Re:This doesn't prove ants can count
on
Ants That Can Count
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
If the ant has no way to tell where it's located at, how can it run the straight way "home"?
Hence the ant knows exactly where "home" it, it just correlates the distance with the steps it needs to take. But that correlation can still be done via rhythm as opposed to actual numbers. (like trying to judge what tune to play to fir into a 60 second time-frame.
Seriously, if someone lied about what something is, of cause it can turn up to be harmful. What we need is sushi regulation, not this useless information.
And for that note, why label only some of these examples as a fraud? Aren't they ALL frauds?
Slashdot Mirror
If the ant has no way to tell where it's located at, how can it run the straight way "home"? Hence the ant knows exactly where "home" it, it just correlates the distance with the steps it needs to take. But that correlation can still be done via rhythm as opposed to actual numbers. (like trying to judge what tune to play to fir into a 60 second time-frame.
And of cause, I then had to figure out what foot fetish would be. Mmmm podophilia....
It still works. Drummers don't just drum for a single lyric, they drum for the whole song. The ants are just playing an orchestra of beats.
So, it's like changing the tires of a car to a larger or smaller one then miscounting the distance traveled based on rotations?
I believe this is more marketed to those unfortunates who can't, like the elderly or muscle-damaged.
Google also exists merely on advertising, so it isn't always true.
I see what you did there...
Well, a plane is just a flying car after all...
We were supposed to RTFA?
Yes, and telling us that bad stuff happen when people lie is so useful. Also, If the FDA is so useless, why does the FDA even exist?
Actually, your burning wood for heat still causes emissions, so you'll have to find somewhere warmer to live too.
You can have a safe drive? I thought alcohol already made that obsolete years ago.
There already is a patch, it's called IE 8.
At minimum, this new attack uses code which does not work in IE 8, I assume?
Seriously, if someone lied about what something is, of cause it can turn up to be harmful. What we need is sushi regulation, not this useless information. And for that note, why label only some of these examples as a fraud? Aren't they ALL frauds?
You're not the target audience then. Remember, you might be smart, but people are dumb.