take our money from CD-R and tape purchases (the "RIAA tax") without giving us anything in return. Remove the RIAA tax and maybe, just maybe, we "pirates" might not have a leg to stand on anymore. For now, though, it looks more like we're aruging for fair compensation for our money, whereas guys like you are aruging for RIAA's right to commit highway robbery.
because that is the right message to send--copyrights (such as the ones that form the basis of the GPL, Britney's music, and the bulk of work done by software developers who visit slashdot) should be respected, completely anti-copyright idiot/zealots notwithstanding (bring on the flames).
The difference between, say, a GPL copyright and RIAA's copyrights is that RIAA charges all of us for their copyrights--even if we never, ever infringe on them (the "RIAA tax" on CD-Rs and blank tapes.) It might not be legally OK to download RIAA's music, but let me ask you this: MORALLY SPEAKING, do you think that it's better for RIAA to get our money without giving us anything in return? Personally, I think that by taking our money, they are acknowledging that we have the right to "try before we buy", (and maybe even "try and then not buy", on occasion.)
Slashdot Mirror
If, as a result of my post (which clearly said "I believe?"), people are now sure that all turtles are immune to aging, that's their own damn fault. It's something I once heard from a semi-reliable source (that turtles, or a particular species of turtle, could theoretically live for thousands of years if it didn't succumb to predators or disease), I'm short on time, a bit of quick wiki'ing and googling didn't provide me with any links, so I thought I'd mention it anyway in case one of you guys knew what I was talking about. I appologize for not making it clear in my post, but I figured that people here do possess some level of discrimination.
...yes, I *am* new here. Sort of.
I never meant to imply that it would be simple; I merely meant to show that we've already seen phenonmena that halt or even reverse the fundemental causes of aging. The exact implementation is irrelevant; the fact that it is feasible at the cellular level is enough. It's just like coding, man, only our software actually creates our hardware. Do you realize the incredible freedom that gives us? Given enough time, I'm sure we could work around any bugs that arise. [insert obligatory Microsoft joke here]
Example: what if we could activate the telomerases and figure out another way of hard-coding cell death, thus preventing cancerous behavior?
If the human race is stupid enough to discover the secret of immortality and then not bother to ever leave this horribly cramped blue-green sphere, we deserve to go extinct.
As far as using up the resources of the entire universe is concerned, I think we'd probably experience heat death before that happens.
Sociological consequences aside, there's no reason to think that we won't find a cure for aging eventually. A thirty-five year old couple can conceive a perfectly healthy, perfectly youthful baby... how is that? The genes they used to create this new life were copied from 35 year old cells--cells that have been damaged by oxidation, cells that have probably lost a significant amount of their protective end-sections (IANAG--I forget what the ends of the DNA molecules are called, but they basically act as a buffer to prevent harmful mutation. Over time, though, they get shorter and disappear.)
Reproduction itself flies in the face of aging. Consider, too, that some species (such as turtles, I believe?) are basically immune aging. How can you be so pessimistic in the face of such things? No, give us enough time and I'm sure we could find the cure, though it might be availible only to our genetically-engineered children. If we still haven't found a cure in a century or two, it will be because we don't want to find a cure, because we're afraid of the consequences such a thing might bring... NOT because it's a hopeless fantasy.
porting Wine to MingGW
Hey, why not call it that? "Port"! I dunno if renaming a port is unusual, but if so I think we can make an exception in this case.
I'm not calling you a troll or a liar--I just think that people need to be confronted with actual proof of these statements or they're never going to believe them. I know a little of the shit the CIA has pulled in the past (bay of pigs, anyone?), but I don't have the specifics in regards to "overthrowing democracies" or "funding terrorists." My guess is, the guys who mod you "troll" and "overrated" don't know the specifics, either. So show us. Every time you make the claim, post the links. Hell, put it in your sig.
If enough people do this, maybe the American public will stop viewing our government through rose-colored glasses.
