Last year more than half of my income went directly to the government. My gross wage is slightly above 30.000 dollars. I cost my about employer about twice that. Good thing I'm pretty smart and can so meet the productivity target which allows my company to continue to employ me. 5.000.000 of my fellow country men aren't so lucky.
I love google.
I want my money back.
PS: Deutsche Telekom sucks Monkey Wangs and anyone whos ever wanted DSL from them knows that is a fact.
I find it hard to believe that supervisors who couldn't grasp the concept when someone with common sense told them would believe (or even understand) a "scientific" study stating the very same thing. I'd speculate that the issue is not about people not knowing/not believing that the situation in hospitals causes problems, rather that they just don't know how to fix it within budget and practical constraints (like, can't shut down the hospital at night time).
being drunk isn't always on the edge of passing out. Even with 1.0 promile you can be quite fit and outside any complications in traffic have a (comparativly) good chance of getting home safely. Sure, your reaction time and judgement sucks (as they do when being sleepy) but at least you don't, you know, fall asleep.
Hows about instead of paying millions in tax dollars to scientist who state the obvious we give common sense the benefit of the doubt and instead investigate when it fails? Is there anyone, anyone at all in the world who thought it would be a good idea to perform critical medical procedures just after waking up?
I came here for an confirmation and all I got is a scan of a games magazine and what amounts to "meh, who knows?" from Blizzard. Well, if that's what it takes, bring on your questions. I'll confirm everything!
Oh and also, I wasn't saying "I am here therefore I am here" in the original post. I'm saying: there is a non zero chance that I am here, evidenced by my being here. However unlikely my being here might still be, it was bound to happen sometime, given an infinite amount of tries. When introducing infinit tries (or universes), every non zero chance becomes a certainty, over and over and over again, well until infinity.
Rephrasing in order to test my understanding of what you are saying: You think you would be exactly the same if say, the speed of light where 600km/S in this universe? What parameters are you talking about, exactly?
yes, it's really troublesome if the 24 year old makes a typo in a post on a website that's not even in his first language. Let me ask you this: can you participate in discussions in german, with or without typos?
indeed. Surviving puperty with all arms and legs as well as eyes, without having to pay child support *already*, with no STDs and not more than one harmfull addiction and maybe even with a degree of somekind should please any parent. Seriously.
also: you might want to keep such comments to yourself. We don't want the world to know that much of the money in the "real" "world" is in the same way virtual as the EVEs, now would we?
Come to think of it, are pork futures really more real than the rendering of a space station?;)
How can you talk about "we" or "I" within alternate universes where conditions are different at all? I'd think that chaos theory would say that only slightly different input values in the most complex system we know (the universe) will produce *vastly* different results. This I need resolved before I can 'parse' the rest of what you are saying (seriously).
No it isn't. From our point of view, the chance that our universe is as it is equals exactly 1.
If you get talking about potential universes, well, each of those has the same likelyhood of happening. If there are an infinite amount of "universes" (either spatial or throughout "time") every potential universe will/has/does exist infinite times.
So I guess I am asking: whats your point and more importantly, whats your premise?
the point is: WoW being a game, most of the players want to compete in terms of how good they do within the game, leaving the real world out as much as possible. It's not desirable that somebody with 500$ to spare can become top-dog within WoW.
Apple is not the most profitable company under the sun. And therein lies the problem: If I can make X dollars with an innovative title but X+1 dollars by implementing a tried and true formula for an equal amount of money invested, why go with the first?
And don't forget the risk: the Natural Evolution Mod for HL was great on paper, it *was* an innovation but from a gameplay standpoint it plain sucked. Had it been a commercial product, it would have absolutly tanked.
Given the choice, I'd much rather limit myself to futher iterations of Command and Conquer, Need for Speed, Civ etc than only to have "experiments" available.
Sometimes people just want more of the same.
sorry, but this is just not true.
Shamans are superior in every aspect except one: they can only wear mail.
The bubble shield doesn't boost a paladins surviveability in a *meaningful* way because in the 12 seconds their life is prolonged they can't accomplish anything at all. So it boils down to bubbling up when you need to heal. A shaman can do that much more conviniend with natures swiftness, and on a shorter cooldown too. Shamans heals are vastly superior, as it takes the paladin one whole second longer to heal for the same amount. Schamans DPS is at least double that of the paladin. A schaman outdamages a pladin with WF alone and hasn't even used shocks and totems yet (good luck destroying that magma totem with melee;). Even without considering the shamans mindbogglingly useful collection of utility spells (earthbind, earthshock (no heals against a schaman:-/ ), FS - slow, Self Rez, Waterwalking, Ghostwolf), paladins are a joke compared shamans.
