Does this mean I'll be able to get a cold rum and coke in hell when I get there? or will I have to wear a parka and not worry about the ice in the drinks?
An interesting look at it; what would have been thought myth and magic by those builders of Stonehenge is merely technology to us. I know my dog gets fairly weirded out if I try to put headphones on him.. well, once the music starts he does. Perhaps that might be what their reaction would be. We've come far enough that most of us would probably accept alien technology as just that: technology and nothing more. God help us if they showed up here on Earth and actually used magic!
One of the most important things I've learned IMO is that if you didn't document it with at least very good commenting, you're not done.
Going back to code after 2 years or more and trying to figure out what you yourself did is more frustrating than almost anything. No one else to blame but yourself, so not even a reach-around.
Now, somewhere on the order of 1/3 of what I actually write is comments. No lesson is learned as well as the lesson that caused pain.
....Only the fact that it is unprovable which religion is right (if any) prevents all the other people from being classed as delusional;-)
And you can take it to the bank that if they had even one small sliver of proof, they'd eagerly tell the rest of the world that the rest of the world is wrong, and do so with such speed and vigor that entire governments would fall.... if in fact anyone else believed them. (hardly seems likely these days)
It's a house of cards. The House of Religious Delusion stands because there is no one that listens when they are told that the King has no clothes on.
If they made laws that way, you'd have a good point, but laws are made locally in respect of your train of thought. Since none of the religions have absolute proof of their correctness, they are more or less willing to side with those that also believe in a similar deity if those others have similar tenets of faith.
For instance, Catholics and Protestants often argue and disagree with one another, yet both unite against atheists. When making laws, this is what happens.
It's not a delusion if other people also believe it?
No, it's not. How do you define normal? How do you define abnormal? Generally speaking if 75% of your society believes something, you are abnormal if you do not. In the last few decades we are slowly moving toward believing that the wide range of human conditions are all normal, but different from one another. Normal is getting a make-over, so to speak. Delusion:
2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion) emphasis is mine
It's only delusional when 'normal' people do not believe what you do, or there is "indisputable evidence to the contrary" which clearly makes you wrong. In the world of mankind, any religion with enough believers becomes that "indisputable evidence to the contrary" if you do not believe as they do.
Point: At one time, those who thought the world was not flat were considered delusional. Those who thought left handed people were 'ok' were thought delusional. When the majority or 'normal' people say you are delusional, then that's the verdict.... unless you can prove them indisputably wrong. With religion you cannot prove them wrong, so they remain 'normal' despite complete lack of evidence to show they are right.
In this case, popularity wins. The definition you reference is not politically motivated to not anger the religious. That is simply how it works.
Indeed, and should we continue much longer on this thread, we shall have written down the draft of a "principles of education" document:) I think there are already a few such documents available and do not know what room there is for another. In keeping with the topic of choice, Google adds structure, and much of the assimilated history of mankind to date adds what should be critical thinking. Yes, just as there is illiteracy, there are also those who cannot or will not think critically. Despite that, there are those that will. Our basic education included foundational principles and skills that many of our forefathers did not have. Overall, this 'education thing' is working and I say that without comment as to the it's efficacy.
It is with joy that I remember my father and a friend of his always arguing about the Bernoulli principle. To this day I still have the physics text book that was used to settle the argument. Such moments should be cherished by those who love learning. If only Nascar fans were as concerned about the principles underlying the way the cars treat air pressure and drag as the race around the track.
Those basics of critical thinking are good, yet will likely lay stagnant without food for growth. That food is abundant information and ideas. In this, the Internet still reigns king.
No, I don't. While the printing press is good, very good, it pales miserably compared to the speed and efficacy of the Internet at spreading information.
From our favorite site (wikipedia):
It should be noted that new research may indicate that standardised moveable type was a more complex evolutionary process spread over multiple locations.[2]
The use of movable type was a marked improvement on the handwritten manuscript, which was the existing method of book production in Europe, and upon woodblock printing, and revolutionized European book-making. Gutenberg's printing technology spread rapidly throughout Europe and is considered a key factor in the European Renaissance.
Books were not invented by Gutenberg, only a way of making them faster. The Internet has done serious damage to his contributions. Magazines and newspapers are struggling to stay in business in opposition to the Internet. Citizen reporting and writing has replaced what took weeks, months, and years with a process that takes minutes. Read that again. Minutes! While Gutenberg did a good thing, the results of his work were still subject to censorship. The Internet has worked it's way around most censorship (China and Australia excepted) Even the FCC has admitted that the fairness doctrine is all but useless under the weight of the onslaught of information from the Internet. Gutenberg made publishing faster, the Internet has made everyone a fast publisher.
It matters not whether peasants in third world countries own a computer. The knowledge that they do receive will be based on information that was amalgamated as a result of the Internet.