So that's where Holy Shit comes from!
Troll? Am I missing something here? I'm against bad puns as much as the next guy, but surely "overrated" is sufficient?
...clearly doesn't know a thing about the Japanese language. :-p
it's arguably not a "nothing" you're getting the something (so-called "vacuum energy") from. I'm far far far too tired right now to attempt an explanation of the physics of empty space, though...
So I suppose you think that when your car ignites gas, you're getting something for "nothing"?
A tiny bit of mass equals a great deal of energy, and it's very foolish of you to imply that anything significantly more efficient than what we use now is impossible.
Anyone who believes that Noah actually managed to build a hugeass boat and keep all of those animals alive (with VASTLY different food and climate requirements, some so delicate that even now we have a hard time keeping them alive in captivity)for 40 days is such a literally-interpreting fundementalist. Only a fundementalist would interpret a boat being found on a mountain as being proof of such a patiently absurd story.
If you don't believe that the earth is only 5000 years old, then you should realize that a literal interpretation of the bible (in this case, all of its "begats") should not be the basis of a scientific theory. If you do, then all I say is please stay out of our way. Some of us do use our eyes and ears and our minds, and we choose to believe objective reality over subjective dogma.
Unfortunately, neither I nor (I STRONGLY suspect) you have the science background for me to convincingly push the case for the big bang, but that's not what the parent said now was it? The site he linked claimed that the ark could hold the equivalent of 522 railroad cars worth of stuff. That's pretty huge figure--and where did it come from, exactly? (Did they finally decide on the length of a "cubit"?) How long did Noah have to build this sucker, exactly? For one man working with primative tools, even if he had help from his family, this is a decades-long project at best (and impossible at worst.) The crap about the animals is BS, too. You can't keep all of those animals alive for that long. You just can't. Many animals will die if they don't get very specific food or if it's just a little too cold or just a little too hot. No matter how huge and spiffy that boat was, I'll lay odds that it didn't have sophiticated climate control and foodstores containing plants from halfway 'round the world. If you accept it literally, the ark story is completely impossible, and yes it IS boggling to most minds when people try to defend it with such crappy "evidence."
Then I think he has better things to do than hiding his toy boat from us. If that's how he truly occupies his time, then I am glad that I do not worship such a sadistic being. I'm real! Forget all the contradictions in the Bible, I'm real! Forget all the contradictions with reality, I'm real! If you don't believe I'm real, I'm going to let you suffer forever in hell! But I'm never going to give you any proof, and I'll KILL anyone who tries to find it. Fuck, man... seriously, how can you worship someone/someTHING that behaves like that? He gives us a mind that no animal even comes close to equalling, then he punishes us for using it. I don't say for sure that there isn't a god (I'm not that arrogant), but if there is, I really hope that he doesn't pull this kind of shit. Note to mods: If the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god isn't real, then my objections are spot on. If he is, then I'm going to burn in hell forever and guys like the parent are getting into heaven--in that case, hey, couldn't I at least get a little /. karma before my eternal punishment starts?