Is this the truth? Well, horde sure acts like it... nobody ignores a schaman, to paladins it happens all the time.
you are right, except that you miss on last bit: technology and humankind are almost one and the same. Just as some can't live without insulin, you and I can't live without heat and a supermarket. Subsidence farming will have you removed from the gene pool in no time. There is just no way that a human being can be successful without any technology. Now you could argue that fire and speers arn't as advanced as heart surgery and you'd be right. Yet it remains the case that technology is what 'we' (mankind) do to survive. Lions and their teeth and claws, turtels and their shell, whales and their plancton grills, men and their fire. It's our adaption, and should we loose it, we would be screwed just as animals are screwed when their adaption becomes useless.
well, if technology can't help you to, you know, not die, the point is mood. No 'dumping down' of the gene pool has occured because the organism in question is, well, dead. There is however no connection between 'unability to survive' and 'unability to reproduce'. In your example, two humans could reproduce and the offspring still dies because his genes aren't fit enough. I'm just saying that two humans who reproduce through technological aids don't confer any disadvantages to their offspring.
Then, liberals and international socialists in your goverment hear about this...
Woah! How did this get here? I mean, I'm a libertarian so obviously debate politics a lot but there really is no need to drag it into a debate on this topic.
The rest of the post is exactly my sentiment. Problem is: the OP thinks that procreation should only occure in the natural way. In my opinion, the natural way is version alpha 0.01. We could do better, but thats an other topic all together. Point stands: doesn't matter how you do it, if you do it, you win at evolution:)
your example strengthens my argument. Inbreds problems aren't that they can't reproduce. They can't survive. This is the selection process in action. Your mythicistic attitue doesn't aid you in getting it either. Nature doesn't *want* to do anything. You either do (adapt) or you die. Mankind said thousands of years ago: screw nature, we'll have civlization. That is an improvement. Civilization is the new nature and human genes are selected for according how well adapted they are to civlization. This includes tool use. It does not include anything that can be 'fixed' by tool use. If you refuse to use tools you won't make head way. If you attempt to force others to not use tools, you'll get laughed out of our cities and be left to starve in the wilderness.
My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology -
This is wrong. Think about it, selection serves the 'purpose' of creating organisms best suited to the enviroment that challenges them. In no way has fitness any relation to procreation. It's just a correlation that fucking more used to equal being successfully adapted (enough food a) for the fucking and b) for keeping the kids alive). In the natural state, it just happens that the ability to procreate is a prequesite to having your genes selected for. At this point, the fitness of those genes meaning the prowness to survive in a given enviroment doesn't even enter in the equation.
As an krass example: Take human A, living in a culture that prohibts birth control, who is also a lousy farmer. Loaded with testerstron, he soon has 10 kids. Because he sucks so bad at farming one year his harvest failes. His family dies from starvation, because he also is'nt a savy saver. Human B is a sucessful farmer. He has little sexdrive and thus only has one kid. His harvests never fail, and if they do, he'd have saved enough to bring his family through the rough times. It's obvious what just has been selected for: The ability to keep the family alive. B is an evolutionary success story because he was skilled and utilized long term planning not because he was able to out-procreate someone else.
you forget that technology and civilization has all but removed natures influence on mankind. The orginal "intent" or reason for selection was to select for DNA that deals with nature efficiently. Alas, nowadays, no one needs a hide to survive cold winters. No one needs the kind of physical prowness to hunt and kill game with almost bare hands. The shaping influences to man, and the challenges he faces come from society nowadays. It follows that evolution selects for adaption to society and civilization.
Also, the inability to reproduce wouldn't be selected against if reproduction wasn't necessary for selection to occure in the first place. On survival or any other function of life, it absolutely has no impact. Thus artificial reproduction doesn't dump down the gene pool at all.
americans do pay a decent amount of taxation. Far more than 10$, monthly. Building N.O. new in gold? Naw, the governments multi-trillion dollar budget isn't even enough to build a couple of decent dykes. How about recognizing that the state is wasteful to no end? Nevermind, just leave it to a socialist to call for more state right after it has failed in a most horrific way.
Slashdot Mirror
Greetings from Germany!
Last year more than half of my income went directly to the government. My gross wage is slightly above 30.000 dollars. I cost my about employer about twice that. Good thing I'm pretty smart and can so meet the productivity target which allows my company to continue to employ me. 5.000.000 of my fellow country men aren't so lucky.
