Humans don't need biological adaptions to function in all kinds of environments - we use technological adaptions instead. I agree with Don853, I'd be quite excited to live and see all the advancements they make in the future. As long as they really did manage to 'cure' aging and sort out the problems of cancer and dementia, etc, then my hardware would be fine:P In a few hundred thousand years then humans will probably be even smarter though..
Even worse, they are a 'trusted' SSL Certificate Authority. Someone pointed me to GoDaddy for SSL before, I was wondering why they were so cheap compared to more respectable looking sites.. well, at least they pass savings on to some customers while screwing over others:s
It's a song/phrase. "It's a small world after all". I was basically just joking, but also pointing out that random meetings of people who know each other and end up meeting each other on holiday in a different country or an obscure part of their own country (even though they didn't know the other family was going there) do happen. Whenever that happens people tend to say "It's a small world" despite the fact that the world is not physically very small.
You could use the same coin six times and note the results, or have six coins in a little enclosure with 6 separate compartments, then always read from the same side of the enclosure..
Come on now... isn't this stretching things a bit. Science is supposed to be what about what we KNOW.
I used to think like that about evolution 10 years ago but now I think there is enough evidence to support it. I was a fairly fundamental Christian up until the last couple of years too, now I'm not sure what to believe, but what you are suggesting is just the "God of the Gaps" idea where you have to use God to explain everything you think is too amazing. I still believe there could be some greater intelligence/power than our own though, if only because another race could have evolved before ours in our own universe before this cycle, or in another part of a multiverse, whatever. You then have to try to explain how they got started, etc, and it just never ends. A man could drive himself mad wondering just why everything even is. I probably say that too much but it's just because it's the only thing that truly confuses me:P It's good to concentrate on what we can learn and know rather than waste time, but it's also true that people just ignore that 'something' must have always existed. I know aren't really capable of understanding anything with a lack of reference in time or space but to me it's unlikely that anything would exist, let alone a god, or some inanimate mass that would then develop into life. It's all pretty amazing.
Anyway as far as PNA and metabolisms go etc, I never studied biology (though I did study chemistry and physics), isn't the point that these systems didn't just appear one day, but they developed from simpler systems. Life is self-organising, and generally gets more organised over time. To say that RNA just appeared out of nowhere is pretty fantastic, but to say that some powerful intelligence appeared from nowhere to help it along is also pretty fantastic, so where do you draw the line? Urgh, I think that's enough random philosiphising for now, I'm off to play Battlefield: Bad Company. I wonder when computer game characters will start wondering who created them:P
IMO expecting to stumble on them by accident on a return trip to the moon, as it says, is way too optimistic.
It's a small world.. err.. moon, after all. It's amazing what you can bump into when you're not expecting it:p Send a few 'nauts up on holiday and they'll be sure to run into some pre-historic neighbours.
I had thought that the moon is mostly composed of material from the earth anyway? I know it's just a hypothesis but it seems pretty sensible. It could have been before any forms of life had started developing though, I don't know my time periods for when life is projected to have begun.
Giant Impact hypothesis
The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earthâ"Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact. A Mars-sized body (labelled "Theia") is believed to have hit the proto-Earth, blasting sufficient material into orbit around the proto-Earth to form the Moon through accretion.[6] As accretion is the process by which all planetary bodies are believed to have formed, giant impacts are thought to have affected most if not all planets. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system, as well as the small size of the lunar core.[41] Unresolved questions regarding this theory concern the determination of the relative sizes of the proto-Earth and Theia and of how much material from these two bodies formed the Moon.