There will not be a book equivalent of 'random youtube comments' for reasons that you missed. They are not relevant outside the scope of the video itself. Remember Reader's Digest? The onslaught of the Internet has made it rather moot. Ughhhh, peasants don't have Reader's Digest either. The point is that the Internet has affected more people, more quickly, and more profoundly than any other invention for decades and longer. Not even the Spanish Inquisition had such an effect. Some of those peasants you talk of want me to help them smuggle a king's ransom out of war torn countries in Africa, and they tell me so over the Internet.
Yes, the Internet has not reached 100% of the world's population yet. Neither have books BTW. Illiteracy is still a problem. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4420772.stm Your point falls flat.
I agree with you! I basically write code for a living right now, and every day I learn something new. It's invigorating. I cannot imagine that learning new things about the as yet unknown or our past is not invigorating for mankind. I look back at old code I have written and think... wow, I know a lot more now.
Interestingly, I don't believe this kind of thinking is new. 1000 years before the library at Alexandria there must have been people who thought the same thoughts. It follows that 10,000 years before that people had the same thoughts. All the way back past learning how to use fire or the wheel. Where we might be in 50, 100, or 500 years is an incredible thought. The people who built this temple must have done it with the latest technology and skills available... meaning that there were many skills and technologies prior that were not as good. From their perspective, it would seem no different than an architect working on a new building today.
Our knowledge and skill really took off flying when we created ways to store knowledge and share it easily. The easier it is to share knowledge, the greater mankind becomes. My vote for invention of the last 1000 year? The internet, for all the reasons stated. Now, you as a 'scientist' can share your ideas with all of us, and we with you. One thought in the bathtub can lead to great moments in science. (unless you are in the porn industry... but that is another matter).
When I was in school, the paper encyclopedia was all there was, or a library. Now I can consult libraries all over the world... and never leave my house. Awesome. I hope that this discovery being blasted across the planet spurs on ideas and knowledge linking that was not possible before it's publication. Sort of the butterfly effect of knowledge acquisition.
I wish to know more about our past and origins and will patiently wait for those good folks who do such things to discover clues. I wait feeling assured that my wait is not in vain, that there will be answers, and that no one will find the garden of Eden. Discoveries like this can only light the way toward that enlightenment. I want to know about all the mysteries as though they were birthday gifts to me. Why are the Nasca lines there? Why did the migration of early man leave us separated? (I secretly doubt this is true) I want to know the true origins of mankind. I would also like to meet an alien. If not in person, by some communication method. I'm not afraid of what can be, or was. I just want to know. Simply knowing all these things and more is reason enough to have lived.
"Trying to pick out symbolism from prehistoric context is an exercise in futility."
We've known about the rings at Stonehenge for how long? What do we know about them? Not much.
The simple fact is that we are still discovering evidence of what man did before inventing writing of any sort. I'm continually amazed at the apparent opinion of many that what science knows now is all there is to know, or that it is not possible that it is not quite right.
Alluding to an earlier post, massive drastic evolutionary changes just don't make sense to me. There has to be more history in the dirt than we know about. Chances of us finding it... meh!
I don't think that the curve of knowledge acquisition of the last 500 years is a linear projection of the millions of years before them. I think this whole gain in knowledge is rather logarithmic in nature. Meaning that the first several thousand centuries passed without writing, without lasting evidence to show we had been there. Stonehenge, the Sphinx... how many others? They all stand there with no written account of who or why they were erected. We are still arguing about how the great pyramids at Giza were built. (they made them of concrete).
Point is, this should not be surprising. What should be is that it has taken this long to find it, never mind any other corroborating evidence of early man's efforts to create. What the temple could mean in terms of sociology or religion is pittance compared to what it means to evolution IMO. The technology and effort used to create it means a lot. Guesses about agriculture and social groupings are just that. I have a sneaking suspicion that socially, mankind evolved from pack/clan culture early on. There are so many similarities to that, but we just don't see it in modern society, or ignore it. sheeple anyone? They need a pack leader, right?
Anyway, I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found. We, as a species, need it to fully recognize where we came from, for that is how you understand what direction to go. Just an opinion.
I won't be surprised at whatever they find. The point of all that junk DNA is something that we have not fully figured out yet. It has a point, we'll figure it out, along with all the other things we don't yet know.
I like to think of things as puzzles. I like Lego, so looking at how Lego works often helps me as to get something right you often have to look at the problem from many sides. Additionally, putting Lego together has rules. If you don't know all the rules, you'll not be so good at putting the pieces together as you need them to be. More importantly, just because you think you know how to put the pieces together does not mean that someone else will not come up with another way to put them together slightly differently to achieve twice what you have. Lego has a lot of special pieces. When you work with them, eventually you find that 'hey, if I use it like this I can make x, y, and z that I could not make before.'
