It all comes down to breeding. How are you sure to make great future baby computer scientists if only the father is a brilliant computer scientist? That's right, you don't, no matter what the woman does.
That's why you need a 50-50 ratio in each discipline! You make sure that the most brilliant individuals in each discipline mate together, you make sure that their offsprings are raised to follow their parents' tracks, rinse and repeat for a few generations.
Before you know it the society will divide in two classes, the masses, and the elite, selected and trained to achieve excellence in whatever their ancestors were pigeon-holed. Scientists will be smarter, comedians will be funnier, factory workers will be more efficient, hard rock singers will yell louder, to much of the enjoyment of the unremarkable masses!
I only drink Coca Cola you insensitive clod! On a side note, I grew up drinking Volvic, cause where I'm from pig farming makes tap water almost undrinkable. And that thing's coming straight from a volcano, so you know no one peed in it!
I didn't say you could bike to work on an empty stomach, you twit
Duh, I know, get subtle, I was stretching your claim to show that while it's equally true, it doesn't mean that biking doesn't require food, while your claim could have been interpreted (although you surely didn't mean this way) to say that a breakfast was enough to fuel the trip. I used to bike to school with an empty stomach by the way.
Good Lord, you really don't get it. I never talked about buying more stuff, I talked about "spending more", by which I clarified as meaning "spending body energy". I don't think I can make it any clearer than I already did in the previous post. At last I meet someone with worse reading comprehension skills than myself, hurray!
On that same topic I noticed something interesting. We predict for the future to use these things we're discussing that, when they come, are actually quite marginal (or they actually don't happen), and we fail to predict the true revolutions, what will really change our lives in the future. I think Back to the Future II is a good example of this, it predicts the spread of very advanced domotics, which we can't really say we are really into nowadays, and fails to predict the ubiquity of the Internet and the fanciness of cell phones. The point being, you could have thought 20 years ago that an "intelligent" home and "intelligent" clothes would be all the rage in the future, yet more surprisingly the few things that have actually changed during that time were a couple of devices that changed things dramatically. Which makes me think that nobody knows what we will want in the future.
The reason I didn't compare scooters is because thats not what most people take to work
So, they don't take bikes either. If people ponder taking bikes, maybe they could also pondering scooters, as you said.
Indeed, yes, it's unfortunate that more research hasn't been done on that, because it's interesting and as you see, it's not safe to assume that bikes are "clean", which is unfortunately what we do.
Right, you're just looking at things on a small scale (i.e. I could bike to work with an empty stomach) while ignoring that on a large scale (both in time and in people) there's a necessary impact.
What the hell are you talking about? Buying more stuff doesn't cause me to eat more, unless I'm buying more food, for which I need to have a reason.
I'm talking about spending body energy. There's a context to what I'm talking about, you twit.
2 bananas to fuel a trip to work? Damn, can't wait until they invent Mr. Fusion, I had no idea how much power was contained in a single banana. Hey, nice comparing bicycles to cars, how about you compare what's more comparable, like bicycles and scooters? Anyways, you pretty much proved my point, your stack of assumptions are imprecise enough so that your estimates could be easily tipped to make cars seem more efficient.
Ha, the things you can make people do just by calling them idiots. *high fives self*
Driving your car to work does release carbon into the environment that was not there last year. Riding your bike does not.
That's because you're an idiot. You only see what's obvious, i.e. "look, there's no nasty gases coming out of my bike" ADUH OH YOU THINK?? What you don't see is the pollution that goes into the making of your food, that you need to make that bike move forth, which you'll eat more of unless you hate your silhouette. The tractors and trucks used in the making of your food ate gas too, lots of it, and it's not the only thing. For more elaboration on this see the other comments I posted as a reply to the other replies to the GP post.
A human riding their bike to work produces significantly lower amounts of produced environmental pollutants.
Citation needed. How do you know that? Do you have any idea how much pollution goes in average into each ounce of food you eat? No? So? Where are you pulling your facts from?
I didn't say become Cuba, I said live like Cubans, that is with like $7 a day. The economy depends on spending, people spending. Just imagine everybody is buying twice less stuff at your local Walmart, and that for the sake of simplification Walmart is where everyone in your area buys stuff. Your Walmart makes twice less money, needs a whole lot less employees/becomes smaller, buys twice less stuff from its providers which themselves downsize and lay people off, and before you know it your local unemployment is soaring. So how's spending less a good thing, do tell me? More like you didn't think about it because when you think on a nation-wide scale you just fail to see the hidden consequences.
It will make people eat more, you could expect it to make them eat just enough to make up for the energy spent. The point being, that food is everything but green. There's lots of trucking/tractoring involve in the making and transportation of everything you eat, your food itself produces polluting crap (i.e. how pig shit pollutes underground water), and so on. Unless they're all trying to become skinny, people are going to eat more if they spend more. i'm just knocking on the myth of green/free human energy, which is complete hippie bullshit, and a fallacy comparable to the broken window fallacy.
What the hell do you think? Muscle energy isn't free energy, it comes from food, and food is anything but green energy. Funny you should talk about "making us feel better", because it's exactly what the type of stuff does, with disputable benefits.
bought less stuff
So your idea of saving the world is downscaling the economy and living like Cubans?
Well yes and no. Basically, Metasynth is a sort of very fancy MIDI editor. i.e. you draw a line and it sounds like an oboe or something. ARSS is more complete in that you can create any sound with it but it's lower leveled so it'll be harder to make it sound like an oboe. Also, you can turn sounds into images you can turn back into sounds, so you can do a bunch of stuff with that.
As for future developments I'm working on a commercial program that derives from it with a cool interface, much faster, and an emphasis on image to sound synthesis. It's designed to make messing around with images as simple, straightforward, flexible and fun as possible. I'm planning on releasing it in a few weeks.