It's comedy to better informed people sure. That doesn't mean the answers are faked though. Hopefully the videos were a result of just taking the weirdest and dumbest answers, rather than a decent representative sample of the public;)
I think I may still have my 10GB Linux partition on my PS3, so that's 25% gone right there, but it hasn't been a problem even after downloading a few demos, installing/playing stuff like MGS4 (3 install sessions so far I think), MGSOnline, GTA4, CM:Dirt, GRID, Uncharted, Guitar Hero III, etc. Not all of those games require install files but meh. Assassin's Creed is meant to be pish so I'm not playing it, but I doubt many games require that amount. GTA, MGS and Gran Turismo I can see, but things like Guitar Hero can just play from the BR (though they do download and install patches). Anyway, while I will probably install a larger hard drive eventually, I definitely don't need to. I could easily delete the installed data for a few of those games (the saved data is kept separately) if I had a need to play something else. I don't tend to jump quickly between games either, apart from when it comes to local multiplayer Guitar Hero will come out no matter what I've been playing on single player. I don't get why people see the need to bash consoles just to make their own personal purchase decisions feel valid. Besides, the XBox360 apparently has games that require installation too?
If you take the arcade, add in 1 month of Xbox Live, and maybe 1-2 Xbox Live Arcade game, then yea you're almost on crack
There we go, fixed that for you.
In the spirit of things, this is suggesting being on crack in the bad don't know what you're doing sense, rather than the good "OMG I'm addicted cuz this is awesome" sense. As you may be able to tell, I own a PS3.
Go Sony. Boo Microsoft. Insert other such highly mature statements and pointless debating points here.
if you have 128 customers on a DSLAM box with 10Mbps to the backbone, and 8 of them saturate their 1.5Mbps link, that's all 128 dealing with shitty network throughput since they connect up to a core link through the same wire. If you multiply that out, the whole backbone gets saturated and everyone gets horrible service.
That sounds more like the ISP's fault for false advertising and poor network infrastructure if 5% of people can't constantly use their full bandwidth.. I understand that traditionally people used to use very little of their bandwidth unless they were downloading a file, but these days with streaming radio, video, massive legitimate file downloads.
For example I downloaded a couple of game demos on my PS3 recently and they were both 1.5GB. I remember downloading a 100MB demo on 56k dialup before, it took all night. But 3GB probably takes less than 2 hours on an average 'broadband' connection these days. Am I selfish for downloading 3GB demos when a few years ago I would have been maxing out my connection for days on end? Not really. These days, 3GB is nothing. In another few years, 300GB downloads will be nothing.. and people will probably have found ways of needing even more bandwidth. Personally I don't see how even super-hi-def audio and sound could require so much data for a movie or whatever but ways will be found to wastse/use the bandwidth.. probably via on-demand movie and music services.
As an aside, I wonder what percentage of their traffic each day is just spam?
I have no problem with Comcast or whoever charging more or having caps for what you call 'selfish' usage as long as they make usage limits and bandwidth caps obvious up-front. Saying that people shouldn't be maxing out their bandwidth all the time and calling it 'selfish' isn't the right attitude to me though, that's trying to displace the blame from the poor infrastructure. It's like getting annoyed at people for causing traffic jams when it's really just the infrastructure that is the problem, not any one driver (even if the driver is driving a truck full of backup tapes:P ).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGmesn5WXeE is another hilarious but sad one. My impression is that the general american public just isn't very well educated as to geography and cultures outside of the US. Most people in the world understand american culture (even if it is a skewed version) because of all the stuff that comes out of america - movies, music, fast food places, etc. So when people visit America they generally know what's going on, but I doubt it's the same when your standard American visits, say, China.
I admit that I'm not very well versed on American geography of course - I could name a lot of the states but I couldn't point out where they were on a blank map or what most of the capitals were, I tend to just think of the US as a big blob, just as I think of Russia and China mostly as big blobs and don't know much of the internal geography of each, but I know roughly where most countries in the world are on a map. I reckon that's how most people in the US think about the rest of the world though.. just a big blob of non-American-ness that they don't really need to know about (which is fair enough as long as they aren't wanting to go to war against countries they know nothing about).