That's the thing with human biology. Every new discovery is like finding a new way to use a Lego piece. We know about enzymes, proteins and many other things. What we don't know is probably more than what we think we know already. Think of it, two 'normal' people have 4 kids together. Only one of them is autistic. How did that happen? A very small change can make a big difference. We don't even have to bring a deity into it. Chemical processes control all this. I think that we will find a great many more things with such research. It's quite possible that a small genetic change could make us impervious to cancers, colds, etc. A small genetic change could create hugely extended life spans, or even alter physiques. We have very big people and very small. Size is not always inherited in humans.
That these researchers found something that could control or propagate genetic changes or mutations should hardly be seen as surprising. It is very likely that such controlling factors are reactive to environmental input to the human body. That is to say, that extended input such as diet, climate, stresses, activities, and many other things can over time affect how these controller factors affect offspring. I cannot find any comparison to DNA taken from thousands years old samples and samples from post-x gen DNA. There has to be significant differences between hunting all day for food every day, and sitting around playing video games most of your spare time.
That feedback system spoken of has to be there for adaptation to work. It is not IMO possible for humans to evolve in so many flavors without a feedback mechanism. We recognize that skin color and some other factors are evidently borne of environmental issues from long ago. Where in the human body was the feedback mechanism? Lacking some feedback method, we have to rely on some other outside factor regularly causing mutations, some of which lasted to this day. That does not seem probable in the view of the lack of regular changes seen in the human race. Albinos might represent something like that, but we know that to be something less complex. We just don't see odd mutations on any regular basis. So if perhaps random chance was to be making the changes we should have seen something other than deformities and disease by now.
The thought that the world population is moving toward a planet populated with "little brown people" might be right as the gene pool gets more mixed.... if there are no climate or diet changes that are drastic enough to cause feedback.
Enough babbling, I just don't find this surprising. I wait for more information and more discoveries... with great anticipation and more patience than a watchmaker.
I have come across the same problems, but Lego has accounted for this in an off-hand way, if I say so myself. The pieces that are about 1mm thick, rounded ends, and have anywhere from 2-9 holes - I don't know what to call them. Some are straight, some at 90 degree bends. These can be used with the appropriate pins to cinch a section of technic bricks together. If you have say 5 courses of technic bricks stacked, you can place these orthogonally to the stack, and using pins hold the top course to the bottom course. If you do this in strategic spots, it does not add much thickness but it does add great strength.
I built a robot, 4WD that was strong enough to carry around 52 AA batteries for over an hour of continual movement without suffering any damage to the structure or any part of the robot actually. It was in-tact as though I'd just put it together after a grueling hour+ workout with a large amount of weight on it. 52 was not a typo.
There are several techniques for strengthening your build, but it does take those special parts, most of which come from the Technic sets. I will be quite sad if they go out of production.
Perhaps, but that economy was built on the quality and diversity of product, not simple market forces. It's kind of like Walmart. They have all the stuff that people normally buy, or most of it, and at cheap prices. When you want something that people don't normally buy, you have to shop somewhere else. So, yes, that drives the price up, but also creates special products.
I have concerns about imitators diluting the value of the market that Lego has built, to the point that it is no longer viable to create the special parts that Lego does create. I'm not talking about flag poles for ships or castles. Rather I'm talking more of the technic line of parts. If you want active models or robots etc. you need special parts, not just blocks. For example: to build a car Lego provides many wheels/tires/tank treads, Ackerman steerage, differential gearing, shock absorbers etc. The Lego gear-motors are awesome. Lego provides gears, axles, chains, even flex-shafts, worm-gears and housings, pneumatics,.... In fact, blocks are good, but to make really awesome geeky stuff you need all those special parts. I hope this does not mean an end to the specialty parts.
It would truly be the end of an era if those specialty parts go out of production.
Damn, forgot to mention, Google for Lego robot and you can see some of what is possible. There are Lego robotic systems that actually solve Rubik's cube, a full sized pinball game, functioning legal mail stamping maching and tons of others. There are tons of inventive Lego artists using the Mindstorms/robotics kits to build huge awesome things. If you like things that do nothing, but do it well with class, try searching for the Great Ball Contraption. It will give you ideas on how you can build mechanisms with Lego. The Robotics sets are programmable, with the GUI type programming, or you can roll your own with NotQuiteC (NQC) or the Java variants etc. Lots of wiggle room on all sides of it.
The way that you have described your child is about how I would have been described as a young lad. Since you asked...
I was given an erector set, had my parents understood, my use of it would have called for additions to it, but we didn't do things like that much back then. I have found that Lego technic and Mindstorms/robotics sets would have totally caught my attention back then.
In lieu of those, the old Radio Shack electronics experiments kits were 1000s of hours of fun. I did not then fully understand how a radio transmitter worked, but I did understand that it was possible to make one, they were not magic, and the components were not expensive nor complex things. A rudimentary understanding of logic and electronics formed then. It's all like a puzzle. Puzzle solving has rules so all you need to know is the rules and get some practice.
