A lot of people do seem to be surprised to find that out thought. It wasn't that I was trying to discredit what you said, just that to often the people dismiss the actual for the obvious.
I can beat that, my last preformance review had "Lab Monkey" as my job title and no one caught it. At least I hope no one caught it, but that would explain all the bannanas...
How do the "Give up before you even try" comments always get moded interesting / insightful? Are people jsut looking for justification for their appathy?
Why aren't people like you demanding they share THEIR wealth and improve the condition of THEIR people?
Ironically they are spending Their money to help Their people, why do you think we are having such a hard time finding them?
Bin Laden spent millions making lots of friends in Pakistain/Afgainstain. Hesbolla even built schools and hospitals in southern Lebanon. Just because we only hear about what they blow up doesn't mean they don't also spend lots of time and money on PR where it matters to them so that they have a base of support at home. It's hard to get the local population to turn in the group/people who gave them water/electricty/health care etc, espically if all we are doing is blowing stuff up. Evil can depend a lot on your point of view.
If you want a language that never changes you have to pick one that know one speaks anymore. Funny thing anit it?
A dictionary isn't a rulebook, it's a catalog, and most even point out that they use the "most common" spelling rather then claim they are the "correct" spelling. The important things are do people understand what you are saying and is it worth listening to? If I understand what you are expressing that kind of makes it a word right or am I missing some other more important requirment?
If you're not responsible for your own actions then who is? And why should anyone else bother looking out for you?
Yes there are a lot of things that are beyond your control, but to claim that personal reasonability is not a valid concept renders you utterly useless because you have just yielded any and all control to an unknown influence.
It may make people feel better to believe that they are not reasonable for their own actions, so they can blame something/one else for their problems. But it also means they are rather hopeless, unless something else comes along and fixes the problems for them. Doesn't sound much of a life to me.
The obvious solution I see is to go back to raising my own animals or at least having them raised by someone I know so that I know what conditions they are raised under. Unfortunately my present situation (and several zoning ordnances) preclude the former. Our discussion has inspired my to again look into the later.
On the larger scale we defiantly need more sustainable systems and ways of live. The sad thing that in many cases only minor changes to the way we do things would have large impacts. Motivating those changes is the difficult issue. In many cases (at lease in the US) it seems that people are too far removed from their own survival. We don't look at the bigger picture, but rather only the little pieces that come into our field of view at a given moment. Because something is "convenient" it becomes habit, even when it is not that convenient or cost effective. Look at bottled water. People here buy tons of it. Most could buy a water bottle, fill it regularly, and never notice the difference, except for the savings and lack of accumulated waste. Likewise with washable cloth towels verse disposable paper towels.
I think there are a few major driving forces behind some of these self destructive issues. The first being social/cultural, our systems have been developed without sustainability in mind. A truck rolls though the neighborhood once a week and picks up my garbage, so long as it's in the can, and I don't have to think about it. Anything I pour down a drain is gone, not my problem. Not much built into the system to encourage improvement. Most of the time it even seems to avoid acknowledging the issue.
The second major factor is economic/marketing. The modern "free market" systems are not evolutionarily beneficial. If I sell you a mop that last for ten years you are rarely a customer, if I sell you a "swiffer" with a disposable pad you have to buy something from me every month. Disposal cost is not relevant to the producer so the system encourages waste. Think about how many things you buy that are designed to insure you can not use all of the product. Throw in a large dose of marketing to conform the market to what you are selling, instead of responding to what the market wants, and you have a wonderful parasite disguised as "Free market capitalism" that's pushing our cultural evolution towards a cataclysm.
How do we attack these two problem? Social/Cultural change is slow and often resisted. The most effective method is probably to effectively package and propagate the ideas you believe in, while simultaneously attempting to destroy the propagation means and popularity of the ideas you don't. A fancy way of saying educate the population to your views and refute the views that are against them, but not an easy task, defiantly not a quick one. And the economic issues? Try to bring down a multi billion dollar advertising business though boycott and (ironically) ad campaigns or support governments with more rational economic views.