Not meaning this to be a troll or anything, it's just how I see it. I've met some dumb Americans, and I've also met some highly intelligent ones (mostly over here to study). I also dated a Canadian, I'm not sure what that says about me. I used to regard Canadians as generally smarter than Americans, but now I just think of them as weird selfish bitches *cough*
If you don't take g-forces into account as you said before, driving an F1 car wouldn't be that hard. Again it's not about the reaction times but getting to know braking points and correct lines through corners etc. Reacting quickly is not a requirement for doing a fast lap. Like you say though, in an actual race it would be more important to take account of the unexpected.
Drag racing is a completely different kettle of fish from track racing, reactions are obviously very important there:P When I was thinking about 'racing' I wasn't even taking into account time for gear changes or speed off the line, I was thinking more about speed through corners. I've watched a few Touring Cars and DTM races (I find F1 pretty clinical and boring though) and most accidents are more likely to be from collisions rather than tyre blowouts or anything. I've watched a little bit of NASCAR as well (I also find the idea of going around an oval for hundreds of laps or whatever pretty boring but I wanted to see what the fuss was about and there was nothing else on, plus it's funny to see how seriously it's taken with all the flashy driver's ID pictures popping up in the corner etc), tyre blowouts are more likely there because of the consistently insane speeds that the tyres have to cope with Tyres in things like TOCA are only likely to blow out from manufacturing defects or debris though, rather than pure tyre wear..
The Rescue Aid Society would probably send out a team (possibly with an old Powerbook) before Neo finished buying all his virtual monochrome CRTs (cheese rendering tubes) off of eBay.
Please. Nobody will ever believe that engineers are intelligent after I show them pictures of you and your classmates using that supercharger system to chug a keg of beer.
The difference I'm seeing here is that presumably even the reporter knew that you don't have any walls or (many) other vehicles to crash into, so I'm pretty sure he thought that travelling at constant speed meant the necessity for constant propulsion - which is true in an atmosphere, but the speed is still constant so the pilot wouldn't feel anything.
Being a good race driver shouldn't require superhuman reaction times. Average reactions and a bit of experience and/or traction control are needed for controlling traction on high powered vehicles, but being a good race driver isn't about driving like a hooligan, it's about driving consistently in a controlled manner. A good race driver would be able to get the most out of a car whether it is a Toyota Prymyeyesout or a Le Mans car. On the UK show Top Gear the F1 drivers consistently lap around 1:44 on the Top Gear circuit in a shitty little "reasonably priced car" whereas the normal celebrity types who had a go managed around 1:46-1:47 for the very best, and over 2 minutes for the worst (something like 2 minutes 8 seconds for a guy who is legally blind).
I don't think it's reaction times that matter so much as perhaps just brazen balls out fearlessness. Fast reaction times are useful when you overstep the limit or someone ahead blows a tyre out or something like that, but most of the time I don't think it's the defining factor in what makes a good race-driver. For most types of racing I'm of the opinion that anyone could do it with a bit of tuition and cash.
Sorry, I'm getting completely off-topic, plus I tend to just argue with people for the sake of being a jerk:) I think fast reactions are beneficial but not essential, and if I had a spare £30,000 lying around I'd buy a nice track or rally car and enter a few competitions..
While I was being mostly sarcastic, I was partly serious. The part that was serious is probably the the same part of me that wants to go out and club mammoths to death though:)
PS that only proves that an intelligent being exists, not necessarily an omnipotent being.
Oops - I meant 'paint', not paste.. though filling up rusty holes with some kind of paste works too. My insubordinate fingers sometimes just take the first letter I send to them and then pull a word out of their little finger-asses.
Slashdot Mirror
Humans don't need biological adaptions to function in all kinds of environments - we use technological adaptions instead. I agree with Don853, I'd be quite excited to live and see all the advancements they make in the future. As long as they really did manage to 'cure' aging and sort out the problems of cancer and dementia, etc, then my hardware would be fine :P In a few hundred thousand years then humans will probably be even smarter though..
Yes I know, I was making a "joke". The capital I was unfortunate but for the purposes of cheese related humour I chose to ignore it.