I was also the kid that took everything apart as soon as I got it so I would understand how it worked.
Looking back, anything that helps your kid understand how stuff works is probably a really good bet. Much of what I worked with allowed me to discover things about mechanical motions, electronics, physics, and math... even though I did not understand that is what I was doing at the time.
Magnets, magnifying glasses, telescopes, and some guidance to understand them faster than just playing around and waiting for school will teach him is the best bet.
In this day and age, you might want to let him help you put a computer together, explaining what he is curious about. No time like the present to start him off on that path.
Basically, everything has an explanation. Explain everything he asks about. I remember at the age of 5 asking why traffic lights had shades over them, then answering my question before he could tell me. For anyone that is inquisitive, explanations are as good as anything else can be, especially if you follow up with tools and toys that help him to build on that knowledge.
I've seen toys that allow you to build things like a double helix strand of DNA etc. but without explanation they are puzzles without rules, and those are no good as you can't understand how to play the game.
There is nothing stopping a child from designing a hybrid engine except knowledge and practice. I find that the Lego robotics kits mixed with technic parts allows you to experience hands-on a lot of mechanical systems, and how they produce motions. Not to sell Lego strongly but there are lots of opportunities there. You can build working engines, cranes, there are even ackerman steering parts. They have a lot of specialty parts that give you a lot of room to play and learn. There is eBay and bricklink for finding parts without having to buy whole sets, so support for continued use/learning is good.
If you can explain magnetism to him, you're probably going to be a very good teacher. That one is tough for people at any age. There is invisible stuff that just works... it's like magic.
Okay, you have a point, and I'm not saying that the Google flu-tracker will work, but it has a better chance than voluntary reporting will create. Additionally, if they can match this against voluntary reporting, or flu symptom reports by volume in clinics and hospitals etc. Then more valid data can be produced.
Yes, I know there may be issues with getting numbers from clinics and such, and there damned well should be. On the other hand, the CDC gets numbers from somewhere and those numbers are publicized. They could be used to verify accuracy of the prediction mechanism, and over time create an accurate-ish predictor of danger from the flu.
No matter how shaky the data is to start with, once it is verified it will become possible to indicate with some level of accuracy when there is a risk in your area or anyone's area.
Anomalous data such as that which would be derived from tracking searches for Zombie symptoms and defense methods can more or less be safely ignored as can other data that won't fit a pattern of pandemic infection. However, it should be noted that searches for something like snakebite, itchy bumps, and various other symptoms could be used to alert the CDC that in a given area there is indication that often misdiagnosed maladies, or rather the symptoms of them, are being searched for at a rate that is above the quiescent level of such searches.
If all the hits for malaria in a given area are from the IP range of a medical school, that can be ignored. You see, it is the quality of the validation data that makes the search data worth using.
Not in North America... we tend to pronouce all those letters, why the hell else would they be in the word, if you are not supposed to pronounce them?
Of course there are a lot of people here who think yall and y'all are different words, not to mention their frustration when trying to look up the spelling.
A couple decades back there was a German man with his own branding/naming company. A Japanese company, not satisfied with their experience for English speaking markets, called him up and asked him to help out with a new car. Naturally, he inquired as to the project timeline, due dates etc.
Nervously, the Japanese marketer replied that they needed something for the following Monday.
After a few moments pause, the German replied "Dat Soon? eh?"
Later that same year he took a trip to London on business. While eating at a local steakhouse, he asked "what's dis here sauce?"
Speaking of convenience, I don't know of any hobbyists who would frown on being required to be licensed for storing chemicals, and even being inspected for proper storage facility if it was not terribly inconvenient.
The reason that I think this is good: It's good for the fire department to know where stores of flammable and (possibly) explosive materials are stored.
A license is not regulation. If because of fire safety zoning the city is unwilling to grant a license for such storage, perhaps other arrangements are possible. The license requirement gives law enforcement enough leverage to remove dangerous situations when they are reported.
There is a vast difference between "you can't do that" and "you cannot do that right there." For example, some model rockets just can't be flown without informing the FAA. Some model airplanes require a license to operate due to safety concerns. These license issues do NOT prohibit the operation of either hobby, only regulate it's use to certain locations etc.
I'm in agreement with you. I live with a HOA guide akin to 'War and Peace' but have done so voluntarily, understanding the value of some restrictions on certain activities. I would not want such things to be mandated by law.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean I'll be able to get a cold rum and coke in hell when I get there? or will I have to wear a parka and not worry about the ice in the drinks?
An interesting look at it; what would have been thought myth and magic by those builders of Stonehenge is merely technology to us. I know my dog gets fairly weirded out if I try to put headphones on him .. well, once the music starts he does. Perhaps that might be what their reaction would be. We've come far enough that most of us would probably accept alien technology as just that: technology and nothing more. God help us if they showed up here on Earth and actually used magic!