While neither of these task are easy I think that both will eventually happen, if for no other reason then it is the logical out come of cultural evolution. Unsustainable cultures will fail. We can get into the more interesting points of cultural evolution in the next round if you like.
I always wondered my major fansub'ed groups don't work with a distributere and offer them a product more or less ready to market? I would think that translation is one of the larger hurdles for a foreign release, if you've already done that couldn't you get it released that much faster, and possible fund your future projects?
I have to agree. I found it sad even in college when I had to take a senior semenar course with the express goal of making me a good citizen, while my campus did not allow me a number of basic rights every citizen has.
Claiming that it's a private organization not the government oppressing you doesn't really make it any less of a problem. Why should I have to give up basic freedoms, just becuase they have something I need? (In that case an education.) Is a right much good it you have to sign it away to do anything?
It's been an insightful discussion. For all we've debated different sides of the issue I don't think our views are not really that opposed.
The real question to ask, I guess, is what is the best vector for change? Years ago I stopped eating seafood after looking at a can of tuna, which proudly proclaimed that is was dolphin safe, and wondering "what about the Tuna?" Since then most of the seafood I actually like had become available in farm-raised varieties or as a managed resource. While I know this has nothing to do with my personal boycott it still lets me eat shrimp with a less guilty conscience. But what lead to this becoming a managed resource, instead of something that was pulled from the sea with the expectation that it will always be there? And, as we've discussed, how do we insure it is managed in an ethical way?
Growing up it was much easier; I lived on a small farm where we grew a reasonable portion of our own animals. I also ran around on friends' dairy farms and saw how a number of animal on actual producing farms lived, it wasn't that bad. I like to think that my experience is reflective of what is still going on, and I'm sure in a number of places it is. I'm also sure that a number of places are as bad or worse then what we've talked about. The question is how do you affect the cultural and economic forces that decide which path modern farming will take?
The amount of information needed to make an informed purchasing decision is often not available. The choices offered are also weak to none existent, you buy or you don't in most cases. A deeply motivated consumer may be able to find an acceptable alternative, but is the general public even aware of the issue?
Any viable solution has to be systematic and self-correcting. Telling the masses they have to fundamentally change their way of live is going to be a hard sell. Boycotts and favored practices only work while someone is watching, and if they are large enough to affect a market, and leave it easy for things to slip into the old methods once the issue is no longer at the forefront. I think these issues are just a minor facet of much larger social and cultural issues that are beyond the scope of the original threat.
People have gotten numb to the sins they aid as consumers. Our clothing is made by third world children, our food is grown under a blanket of chemicals or abuse, our way of life is down right evil. We have been told all of these things over and over with not real solutions offered. Look at the majority of "activist" groups out there, it seems like their only activity is opposition. If we want to start effective changes we need to offer alternatives, not opposition, so that people are empowered to make a difference, not demoralized by not having a choice.
"Offer alternatives instead of opposition, so that your actions lead to progress instead conflict."
I would agree with nearly your entire first paragraph. As for the second you have broadened the discussion to more then I put forth (or attempted to justify), but I think it makes for several interesting points of discussion.
I don't have a large amount of knowledge concerning over breeding in farm animals as it is beyond my experience, I've never seen them (I've never seen England either however and willing to admit it exist). Animals with a large number of genetic deficiencies leading to things like you mentioned may become self-correcting (all be it not fast enough). In some cases it may be both economically and genetically feasible to continue using such "races" or bloodlines. However as such races become more unfeasible (like the poultry example you gave) it will become more and more difficult to raise and breed them as, in a sense, they are no longer a viable species. While it may progress further then we should ethically allow, there is only so much deformity and trait depression that an bloodline will survive, and our bypasses are rather limited.
I can agree that bloodlines or races of animals with high levels of painful deformities should not be continued. However I think to say they have no interest in living and would be better off never having lived is starting to make an argument that beyond what we can rationally discuss. Would you say the same thing about a person you've never met who suffers from similar deformities? Where would you draw the line as to what is a severe enough deformity?