They could probably improve things just by using the retarded mice for anchors.. no drugs necessary!
Even worse, they are a 'trusted' SSL Certificate Authority. Someone pointed me to GoDaddy for SSL before, I was wondering why they were so cheap compared to more respectable looking sites.. well, at least they pass savings on to some customers while screwing over others :s
It's a song/phrase. "It's a small world after all". I was basically just joking, but also pointing out that random meetings of people who know each other and end up meeting each other on holiday in a different country or an obscure part of their own country (even though they didn't know the other family was going there) do happen. Whenever that happens people tend to say "It's a small world" despite the fact that the world is not physically very small.
You could use the same coin six times and note the results, or have six coins in a little enclosure with 6 separate compartments, then always read from the same side of the enclosure..
Come on now... isn't this stretching things a bit. Science is supposed to be what about what we KNOW.
I used to think like that about evolution 10 years ago but now I think there is enough evidence to support it. I was a fairly fundamental Christian up until the last couple of years too, now I'm not sure what to believe, but what you are suggesting is just the "God of the Gaps" idea where you have to use God to explain everything you think is too amazing. I still believe there could be some greater intelligence/power than our own though, if only because another race could have evolved before ours in our own universe before this cycle, or in another part of a multiverse, whatever. You then have to try to explain how they got started, etc, and it just never ends. A man could drive himself mad wondering just why everything even is. I probably say that too much but it's just because it's the only thing that truly confuses me :P It's good to concentrate on what we can learn and know rather than waste time, but it's also true that people just ignore that 'something' must have always existed. I know aren't really capable of understanding anything with a lack of reference in time or space but to me it's unlikely that anything would exist, let alone a god, or some inanimate mass that would then develop into life. It's all pretty amazing.
Anyway as far as PNA and metabolisms go etc, I never studied biology (though I did study chemistry and physics), isn't the point that these systems didn't just appear one day, but they developed from simpler systems. Life is self-organising, and generally gets more organised over time. To say that RNA just appeared out of nowhere is pretty fantastic, but to say that some powerful intelligence appeared from nowhere to help it along is also pretty fantastic, so where do you draw the line? Urgh, I think that's enough random philosiphising for now, I'm off to play Battlefield: Bad Company. I wonder when computer game characters will start wondering who created them :P
IMO expecting to stumble on them by accident on a return trip to the moon, as it says, is way too optimistic.
It's a small world.. err.. moon, after all. It's amazing what you can bump into when you're not expecting it :p Send a few 'nauts up on holiday and they'll be sure to run into some pre-historic neighbours.
I had thought that the moon is mostly composed of material from the earth anyway? I know it's just a hypothesis but it seems pretty sensible. It could have been before any forms of life had started developing though, I don't know my time periods for when life is projected to have begun.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon )
Giant Impact hypothesis
The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earthâ"Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact. A Mars-sized body (labelled "Theia") is believed to have hit the proto-Earth, blasting sufficient material into orbit around the proto-Earth to form the Moon through accretion.[6] As accretion is the process by which all planetary bodies are believed to have formed, giant impacts are thought to have affected most if not all planets. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system, as well as the small size of the lunar core.[41] Unresolved questions regarding this theory concern the determination of the relative sizes of the proto-Earth and Theia and of how much material from these two bodies formed the Moon.
It's comedy to better informed people sure. That doesn't mean the answers are faked though. Hopefully the videos were a result of just taking the weirdest and dumbest answers, rather than a decent representative sample of the public ;)
Waxing the Frigate?