Like in most software, lack of documentation.
One of the most important things I've learned IMO is that if you didn't document it with at least very good commenting, you're not done.
Going back to code after 2 years or more and trying to figure out what you yourself did is more frustrating than almost anything. No one else to blame but yourself, so not even a reach-around.
Now, somewhere on the order of 1/3 of what I actually write is comments. No lesson is learned as well as the lesson that caused pain.
I second these thoughts fully - I _WANT_ to see Ubuntu on ARM as a hobbyist.
Playing devil's advocate: I stopped believing in religion.... sigh
I do know what you mean though. Religion is part of reality, right or wrong, it is still part of reality.
....Only the fact that it is unprovable which religion is right (if any) prevents all the other people from being classed as delusional ;-)
And you can take it to the bank that if they had even one small sliver of proof, they'd eagerly tell the rest of the world that the rest of the world is wrong, and do so with such speed and vigor that entire governments would fall.... if in fact anyone else believed them. (hardly seems likely these days)
It's a house of cards. The House of Religious Delusion stands because there is no one that listens when they are told that the King has no clothes on.
If they made laws that way, you'd have a good point, but laws are made locally in respect of your train of thought. Since none of the religions have absolute proof of their correctness, they are more or less willing to side with those that also believe in a similar deity if those others have similar tenets of faith.
For instance, Catholics and Protestants often argue and disagree with one another, yet both unite against atheists. When making laws, this is what happens.
It's not a delusion if other people also believe it?
No, it's not. How do you define normal? How do you define abnormal? Generally speaking if 75% of your society believes something, you are abnormal if you do not. In the last few decades we are slowly moving toward believing that the wide range of human conditions are all normal, but different from one another. Normal is getting a make-over, so to speak. Delusion:
2 a: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusion) emphasis is mine
It's only delusional when 'normal' people do not believe what you do, or there is "indisputable evidence to the contrary" which clearly makes you wrong. In the world of mankind, any religion with enough believers becomes that "indisputable evidence to the contrary" if you do not believe as they do.
Point: At one time, those who thought the world was not flat were considered delusional. Those who thought left handed people were 'ok' were thought delusional. When the majority or 'normal' people say you are delusional, then that's the verdict.... unless you can prove them indisputably wrong. With religion you cannot prove them wrong, so they remain 'normal' despite complete lack of evidence to show they are right.
In this case, popularity wins. The definition you reference is not politically motivated to not anger the religious. That is simply how it works.
Indeed, and should we continue much longer on this thread, we shall have written down the draft of a "principles of education" document :) I think there are already a few such documents available and do not know what room there is for another. In keeping with the topic of choice, Google adds structure, and much of the assimilated history of mankind to date adds what should be critical thinking. Yes, just as there is illiteracy, there are also those who cannot or will not think critically. Despite that, there are those that will. Our basic education included foundational principles and skills that many of our forefathers did not have. Overall, this 'education thing' is working and I say that without comment as to the it's efficacy.
It is with joy that I remember my father and a friend of his always arguing about the Bernoulli principle. To this day I still have the physics text book that was used to settle the argument. Such moments should be cherished by those who love learning. If only Nascar fans were as concerned about the principles underlying the way the cars treat air pressure and drag as the race around the track.
Those basics of critical thinking are good, yet will likely lay stagnant without food for growth. That food is abundant information and ideas. In this, the Internet still reigns king.
No, I don't. While the printing press is good, very good, it pales miserably compared to the speed and efficacy of the Internet at spreading information.
From our favorite site (wikipedia):
It should be noted that new research may indicate that standardised moveable type was a more complex evolutionary process spread over multiple locations.[2]
The use of movable type was a marked improvement on the handwritten manuscript, which was the existing method of book production in Europe, and upon woodblock printing, and revolutionized European book-making. Gutenberg's printing technology spread rapidly throughout Europe and is considered a key factor in the European Renaissance.
Books were not invented by Gutenberg, only a way of making them faster. The Internet has done serious damage to his contributions. Magazines and newspapers are struggling to stay in business in opposition to the Internet. Citizen reporting and writing has replaced what took weeks, months, and years with a process that takes minutes. Read that again. Minutes! While Gutenberg did a good thing, the results of his work were still subject to censorship. The Internet has worked it's way around most censorship (China and Australia excepted) Even the FCC has admitted that the fairness doctrine is all but useless under the weight of the onslaught of information from the Internet. Gutenberg made publishing faster, the Internet has made everyone a fast publisher.
It matters not whether peasants in third world countries own a computer. The knowledge that they do receive will be based on information that was amalgamated as a result of the Internet.