I admit I made the evolution argument based on the most basic "survive and reproduce" arguments. It can be argued that evolution (and therefore nature) has little to no concern for the individual. It is the potential for further development and continuation that matters. There are a huge number of examples where an evolved trait is of no value or even a (lethal) detriment to the individual, but a benefit to the species. Should we follow that same guidelines and ignore all considerations to the individual? I would say of course not. Still who are we to argue about the standards set forth by nature? We can (and should) hold ourselves to higher standards, but we should also acknowledge they are standards created for our own reasons, not based on some greater natural order.
Is it a loss if some species (domestic or otherwise) disappear? Obviously it is to the species, which was the viewpoint from which I put forth my argument. Is it in the broader sense? Species grow, adapt, diverge, and die out, and have for as long as there has been life on this planet, due to an unimaginable number of influences. Is humanities influence on natural selection and extinction any worse then the last ice age? I feel specie's extinction (natural or otherwise) represents a loss of two very important things, information about the past and potential for the future. The information loss when a species is eliminated is enormous, despite the fact that we make very little use of the information a species represents. The loss of a potential avenue for further evolution could be even more devastating. I don't feel qualified to decide what species should survive and which shouldn't.
I am well aware that there are huge number of animal practices that should not be allowed to continue. The point I was trying to make was that the "animal rights" community also needs to be aware that some of the methods they are using are doing nothing but alienating people whose support they need. Animals are not equivalent to people, we could debate how as much as you like, but you are not going to convince me otherwise. Further more I am a carnivore (ok omnivore) and am likely to stay that way. Does it mean that I'm not open to changes that would improve the conditions under which the animals I eat live? Of course not, but I'm one of the people for the eating of tasty animals, they don't need to suffer for that to happen, but they need to die.
Why do most animal rights arguments often start with the assumption that being domesticated has no benefit to the species? While there is an obvious obligation to limit the amount of suffering or pain an animal is subjected to as an individual, as a species even being breed and raised with the sole intent of being killed and eaten is a benefit. When was the last time you saw a non-domesticated cow, they don't exist anymore. Wild turkeys were once a treated species in North America. Is the idea of domestic turkeys going extinct even conceivable?
You could argue quality of life, but it seems a lot of people have a very unrealistic view of what an animal would be doing in the wild. I grew up in a rural area and I remember once when a few chicken were turned loose from a neighbor's farm. They hung around half starved hoping someone would feed them, scared of anything the moved, and after a week were a pile of feather left behind by a "natural" predatory which showed no concern for killing them quickly or with as little pain as possible.
You can argue that things like mega farms and Agro business are not offering animals a good life and I might agree. But having grown up in farm country I can tell you that most of the animals I saw lived about like they would have in the wild, except: they got medical care, someone else made sure there were not predators after them, and they had all the food and water they needed; in exchange for which they got a quick death at a predetermined age. Instead of starving, dieing of some terrible disease, or being ripped and part and eaten by some large carnivore. And as a species they have little to no chance of going extinct in the foreseeable future. A high price maybe, but is it really such a bad one?
If you want to tell me high density feed lots are wrong or argue against testing cosmetics on rabbits you might be able to sway my opinions or win my support for a cause. But if you try to tell me killing a pig is the same as killing a person or that eating meat is evil I'm just going to ignore or ridicule you. Why is it so hard to believe you can treat an animal humanely and still eat it?
I think you statement brings up the question of how big does a number have to be before it becomes an abstraction. If you think of 2, 4, 9 or so most people can easily picture that number of objects (or dice/domino patterns of the value). How many of us can easily picture 37 objects? Its a number we can relate to from personal experience, but it is largely an abstraction. Now go to 27 million we rationally know what it means, but do we have any experience with a number this size in a tangible sense? We are cabable of counting that high, but if we had to count that many objects we would never finish.
One of the problems I have always seen with new bills and the plan of the US redesign every five(?) years is that nobody knows what a bill is suppost to look like. I remember the first time one of the "new" multicolored twentys got spit out of the ATM machine, it looked so fake.