The point is, you don't prove religion. At least, you shouldn't. Religious people try it all the time, but anyone with an ounce of objectivity can easily disprove a literal interpretation of the bible. Just think about it--a very literal interpretation of the bible tells us that the world is only five thousand or so years old. If you want to believe this, fine. But in doing so, you disconnect yourself from silly concepts like "evidence" and "reality." So what if there's a boat on the mountain? So what if it's X cubits long and Y cubits wide? (Have they even agreed on what a cubit is?) So what if there's traces of animal DNA found? Even with the most powerful proof imaginable (short of god himself just hanging around smoking a cig--"What, that? Oh yeah, that's the ark."), it's still STUPID to say that you've found Noah's ark. Pictures or not, it's still not Noah's ark. You can't fit all the animals on earth in such a small space. You ESPECIALLY can't do it without them killing each other (or you.) It becomes even harder if you take into account every animal that has ever existed in the fossil record (or even merely a large fraction of them.) If you want to talk about evidence of a great flood (and there is a lot of evidence that there was a great flood, probably after the last ice age), cool. If you want to talk about how cool it is that we found this old boat way up on the mountain, cool. But this isn't proof. I haven't seen it, and I can still say it isn't proof because the very CONCEPT flies in the face of everything I know. Similarly, just because my neice comes home with sparkles in her hair does not mean I believe that she was playing with the garden fairies all day long. What if tomorrow a scientist said that the earth could *conceivably* only be 5000 years old, according to some weird new theory? Would that suddenly prove the fundementalist Christian argument? Of COURSE not. The contradictions involved in the 5000 year old earth theory aren't just geological--they're historically, evolutionarily, and cosmologically wrong. "Wrong", as in, "does not in any way fit the universe which we perceive", not religiously "wrong". I'm not attacking religion in any way, shape or form, but if people put forth a religious idea as FACT, they deserve to be scoffed at if it is, indeed, a ridiculous idea (scientifically speaking.) Noah's Ark is ridiculous, and people who claim to bring back pictures of it deserve to be scoffed at and even viewed with suspicion, as the blurb says. They are attempting to prove something that anyone with a shred of common sense realizes cannot be proved--they might come back with pictures, but why should I even believe those, when they are obviously somewhat delusional in the first place?
The last story in I, Robot (I forget what it was called) dealt with super-mainframes making decisions that seemed to be detremental to humanity, but really were necesarry for its long-term survival. But truly intelligent robots would not be so subtle, I think. Depending on the definitions of "harm" we give them, they would go to great lengths to gain power over us in order to protect us from ourselves. Some might think that this is a great idea--if we cannot hold human life sacred, then perhaps we could create and put into power beings that DO hold it sacred. The consequences are completely unpredictable, though. What if we're prevented from doing anything on the edge, anything halfway interesting because it's risky? What if suffering is, in fact, a necesarry part of human existence? What philosophy truly is the most peaceful, and to what lengths would the robots force this philosophy upon us? I'm imagining a world similar to the one depicted in Philip K. Dick's Service Call, and it's not a world that I'd want to live in... Then again, perhaps it's better than machines attempting to exterminate us altogether...
What is polluting what, here? A very small bit of metal is "polluting" a huge, cold rock whirling around a nuclear fireball, which will some day swell and swallow up that rock. I'm sorry, but this is not immoral. Polution *can be* immoral because of the negative ways it affects LIFE--and I'm pretty sure that there is no life on the moon. You're taking a slightly bizzare (though understandable) aethetic to keep the moon "unspoiled" and turning it into a moral issue, but it's NOT. It's aethetics, and nothing more. It doesn't matter at all if a bit of metal was mined on earth, processed, then blasted off to some other bit of rock. It just doesn't. You can't even argue that it's unsightly, because there's no one there to see it. I'm not saying that this isn't a stupid thing to do (it is), but immoral? Hah...
Does it leave neat glowy trails in the air? And what about the background music? I want to hear drums and people yelling "DAH... DAH... DAHDAH!" in the background whenever I crank this baby up.
Am I the only one who finds this line of reasoning rather insane? Animals don't sign contracts before they mate with each other, and we sure as hell don't ask them to sign contracts before we cut off their tails/castrate them/euthenize them/etc. In short, we don't give a damn about their lack of communication when it comes to *anything* else, so why should we demand it when it comes to this? (Also, it's worthwhile mentioning that we CAN reliably communicate with some animals, such as monkeys that have been taught sign language.) I'm not into beastiality, I'm just against stupidity.
We can still bitch that RIAA is trying to take our money from CD-R and tape purchases (the "RIAA tax") without giving us anything in return. Remove the RIAA tax and maybe, just maybe, we "pirates" might not have a leg to stand on anymore. For now, though, it looks more like we're aruging for fair compensation for our money, whereas guys like you are aruging for RIAA's right to commit highway robbery.