I love google.
I want my money back.
PS: Deutsche Telekom sucks Monkey Wangs and anyone whos ever wanted DSL from them knows that is a fact.
I find it hard to believe that supervisors who couldn't grasp the concept when someone with common sense told them would believe (or even understand) a "scientific" study stating the very same thing.
I'd speculate that the issue is not about people not knowing/not believing that the situation in hospitals causes problems, rather that they just don't know how to fix it within budget and practical constraints (like, can't shut down the hospital at night time).
being drunk isn't always on the edge of passing out. Even with 1.0 promile you can be quite fit and outside any complications in traffic have a (comparativly) good chance of getting home safely. Sure, your reaction time and judgement sucks (as they do when being sleepy) but at least you don't, you know, fall asleep.
Hows about instead of paying millions in tax dollars to scientist who state the obvious we give common sense the benefit of the doubt and instead investigate when it fails? Is there anyone, anyone at all in the world who thought it would be a good idea to perform critical medical procedures just after waking up?
please define "good conditions". please also provide a set of "bad" conditions that would still allow for sentinent life.
I came here for an confirmation and all I got is a scan of a games magazine and what amounts to "meh, who knows?" from Blizzard. Well, if that's what it takes, bring on your questions. I'll confirm everything!
Oh and also, I wasn't saying "I am here therefore I am here" in the original post. I'm saying: there is a non zero chance that I am here, evidenced by my being here. However unlikely my being here might still be, it was bound to happen sometime, given an infinite amount of tries. When introducing infinit tries (or universes), every non zero chance becomes a certainty, over and over and over again, well until infinity.
Rephrasing in order to test my understanding of what you are saying: You think you would be exactly the same if say, the speed of light where 600km/S in this universe? What parameters are you talking about, exactly?
yeah, you're right. I'm just pissed at myself for making stupid mistakes like that. Sorry. I'm just a lousy speller, regardless of language ;).
Happy new year!
yes, it's really troublesome if the 24 year old makes a typo in a post on a website that's not even in his first language. Let me ask you this: can you participate in discussions in german, with or without typos?
indeed. Surviving puperty with all arms and legs as well as eyes, without having to pay child support *already*, with no STDs and not more than one harmfull addiction and maybe even with a degree of somekind should please any parent. Seriously.
also: you might want to keep such comments to yourself. We don't want the world to know that much of the money in the "real" "world" is in the same way virtual as the EVEs, now would we?
;)
Come to think of it, are pork futures really more real than the rendering of a space station?
well it isn't if it's good old analog technology all along. But those bits and bytes, I tell ya. Them newfangled computers ain't do no good.
How can you talk about "we" or "I" within alternate universes where conditions are different at all? I'd think that chaos theory would say that only slightly different input values in the most complex system we know (the universe) will produce *vastly* different results. This I need resolved before I can 'parse' the rest of what you are saying (seriously).
No it isn't. From our point of view, the chance that our universe is as it is equals exactly 1.
If you get talking about potential universes, well, each of those has the same likelyhood of happening. If there are an infinite amount of "universes" (either spatial or throughout "time") every potential universe will/has/does exist infinite times.
So I guess I am asking: whats your point and more importantly, whats your premise?
the point is: WoW being a game, most of the players want to compete in terms of how good they do within the game, leaving the real world out as much as possible. It's not desirable that somebody with 500$ to spare can become top-dog within WoW.
Apple is not the most profitable company under the sun. And therein lies the problem: If I can make X dollars with an innovative title but X+1 dollars by implementing a tried and true formula for an equal amount of money invested, why go with the first? And don't forget the risk: the Natural Evolution Mod for HL was great on paper, it *was* an innovation but from a gameplay standpoint it plain sucked. Had it been a commercial product, it would have absolutly tanked. Given the choice, I'd much rather limit myself to futher iterations of Command and Conquer, Need for Speed, Civ etc than only to have "experiments" available. Sometimes people just want more of the same.
sorry, but this is just not true. Shamans are superior in every aspect except one: they can only wear mail. The bubble shield doesn't boost a paladins surviveability in a *meaningful* way because in the 12 seconds their life is prolonged they can't accomplish anything at all. So it boils down to bubbling up when you need to heal. A shaman can do that much more conviniend with natures swiftness, and on a shorter cooldown too. Shamans heals are vastly superior, as it takes the paladin one whole second longer to heal for the same amount. Schamans DPS is at least double that of the paladin. A schaman outdamages a pladin with WF alone and hasn't even used shocks and totems yet (good luck destroying that magma totem with melee ;). Even without considering the shamans mindbogglingly useful collection of utility spells (earthbind, earthshock (no heals against a schaman :-/ ), FS - slow, Self Rez, Waterwalking, Ghostwolf), paladins are a joke compared shamans.