I think I just sunk my own battleship :(
Yep - the grandparent of my post was "Ethanol-fueled", I know you were talking about that ;)
I think I may still have my 10GB Linux partition on my PS3, so that's 25% gone right there, but it hasn't been a problem even after downloading a few demos, installing/playing stuff like MGS4 (3 install sessions so far I think), MGSOnline, GTA4, CM:Dirt, GRID, Uncharted, Guitar Hero III, etc. Not all of those games require install files but meh. Assassin's Creed is meant to be pish so I'm not playing it, but I doubt many games require that amount. GTA, MGS and Gran Turismo I can see, but things like Guitar Hero can just play from the BR (though they do download and install patches). Anyway, while I will probably install a larger hard drive eventually, I definitely don't need to. I could easily delete the installed data for a few of those games (the saved data is kept separately) if I had a need to play something else. I don't tend to jump quickly between games either, apart from when it comes to local multiplayer Guitar Hero will come out no matter what I've been playing on single player. I don't get why people see the need to bash consoles just to make their own personal purchase decisions feel valid. Besides, the XBox360 apparently has games that require installation too?
If you take the arcade, add in 1 month of Xbox Live, and maybe 1-2 Xbox Live Arcade game, then yea you're almost on crack
There we go, fixed that for you.
In the spirit of things, this is suggesting being on crack in the bad don't know what you're doing sense, rather than the good "OMG I'm addicted cuz this is awesome" sense. As you may be able to tell, I own a PS3.
Go Sony. Boo Microsoft. Insert other such highly mature statements and pointless debating points here.
It's taken me 9 years to notice that Eminem = M&M = Marshall Mathers. Why'd you have to make me realise how slow I am, you insensitive clod? >.<
if you have 128 customers on a DSLAM box with 10Mbps to the backbone, and 8 of them saturate their 1.5Mbps link, that's all 128 dealing with shitty network throughput since they connect up to a core link through the same wire. If you multiply that out, the whole backbone gets saturated and everyone gets horrible service.
That sounds more like the ISP's fault for false advertising and poor network infrastructure if 5% of people can't constantly use their full bandwidth.. I understand that traditionally people used to use very little of their bandwidth unless they were downloading a file, but these days with streaming radio, video, massive legitimate file downloads.
For example I downloaded a couple of game demos on my PS3 recently and they were both 1.5GB. I remember downloading a 100MB demo on 56k dialup before, it took all night. But 3GB probably takes less than 2 hours on an average 'broadband' connection these days. Am I selfish for downloading 3GB demos when a few years ago I would have been maxing out my connection for days on end? Not really. These days, 3GB is nothing. In another few years, 300GB downloads will be nothing.. and people will probably have found ways of needing even more bandwidth. Personally I don't see how even super-hi-def audio and sound could require so much data for a movie or whatever but ways will be found to wastse/use the bandwidth.. probably via on-demand movie and music services.
As an aside, I wonder what percentage of their traffic each day is just spam?
I have no problem with Comcast or whoever charging more or having caps for what you call 'selfish' usage as long as they make usage limits and bandwidth caps obvious up-front. Saying that people shouldn't be maxing out their bandwidth all the time and calling it 'selfish' isn't the right attitude to me though, that's trying to displace the blame from the poor infrastructure. It's like getting annoyed at people for causing traffic jams when it's really just the infrastructure that is the problem, not any one driver (even if the driver is driving a truck full of backup tapes :P ).
When Two Flagons
Whiskey Taken, Frowning
While Typing Funny
Words To Fark-like
Website Takes Four
Weeks To Frame.
Videos like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeMhxvYq1Ww really don't help :p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGmesn5WXeE is another hilarious but sad one. My impression is that the general american public just isn't very well educated as to geography and cultures outside of the US. Most people in the world understand american culture (even if it is a skewed version) because of all the stuff that comes out of america - movies, music, fast food places, etc. So when people visit America they generally know what's going on, but I doubt it's the same when your standard American visits, say, China.
I admit that I'm not very well versed on American geography of course - I could name a lot of the states but I couldn't point out where they were on a blank map or what most of the capitals were, I tend to just think of the US as a big blob, just as I think of Russia and China mostly as big blobs and don't know much of the internal geography of each, but I know roughly where most countries in the world are on a map. I reckon that's how most people in the US think about the rest of the world though.. just a big blob of non-American-ness that they don't really need to know about (which is fair enough as long as they aren't wanting to go to war against countries they know nothing about).