There will not be a book equivalent of 'random youtube comments' for reasons that you missed. They are not relevant outside the scope of the video itself. Remember Reader's Digest? The onslaught of the Internet has made it rather moot. Ughhhh, peasants don't have Reader's Digest either. The point is that the Internet has affected more people, more quickly, and more profoundly than any other invention for decades and longer. Not even the Spanish Inquisition had such an effect. Some of those peasants you talk of want me to help them smuggle a king's ransom out of war torn countries in Africa, and they tell me so over the Internet.
Yes, the Internet has not reached 100% of the world's population yet. Neither have books BTW. Illiteracy is still a problem. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4420772.stm Your point falls flat.
So, with that, I must say I disagree
I agree with you! I basically write code for a living right now, and every day I learn something new. It's invigorating. I cannot imagine that learning new things about the as yet unknown or our past is not invigorating for mankind. I look back at old code I have written and think... wow, I know a lot more now.
Interestingly, I don't believe this kind of thinking is new. 1000 years before the library at Alexandria there must have been people who thought the same thoughts. It follows that 10,000 years before that people had the same thoughts. All the way back past learning how to use fire or the wheel. Where we might be in 50, 100, or 500 years is an incredible thought. The people who built this temple must have done it with the latest technology and skills available... meaning that there were many skills and technologies prior that were not as good. From their perspective, it would seem no different than an architect working on a new building today.
Our knowledge and skill really took off flying when we created ways to store knowledge and share it easily. The easier it is to share knowledge, the greater mankind becomes. My vote for invention of the last 1000 year? The internet, for all the reasons stated. Now, you as a 'scientist' can share your ideas with all of us, and we with you. One thought in the bathtub can lead to great moments in science. (unless you are in the porn industry... but that is another matter).
When I was in school, the paper encyclopedia was all there was, or a library. Now I can consult libraries all over the world... and never leave my house. Awesome. I hope that this discovery being blasted across the planet spurs on ideas and knowledge linking that was not possible before it's publication. Sort of the butterfly effect of knowledge acquisition.
I wish to know more about our past and origins and will patiently wait for those good folks who do such things to discover clues. I wait feeling assured that my wait is not in vain, that there will be answers, and that no one will find the garden of Eden. Discoveries like this can only light the way toward that enlightenment. I want to know about all the mysteries as though they were birthday gifts to me. Why are the Nasca lines there? Why did the migration of early man leave us separated? (I secretly doubt this is true) I want to know the true origins of mankind. I would also like to meet an alien. If not in person, by some communication method. I'm not afraid of what can be, or was. I just want to know. Simply knowing all these things and more is reason enough to have lived.
Enough blathering, on with the discoveries :-)
"Trying to pick out symbolism from prehistoric context is an exercise in futility."
We've known about the rings at Stonehenge for how long? What do we know about them? Not much.
The simple fact is that we are still discovering evidence of what man did before inventing writing of any sort. I'm continually amazed at the apparent opinion of many that what science knows now is all there is to know, or that it is not possible that it is not quite right.
Alluding to an earlier post, massive drastic evolutionary changes just don't make sense to me. There has to be more history in the dirt than we know about. Chances of us finding it... meh!
I don't think that the curve of knowledge acquisition of the last 500 years is a linear projection of the millions of years before them. I think this whole gain in knowledge is rather logarithmic in nature. Meaning that the first several thousand centuries passed without writing, without lasting evidence to show we had been there. Stonehenge, the Sphinx... how many others? They all stand there with no written account of who or why they were erected. We are still arguing about how the great pyramids at Giza were built. (they made them of concrete).
Point is, this should not be surprising. What should be is that it has taken this long to find it, never mind any other corroborating evidence of early man's efforts to create. What the temple could mean in terms of sociology or religion is pittance compared to what it means to evolution IMO. The technology and effort used to create it means a lot. Guesses about agriculture and social groupings are just that. I have a sneaking suspicion that socially, mankind evolved from pack/clan culture early on. There are so many similarities to that, but we just don't see it in modern society, or ignore it. sheeple anyone? They need a pack leader, right?
Anyway, I hope that further study/excavation shows us something more meaningful than what has been found. We, as a species, need it to fully recognize where we came from, for that is how you understand what direction to go. Just an opinion.
I won't be surprised at whatever they find. The point of all that junk DNA is something that we have not fully figured out yet. It has a point, we'll figure it out, along with all the other things we don't yet know.
I like to think of things as puzzles. I like Lego, so looking at how Lego works often helps me as to get something right you often have to look at the problem from many sides. Additionally, putting Lego together has rules. If you don't know all the rules, you'll not be so good at putting the pieces together as you need them to be. More importantly, just because you think you know how to put the pieces together does not mean that someone else will not come up with another way to put them together slightly differently to achieve twice what you have. Lego has a lot of special pieces. When you work with them, eventually you find that 'hey, if I use it like this I can make x, y, and z that I could not make before.'