Is this the truth? Well, horde sure acts like it ... nobody ignores a schaman, to paladins it happens all the time.
you are right, except that you miss on last bit: technology and humankind are almost one and the same. Just as some can't live without insulin, you and I can't live without heat and a supermarket. Subsidence farming will have you removed from the gene pool in no time. There is just no way that a human being can be successful without any technology. Now you could argue that fire and speers arn't as advanced as heart surgery and you'd be right. Yet it remains the case that technology is what 'we' (mankind) do to survive. Lions and their teeth and claws, turtels and their shell, whales and their plancton grills, men and their fire. It's our adaption, and should we loose it, we would be screwed just as animals are screwed when their adaption becomes useless.
well, if technology can't help you to, you know, not die, the point is mood. No 'dumping down' of the gene pool has occured because the organism in question is, well, dead. There is however no connection between 'unability to survive' and 'unability to reproduce'. In your example, two humans could reproduce and the offspring still dies because his genes aren't fit enough. I'm just saying that two humans who reproduce through technological aids don't confer any disadvantages to their offspring.
Then, liberals and international socialists in your goverment hear about this ...
:)
Woah! How did this get here? I mean, I'm a libertarian so obviously debate politics a lot but there really is no need to drag it into a debate on this topic. The rest of the post is exactly my sentiment. Problem is: the OP thinks that procreation should only occure in the natural way. In my opinion, the natural way is version alpha 0.01. We could do better, but thats an other topic all together. Point stands: doesn't matter how you do it, if you do it, you win at evolution
your example strengthens my argument. Inbreds problems aren't that they can't reproduce. They can't survive. This is the selection process in action. Your mythicistic attitue doesn't aid you in getting it either. Nature doesn't *want* to do anything. You either do (adapt) or you die. Mankind said thousands of years ago: screw nature, we'll have civlization. That is an improvement. Civilization is the new nature and human genes are selected for according how well adapted they are to civlization. This includes tool use. It does not include anything that can be 'fixed' by tool use. If you refuse to use tools you won't make head way. If you attempt to force others to not use tools, you'll get laughed out of our cities and be left to starve in the wilderness.
My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology -
This is wrong. Think about it, selection serves the 'purpose' of creating organisms best suited to the enviroment that challenges them. In no way has fitness any relation to procreation. It's just a correlation that fucking more used to equal being successfully adapted (enough food a) for the fucking and b) for keeping the kids alive). In the natural state, it just happens that the ability to procreate is a prequesite to having your genes selected for. At this point, the fitness of those genes meaning the prowness to survive in a given enviroment doesn't even enter in the equation.
As an krass example: Take human A, living in a culture that prohibts birth control, who is also a lousy farmer. Loaded with testerstron, he soon has 10 kids. Because he sucks so bad at farming one year his harvest failes. His family dies from starvation, because he also is'nt a savy saver. Human B is a sucessful farmer. He has little sexdrive and thus only has one kid. His harvests never fail, and if they do, he'd have saved enough to bring his family through the rough times.
It's obvious what just has been selected for: The ability to keep the family alive. B is an evolutionary success story because he was skilled and utilized long term planning not because he was able to out-procreate someone else.
you forget that technology and civilization has all but removed natures influence on mankind. The orginal "intent" or reason for selection was to select for DNA that deals with nature efficiently. Alas, nowadays, no one needs a hide to survive cold winters. No one needs the kind of physical prowness to hunt and kill game with almost bare hands. The shaping influences to man, and the challenges he faces come from society nowadays. It follows that evolution selects for adaption to society and civilization.
Also, the inability to reproduce wouldn't be selected against if reproduction wasn't necessary for selection to occure in the first place. On survival or any other function of life, it absolutely has no impact. Thus artificial reproduction doesn't dump down the gene pool at all.
americans do pay a decent amount of taxation. Far more than 10$, monthly. Building N.O. new in gold? Naw, the governments multi-trillion dollar budget isn't even enough to build a couple of decent dykes. How about recognizing that the state is wasteful to no end? Nevermind, just leave it to a socialist to call for more state right after it has failed in a most horrific way.