If everyone gets used to accepting a new looking bill every few years aren't we just going to make it easier to fake them? You could just make a fake bill that had some new looking "Security feature" and pass it off as a "new" bill.
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 0
While the link is very intereseting it's a little out dated, you can buy compact fluorescents now for less then $5 (at least I have around here). When you knock the inital cost down to reflect this on the cost over time plots it makes your point even more obvious. I have to go buy some lightbulbs now...
I find I actually read those faster because I don't bother to "think" the word, I just associate it with a concept and skip over it. Oddly enough taking the time to figure out how to pronouce it often slows me down again.
Consider though that as college enrollments are up it means more student who are getting good fast connections while living on campus. Techies or not they are likly to help drive the market when they leave school and have to leave behind the T3/OC48/what have you. I know I didn't even consider anything less then cable modem/DSL not because I needed it, but because I wanted something most like what I had.
I didn't relize that pointing out the difference in effective coverage area of radio waves vs physical objects in a disscusion on signals/artifacts in space would get me moded "flamebait". Oh well I guess it means at least one person read it.
Yes but what you loss in strength you make up for in speed. Radio waves move at light speed, objects fired into space move at best currently (I'm too lazy to look it up right now).
The 1/r^2 also mean that you are covering the entire surface of the sphere (minus signal loss and blockage)an area of 4(pi)r^2 where as an object fired into space has a pretty small cross section comparitively.
It might not be the easiest to understand and it may weaken out to nothing, but a radio wave makes up for it in speed and volume. Kind of like standing around waiting to get hit with a newspaper or turning on a TV/radio and flipping channel, one's a whole lot more likely to get results where ever you are.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of people do seem to be surprised to find that out thought. It wasn't that I was trying to discredit what you said, just that to often the people dismiss the actual for the obvious.
I think the Jewish diaspora might be the biggest supporters. Dunno.
Insightful but incorrect.
The US is the ONLY western country I can think of where it is common for people to own guns, the ONLY ONE.
Canada isn't a state... And they have more guns them we do.
I can beat that, my last preformance review had "Lab Monkey" as my job title and no one caught it. At least I hope no one caught it, but that would explain all the bannanas...
Hmm... How about Leaded gas, seatbelts in cars, women's right to vote or maybe the Civil Rights Movement ? Do I need to go on?
How do the "Give up before you even try" comments always get moded interesting / insightful? Are people jsut looking for justification for their appathy?
Why aren't people like you demanding they share THEIR wealth and improve the condition of THEIR people?
Ironically they are spending Their money to help Their people, why do you think we are having such a hard time finding them?
Bin Laden spent millions making lots of friends in Pakistain/Afgainstain. Hesbolla even built schools and hospitals in southern Lebanon. Just because we only hear about what they blow up doesn't mean they don't also spend lots of time and money on PR where it matters to them so that they have a base of support at home. It's hard to get the local population to turn in the group/people who gave them water/electricty/health care etc, espically if all we are doing is blowing stuff up. Evil can depend a lot on your point of view.
If you want a language that never changes you have to pick one that know one speaks anymore. Funny thing anit it?
A dictionary isn't a rulebook, it's a catalog, and most even point out that they use the "most common" spelling rather then claim they are the "correct" spelling. The important things are do people understand what you are saying and is it worth listening to? If I understand what you are expressing that kind of makes it a word right or am I missing some other more important requirment?
Personal responsibility is a broken concept.
If you're not responsible for your own actions then who is? And why should anyone else bother looking out for you?
Yes there are a lot of things that are beyond your control, but to claim that personal reasonability is not a valid concept renders you utterly useless because you have just yielded any and all control to an unknown influence.
It may make people feel better to believe that they are not reasonable for their own actions, so they can blame something/one else for their problems. But it also means they are rather hopeless, unless something else comes along and fixes the problems for them. Doesn't sound much of a life to me.
The obvious solution I see is to go back to raising my own animals or at least having them raised by someone I know so that I know what conditions they are raised under. Unfortunately my present situation (and several zoning ordnances) preclude the former. Our discussion has inspired my to again look into the later.