That's the thing with human biology. Every new discovery is like finding a new way to use a Lego piece. We know about enzymes, proteins and many other things. What we don't know is probably more than what we think we know already. Think of it, two 'normal' people have 4 kids together. Only one of them is autistic. How did that happen? A very small change can make a big difference. We don't even have to bring a deity into it. Chemical processes control all this. I think that we will find a great many more things with such research. It's quite possible that a small genetic change could make us impervious to cancers, colds, etc. A small genetic change could create hugely extended life spans, or even alter physiques. We have very big people and very small. Size is not always inherited in humans.
That these researchers found something that could control or propagate genetic changes or mutations should hardly be seen as surprising. It is very likely that such controlling factors are reactive to environmental input to the human body. That is to say, that extended input such as diet, climate, stresses, activities, and many other things can over time affect how these controller factors affect offspring. I cannot find any comparison to DNA taken from thousands years old samples and samples from post-x gen DNA. There has to be significant differences between hunting all day for food every day, and sitting around playing video games most of your spare time.
That feedback system spoken of has to be there for adaptation to work. It is not IMO possible for humans to evolve in so many flavors without a feedback mechanism. We recognize that skin color and some other factors are evidently borne of environmental issues from long ago. Where in the human body was the feedback mechanism? Lacking some feedback method, we have to rely on some other outside factor regularly causing mutations, some of which lasted to this day. That does not seem probable in the view of the lack of regular changes seen in the human race. Albinos might represent something like that, but we know that to be something less complex. We just don't see odd mutations on any regular basis. So if perhaps random chance was to be making the changes we should have seen something other than deformities and disease by now.
The thought that the world population is moving toward a planet populated with "little brown people" might be right as the gene pool gets more mixed.... if there are no climate or diet changes that are drastic enough to cause feedback.
Enough babbling, I just don't find this surprising. I wait for more information and more discoveries... with great anticipation and more patience than a watchmaker.
...mea culpa
...
I love you, and I want to have your babies.
Would that make you my 'Latin lover' ?
Please don't be a priest. I don't want to end up having to write to Craigslist
true... It should read "competetition" rather than 'market forces'... mea culpa
I have come across the same problems, but Lego has accounted for this in an off-hand way, if I say so myself. The pieces that are about 1mm thick, rounded ends, and have anywhere from 2-9 holes - I don't know what to call them. Some are straight, some at 90 degree bends. These can be used with the appropriate pins to cinch a section of technic bricks together. If you have say 5 courses of technic bricks stacked, you can place these orthogonally to the stack, and using pins hold the top course to the bottom course. If you do this in strategic spots, it does not add much thickness but it does add great strength.
I built a robot, 4WD that was strong enough to carry around 52 AA batteries for over an hour of continual movement without suffering any damage to the structure or any part of the robot actually. It was in-tact as though I'd just put it together after a grueling hour+ workout with a large amount of weight on it. 52 was not a typo.
There are several techniques for strengthening your build, but it does take those special parts, most of which come from the Technic sets. I will be quite sad if they go out of production.
Perhaps, but that economy was built on the quality and diversity of product, not simple market forces. It's kind of like Walmart. They have all the stuff that people normally buy, or most of it, and at cheap prices. When you want something that people don't normally buy, you have to shop somewhere else. So, yes, that drives the price up, but also creates special products.
I have concerns about imitators diluting the value of the market that Lego has built, to the point that it is no longer viable to create the special parts that Lego does create. I'm not talking about flag poles for ships or castles. Rather I'm talking more of the technic line of parts. If you want active models or robots etc. you need special parts, not just blocks. For example: to build a car Lego provides many wheels/tires/tank treads, Ackerman steerage, differential gearing, shock absorbers etc. The Lego gear-motors are awesome. Lego provides gears, axles, chains, even flex-shafts, worm-gears and housings, pneumatics, .... In fact, blocks are good, but to make really awesome geeky stuff you need all those special parts. I hope this does not mean an end to the specialty parts.
It would truly be the end of an era if those specialty parts go out of production.
Damn, forgot to mention, Google for Lego robot and you can see some of what is possible. There are Lego robotic systems that actually solve Rubik's cube, a full sized pinball game, functioning legal mail stamping maching and tons of others. There are tons of inventive Lego artists using the Mindstorms/robotics kits to build huge awesome things. If you like things that do nothing, but do it well with class, try searching for the Great Ball Contraption. It will give you ideas on how you can build mechanisms with Lego. The Robotics sets are programmable, with the GUI type programming, or you can roll your own with NotQuiteC (NQC) or the Java variants etc. Lots of wiggle room on all sides of it.
The way that you have described your child is about how I would have been described as a young lad. Since you asked...
I was given an erector set, had my parents understood, my use of it would have called for additions to it, but we didn't do things like that much back then. I have found that Lego technic and Mindstorms/robotics sets would have totally caught my attention back then.