Not meaning this to be a troll or anything, it's just how I see it. I've met some dumb Americans, and I've also met some highly intelligent ones (mostly over here to study). I also dated a Canadian, I'm not sure what that says about me. I used to regard Canadians as generally smarter than Americans, but now I just think of them as weird selfish bitches *cough*
If you don't take g-forces into account as you said before, driving an F1 car wouldn't be that hard. Again it's not about the reaction times but getting to know braking points and correct lines through corners etc. Reacting quickly is not a requirement for doing a fast lap. Like you say though, in an actual race it would be more important to take account of the unexpected.
Drag racing is a completely different kettle of fish from track racing, reactions are obviously very important there :P When I was thinking about 'racing' I wasn't even taking into account time for gear changes or speed off the line, I was thinking more about speed through corners. I've watched a few Touring Cars and DTM races (I find F1 pretty clinical and boring though) and most accidents are more likely to be from collisions rather than tyre blowouts or anything. I've watched a little bit of NASCAR as well (I also find the idea of going around an oval for hundreds of laps or whatever pretty boring but I wanted to see what the fuss was about and there was nothing else on, plus it's funny to see how seriously it's taken with all the flashy driver's ID pictures popping up in the corner etc), tyre blowouts are more likely there because of the consistently insane speeds that the tyres have to cope with Tyres in things like TOCA are only likely to blow out from manufacturing defects or debris though, rather than pure tyre wear..
The Rescue Aid Society would probably send out a team (possibly with an old Powerbook) before Neo finished buying all his virtual monochrome CRTs (cheese rendering tubes) off of eBay.
Please. Nobody will ever believe that engineers are intelligent after I show them pictures of you and your classmates using that supercharger system to chug a keg of beer.
The difference I'm seeing here is that presumably even the reporter knew that you don't have any walls or (many) other vehicles to crash into, so I'm pretty sure he thought that travelling at constant speed meant the necessity for constant propulsion - which is true in an atmosphere, but the speed is still constant so the pilot wouldn't feel anything.
Being a good race driver shouldn't require superhuman reaction times. Average reactions and a bit of experience and/or traction control are needed for controlling traction on high powered vehicles, but being a good race driver isn't about driving like a hooligan, it's about driving consistently in a controlled manner. A good race driver would be able to get the most out of a car whether it is a Toyota Prymyeyesout or a Le Mans car. On the UK show Top Gear the F1 drivers consistently lap around 1:44 on the Top Gear circuit in a shitty little "reasonably priced car" whereas the normal celebrity types who had a go managed around 1:46-1:47 for the very best, and over 2 minutes for the worst (something like 2 minutes 8 seconds for a guy who is legally blind).
I don't think it's reaction times that matter so much as perhaps just brazen balls out fearlessness. Fast reaction times are useful when you overstep the limit or someone ahead blows a tyre out or something like that, but most of the time I don't think it's the defining factor in what makes a good race-driver. For most types of racing I'm of the opinion that anyone could do it with a bit of tuition and cash.
Sorry, I'm getting completely off-topic, plus I tend to just argue with people for the sake of being a jerk :) I think fast reactions are beneficial but not essential, and if I had a spare £30,000 lying around I'd buy a nice track or rally car and enter a few competitions..
While I was being mostly sarcastic, I was partly serious. The part that was serious is probably the the same part of me that wants to go out and club mammoths to death though :)
PS that only proves that an intelligent being exists, not necessarily an omnipotent being.
Oops - I meant 'paint', not paste.. though filling up rusty holes with some kind of paste works too. My insubordinate fingers sometimes just take the first letter I send to them and then pull a word out of their little finger-asses.
I like your signature, but perhaps you could make a few changes? ;)
Tiller's Rule: Never ewes a word in written form that you've only herd and never red. Ewe will end up looking full-ish.