On the larger scale we defiantly need more sustainable systems and ways of live. The sad thing that in many cases only minor changes to the way we do things would have large impacts. Motivating those changes is the difficult issue. In many cases (at lease in the US) it seems that people are too far removed from their own survival. We don't look at the bigger picture, but rather only the little pieces that come into our field of view at a given moment. Because something is "convenient" it becomes habit, even when it is not that convenient or cost effective. Look at bottled water. People here buy tons of it. Most could buy a water bottle, fill it regularly, and never notice the difference, except for the savings and lack of accumulated waste. Likewise with washable cloth towels verse disposable paper towels.
I think there are a few major driving forces behind some of these self destructive issues. The first being social/cultural, our systems have been developed without sustainability in mind. A truck rolls though the neighborhood once a week and picks up my garbage, so long as it's in the can, and I don't have to think about it. Anything I pour down a drain is gone, not my problem. Not much built into the system to encourage improvement. Most of the time it even seems to avoid acknowledging the issue.
The second major factor is economic/marketing. The modern "free market" systems are not evolutionarily beneficial. If I sell you a mop that last for ten years you are rarely a customer, if I sell you a "swiffer" with a disposable pad you have to buy something from me every month. Disposal cost is not relevant to the producer so the system encourages waste. Think about how many things you buy that are designed to insure you can not use all of the product. Throw in a large dose of marketing to conform the market to what you are selling, instead of responding to what the market wants, and you have a wonderful parasite disguised as "Free market capitalism" that's pushing our cultural evolution towards a cataclysm.
How do we attack these two problem? Social/Cultural change is slow and often resisted. The most effective method is probably to effectively package and propagate the ideas you believe in, while simultaneously attempting to destroy the propagation means and popularity of the ideas you don't. A fancy way of saying educate the population to your views and refute the views that are against them, but not an easy task, defiantly not a quick one. And the economic issues? Try to bring down a multi billion dollar advertising business though boycott and (ironically) ad campaigns or support governments with more rational economic views.
While neither of these task are easy I think that both will eventually happen, if for no other reason then it is the logical out come of cultural evolution. Unsustainable cultures will fail. We can get into the more interesting points of cultural evolution in the next round if you like.
I always wondered my major fansub'ed groups don't work with a distributere and offer them a product more or less ready to market? I would think that translation is one of the larger hurdles for a foreign release, if you've already done that couldn't you get it released that much faster, and possible fund your future projects?
I have to agree. I found it sad even in college when I had to take a senior semenar course with the express goal of making me a good citizen, while my campus did not allow me a number of basic rights every citizen has.
Claiming that it's a private organization not the government oppressing you doesn't really make it any less of a problem. Why should I have to give up basic freedoms, just becuase they have something I need? (In that case an education.) Is a right much good it you have to sign it away to do anything?
Some newspapers exercise "self censorship" as well. This is just so fucking wrong! And flag burning should in fact be illegal, I think.
How is making flag burning illegal anything but censorship of an unpopular view?
It's been an insightful discussion. For all we've debated different sides of the issue I don't think our views are not really that opposed.
The real question to ask, I guess, is what is the best vector for change? Years ago I stopped eating seafood after looking at a can of tuna, which proudly proclaimed that is was dolphin safe, and wondering "what about the Tuna?" Since then most of the seafood I actually like had become available in farm-raised varieties or as a managed resource. While I know this has nothing to do with my personal boycott it still lets me eat shrimp with a less guilty conscience. But what lead to this becoming a managed resource, instead of something that was pulled from the sea with the expectation that it will always be there? And, as we've discussed, how do we insure it is managed in an ethical way?
Growing up it was much easier; I lived on a small farm where we grew a reasonable portion of our own animals. I also ran around on friends' dairy farms and saw how a number of animal on actual producing farms lived, it wasn't that bad. I like to think that my experience is reflective of what is still going on, and I'm sure in a number of places it is. I'm also sure that a number of places are as bad or worse then what we've talked about. The question is how do you affect the cultural and economic forces that decide which path modern farming will take?