In lieu of those, the old Radio Shack electronics experiments kits were 1000s of hours of fun. I did not then fully understand how a radio transmitter worked, but I did understand that it was possible to make one, they were not magic, and the components were not expensive nor complex things. A rudimentary understanding of logic and electronics formed then. It's all like a puzzle. Puzzle solving has rules so all you need to know is the rules and get some practice.
I was also the kid that took everything apart as soon as I got it so I would understand how it worked.
Looking back, anything that helps your kid understand how stuff works is probably a really good bet. Much of what I worked with allowed me to discover things about mechanical motions, electronics, physics, and math... even though I did not understand that is what I was doing at the time.
Magnets, magnifying glasses, telescopes, and some guidance to understand them faster than just playing around and waiting for school will teach him is the best bet.
In this day and age, you might want to let him help you put a computer together, explaining what he is curious about. No time like the present to start him off on that path.
Basically, everything has an explanation. Explain everything he asks about. I remember at the age of 5 asking why traffic lights had shades over them, then answering my question before he could tell me. For anyone that is inquisitive, explanations are as good as anything else can be, especially if you follow up with tools and toys that help him to build on that knowledge.
I've seen toys that allow you to build things like a double helix strand of DNA etc. but without explanation they are puzzles without rules, and those are no good as you can't understand how to play the game.
There is nothing stopping a child from designing a hybrid engine except knowledge and practice. I find that the Lego robotics kits mixed with technic parts allows you to experience hands-on a lot of mechanical systems, and how they produce motions. Not to sell Lego strongly but there are lots of opportunities there. You can build working engines, cranes, there are even ackerman steering parts. They have a lot of specialty parts that give you a lot of room to play and learn. There is eBay and bricklink for finding parts without having to buy whole sets, so support for continued use/learning is good.
If you can explain magnetism to him, you're probably going to be a very good teacher. That one is tough for people at any age. There is invisible stuff that just works... it's like magic.
Okay, you have a point, and I'm not saying that the Google flu-tracker will work, but it has a better chance than voluntary reporting will create. Additionally, if they can match this against voluntary reporting, or flu symptom reports by volume in clinics and hospitals etc. Then more valid data can be produced.
Yes, I know there may be issues with getting numbers from clinics and such, and there damned well should be. On the other hand, the CDC gets numbers from somewhere and those numbers are publicized. They could be used to verify accuracy of the prediction mechanism, and over time create an accurate-ish predictor of danger from the flu.
No matter how shaky the data is to start with, once it is verified it will become possible to indicate with some level of accuracy when there is a risk in your area or anyone's area.
Anomalous data such as that which would be derived from tracking searches for Zombie symptoms and defense methods can more or less be safely ignored as can other data that won't fit a pattern of pandemic infection. However, it should be noted that searches for something like snakebite, itchy bumps, and various other symptoms could be used to alert the CDC that in a given area there is indication that often misdiagnosed maladies, or rather the symptoms of them, are being searched for at a rate that is above the quiescent level of such searches.
If all the hits for malaria in a given area are from the IP range of a medical school, that can be ignored. You see, it is the quality of the validation data that makes the search data worth using.
So, IMO, this has a chance of being half useful.
Not in North America ... we tend to pronouce all those letters, why the hell else would they be in the word, if you are not supposed to pronounce them?
Of course there are a lot of people here who think yall and y'all are different words, not to mention their frustration when trying to look up the spelling.
The subtitle of this story is: "How much Microsoft was paid to put a backdoor into MS Windows for the EU to use."
Not a car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcestershire_sauce
A couple decades back there was a German man with his own branding/naming company. A Japanese company, not satisfied with their experience for English speaking markets, called him up and asked him to help out with a new car. Naturally, he inquired as to the project timeline, due dates etc.
Nervously, the Japanese marketer replied that they needed something for the following Monday.
After a few moments pause, the German replied "Dat Soon? eh?"
Later that same year he took a trip to London on business. While eating at a local steakhouse, he asked "what's dis here sauce?"
Speaking of convenience, I don't know of any hobbyists who would frown on being required to be licensed for storing chemicals, and even being inspected for proper storage facility if it was not terribly inconvenient.
The reason that I think this is good: It's good for the fire department to know where stores of flammable and (possibly) explosive materials are stored.
A license is not regulation. If because of fire safety zoning the city is unwilling to grant a license for such storage, perhaps other arrangements are possible. The license requirement gives law enforcement enough leverage to remove dangerous situations when they are reported.
There is a vast difference between "you can't do that" and "you cannot do that right there." For example, some model rockets just can't be flown without informing the FAA. Some model airplanes require a license to operate due to safety concerns. These license issues do NOT prohibit the operation of either hobby, only regulate it's use to certain locations etc.
I'm in agreement with you. I live with a HOA guide akin to 'War and Peace' but have done so voluntarily, understanding the value of some restrictions on certain activities. I would not want such things to be mandated by law.