The amount of information needed to make an informed purchasing decision is often not available. The choices offered are also weak to none existent, you buy or you don't in most cases. A deeply motivated consumer may be able to find an acceptable alternative, but is the general public even aware of the issue?
Any viable solution has to be systematic and self-correcting. Telling the masses they have to fundamentally change their way of live is going to be a hard sell. Boycotts and favored practices only work while someone is watching, and if they are large enough to affect a market, and leave it easy for things to slip into the old methods once the issue is no longer at the forefront. I think these issues are just a minor facet of much larger social and cultural issues that are beyond the scope of the original threat.
People have gotten numb to the sins they aid as consumers. Our clothing is made by third world children, our food is grown under a blanket of chemicals or abuse, our way of life is down right evil. We have been told all of these things over and over with not real solutions offered. Look at the majority of "activist" groups out there, it seems like their only activity is opposition. If we want to start effective changes we need to offer alternatives, not opposition, so that people are empowered to make a difference, not demoralized by not having a choice.
"Offer alternatives instead of opposition, so that your actions lead to progress instead conflict."
I would agree with nearly your entire first paragraph. As for the second you have broadened the discussion to more then I put forth (or attempted to justify), but I think it makes for several interesting points of discussion.
I don't have a large amount of knowledge concerning over breeding in farm animals as it is beyond my experience, I've never seen them (I've never seen England either however and willing to admit it exist). Animals with a large number of genetic deficiencies leading to things like you mentioned may become self-correcting (all be it not fast enough). In some cases it may be both economically and genetically feasible to continue using such "races" or bloodlines. However as such races become more unfeasible (like the poultry example you gave) it will become more and more difficult to raise and breed them as, in a sense, they are no longer a viable species. While it may progress further then we should ethically allow, there is only so much deformity and trait depression that an bloodline will survive, and our bypasses are rather limited.
I can agree that bloodlines or races of animals with high levels of painful deformities should not be continued. However I think to say they have no interest in living and would be better off never having lived is starting to make an argument that beyond what we can rationally discuss. Would you say the same thing about a person you've never met who suffers from similar deformities? Where would you draw the line as to what is a severe enough deformity?
I admit I made the evolution argument based on the most basic "survive and reproduce" arguments. It can be argued that evolution (and therefore nature) has little to no concern for the individual. It is the potential for further development and continuation that matters. There are a huge number of examples where an evolved trait is of no value or even a (lethal) detriment to the individual, but a benefit to the species. Should we follow that same guidelines and ignore all considerations to the individual? I would say of course not. Still who are we to argue about the standards set forth by nature? We can (and should) hold ourselves to higher standards, but we should also acknowledge they are standards created for our own reasons, not based on some greater natural order.
Is it a loss if some species (domestic or otherwise) disappear? Obviously it is to the species, which was the viewpoint from which I put forth my argument. Is it in the broader sense? Species grow, adapt, diverge, and die out, and have for as long as there has been life on this planet, due to an unimaginable number of influences. Is humanities influence on natural selection and extinction any worse then the last ice age? I feel specie's extinction (natural or otherwise) represents a loss of two very important things, information about the past and potential for the future. The information loss when a species is eliminated is enormous, despite the fact that we make very little use of the information a species represents. The loss of a potential avenue for further evolution could be even more devastating. I don't feel qualified to decide what species should survive and which shouldn't.
I am well aware that there are huge number of animal practices that should not be allowed to continue. The point I was trying to make was that the "animal rights" community also needs to be aware that some of the methods they are using are doing nothing but alienating people whose support they need. Animals are not equivalent to people, we could debate how as much as you like, but you are not going to convince me otherwise. Further more I am a carnivore (ok omnivore) and am likely to stay that way. Does it mean that I'm not open to changes that would improve the conditions under which the animals I eat live? Of course not, but I'm one of the people for the eating of tasty animals, they don't need to suffer for that to happen, but they need to die.
Why do most animal rights arguments often start with the assumption that being domesticated has no benefit to the species? While there is an obvious obligation to limit the amount of suffering or pain an animal is subjected to as an individual, as a species even being breed and raised with the sole intent of being killed and eaten is a benefit. When was the last time you saw a non-domesticated cow, they don't exist anymore. Wild turkeys were once a treated species in North America. Is the idea of domestic turkeys going extinct even conceivable?
You could argue quality of life, but it seems a lot of people have a very unrealistic view of what an animal would be doing in the wild. I grew up in a rural area and I remember once when a few chicken were turned loose from a neighbor's farm. They hung around half starved hoping someone would feed them, scared of anything the moved, and after a week were a pile of feather left behind by a "natural" predatory which showed no concern for killing them quickly or with as little pain as possible.
You can argue that things like mega farms and Agro business are not offering animals a good life and I might agree. But having grown up in farm country I can tell you that most of the animals I saw lived about like they would have in the wild, except: they got medical care, someone else made sure there were not predators after them, and they had all the food and water they needed; in exchange for which they got a quick death at a predetermined age. Instead of starving, dieing of some terrible disease, or being ripped and part and eaten by some large carnivore. And as a species they have little to no chance of going extinct in the foreseeable future. A high price maybe, but is it really such a bad one?
If you want to tell me high density feed lots are wrong or argue against testing cosmetics on rabbits you might be able to sway my opinions or win my support for a cause. But if you try to tell me killing a pig is the same as killing a person or that eating meat is evil I'm just going to ignore or ridicule you. Why is it so hard to believe you can treat an animal humanely and still eat it?
the goals of one of the studies is to create mice with 100% human brains.
This isn't funded by NIMH is it?
I think you statement brings up the question of how big does a number have to be before it becomes an abstraction. If you think of 2, 4, 9 or so most people can easily picture that number of objects (or dice/domino patterns of the value). How many of us can easily picture 37 objects? Its a number we can relate to from personal experience, but it is largely an abstraction. Now go to 27 million we rationally know what it means, but do we have any experience with a number this size in a tangible sense? We are cabable of counting that high, but if we had to count that many objects we would never finish.
One of the problems I have always seen with new bills and the plan of the US redesign every five(?) years is that nobody knows what a bill is suppost to look like. I remember the first time one of the "new" multicolored twentys got spit out of the ATM machine, it looked so fake.
If everyone gets used to accepting a new looking bill every few years aren't we just going to make it easier to fake them? You could just make a fake bill that had some new looking "Security feature" and pass it off as a "new" bill.
While the link is very intereseting it's a little out dated, you can buy compact fluorescents now for less then $5 (at least I have around here). When you knock the inital cost down to reflect this on the cost over time plots it makes your point even more obvious. I have to go buy some lightbulbs now...
I find I actually read those faster because I don't bother to "think" the word, I just associate it with a concept and skip over it. Oddly enough taking the time to figure out how to pronouce it often slows me down again.
Consider though that as college enrollments are up it means more student who are getting good fast connections while living on campus. Techies or not they are likly to help drive the market when they leave school and have to leave behind the T3/OC48/what have you. I know I didn't even consider anything less then cable modem/DSL not because I needed it, but because I wanted something most like what I had.
I didn't relize that pointing out the difference in effective coverage area of radio waves vs physical objects in a disscusion on signals/artifacts in space would get me moded "flamebait". Oh well I guess it means at least one person read it.
Yes but what you loss in strength you make up for in speed. Radio waves move at light speed, objects fired into space move at best currently (I'm too lazy to look it up right now).
The 1/r^2 also mean that you are covering the entire surface of the sphere (minus signal loss and blockage)an area of 4(pi)r^2 where as an object fired into space has a pretty small cross section comparitively.
It might not be the easiest to understand and it may weaken out to nothing, but a radio wave makes up for it in speed and volume. Kind of like standing around waiting to get hit with a newspaper or turning on a TV/radio and flipping channel, one's a whole lot more likely to get results where ever you are.
Slashdotted at 8:32 pm ? I thought people only read slashdot at work...