They're only the tools of the trade, and besides, while I understand perfectly what the Fourier transform does, I couldn't in any way explain how it does it nor remember half of the equation. I just do like anyone else and use a fast already-existing and well-established implementation.
I was pretty gifted in mathematics when I was young, to the point I would easily win school-wide maths competitions despite not working and having skipped a grade. I never worked much on it anymore until my natural aptitudes weren't enough to keep up during high school (I must point out that I'm French and not American), and I got to college (CS) without even knowing what a complex number was or what the sigma sign represented. Then I dropped out of high school for numerous reasons, one being that I performed too poorly due to my lack of interest and investment, particularly in mathematics.
However at that time I had an idea which sounded pretty damn exciting, namely a spectrograph and spectrogram synthesiser, so I started this project and picked up C and digital signal processing, which progressively involved more and more mathematics until I would know everything about complex numbers, Fourier transforms and negative frequencies and would start scratching maddeningly long equations on sheets of paper.
Before I picked that up I thought maths were some sort of pointless intellectual masturbation that only really served mad scientists who write papers about crap like string theory, but when I found out how it relates to all that is multimedia, and even to our senses of sight and audition, it all became very alive and interesting, and the point is, with that sort of stuff you can do anything you want. You can make your own synthesiser and make music out of it, you can create your own visual effects, or you can work for a space agency's contractor and work on systems that will be sent in space, probably a handful of other stuff that could be "creative and not too nerdy". Not too sure what "not too nerdy" involves..
Oh noes, you made my point completely fall apart by saying that it's not the case for everybody! Or as I like to call it, the exception that destroys the rule.
Interesting, you bring up good points, but you also show something else, these things are needed by only a very tiny percentage of people, people with special requirements.
Impending doom! More seriously, I'm French, and here, we see boobies anytime of the day. Mainly in commercials. All types of commercials that is. Also in movies, I mean, it's like French actresses really HAVE to show their boobies. It's almost irritating. I don't want to see your boobies at incongruous times, Eva Green.
Anyways, it's not smut, it's not garbage, it's just boobs. It's not alienating anyone. You get used to them. I mean babies don't only stand the sight of boobies, they SUCK on boobies. So if you can't stand the sight of boobs, you know what to compare yourself to.
Slashdot Mirror
It all comes down to breeding. How are you sure to make great future baby computer scientists if only the father is a brilliant computer scientist? That's right, you don't, no matter what the woman does.
That's why you need a 50-50 ratio in each discipline! You make sure that the most brilliant individuals in each discipline mate together, you make sure that their offsprings are raised to follow their parents' tracks, rinse and repeat for a few generations.
Before you know it the society will divide in two classes, the masses, and the elite, selected and trained to achieve excellence in whatever their ancestors were pigeon-holed. Scientists will be smarter, comedians will be funnier, factory workers will be more efficient, hard rock singers will yell louder, to much of the enjoyment of the unremarkable masses!
I only drink Coca Cola you insensitive clod! On a side note, I grew up drinking Volvic, cause where I'm from pig farming makes tap water almost undrinkable. And that thing's coming straight from a volcano, so you know no one peed in it!
I seemed to recall hearing that they already did this a decade ago...
I didn't say you could bike to work on an empty stomach, you twit
Duh, I know, get subtle, I was stretching your claim to show that while it's equally true, it doesn't mean that biking doesn't require food, while your claim could have been interpreted (although you surely didn't mean this way) to say that a breakfast was enough to fuel the trip. I used to bike to school with an empty stomach by the way.
Good Lord, you really don't get it. I never talked about buying more stuff, I talked about "spending more", by which I clarified as meaning "spending body energy". I don't think I can make it any clearer than I already did in the previous post. At last I meet someone with worse reading comprehension skills than myself, hurray!
On that same topic I noticed something interesting. We predict for the future to use these things we're discussing that, when they come, are actually quite marginal (or they actually don't happen), and we fail to predict the true revolutions, what will really change our lives in the future. I think Back to the Future II is a good example of this, it predicts the spread of very advanced domotics, which we can't really say we are really into nowadays, and fails to predict the ubiquity of the Internet and the fanciness of cell phones. The point being, you could have thought 20 years ago that an "intelligent" home and "intelligent" clothes would be all the rage in the future, yet more surprisingly the few things that have actually changed during that time were a couple of devices that changed things dramatically. Which makes me think that nobody knows what we will want in the future.
The reason I didn't compare scooters is because thats not what most people take to work
So, they don't take bikes either. If people ponder taking bikes, maybe they could also pondering scooters, as you said.
Indeed, yes, it's unfortunate that more research hasn't been done on that, because it's interesting and as you see, it's not safe to assume that bikes are "clean", which is unfortunately what we do.
Right, you're just looking at things on a small scale (i.e. I could bike to work with an empty stomach) while ignoring that on a large scale (both in time and in people) there's a necessary impact.
What the hell are you talking about? Buying more stuff doesn't cause me to eat more, unless I'm buying more food, for which I need to have a reason.
I'm talking about spending body energy. There's a context to what I'm talking about, you twit.
Why would you have to travel over 3,000 miles in airplane for it to become efficient? Wouldn't it be as efficient if you only travelled 2,000 miles?
Also, citation needed.
2 bananas to fuel a trip to work? Damn, can't wait until they invent Mr. Fusion, I had no idea how much power was contained in a single banana. Hey, nice comparing bicycles to cars, how about you compare what's more comparable, like bicycles and scooters? Anyways, you pretty much proved my point, your stack of assumptions are imprecise enough so that your estimates could be easily tipped to make cars seem more efficient.
Ha, the things you can make people do just by calling them idiots. *high fives self*
Driving your car to work does release carbon into the environment that was not there last year. Riding your bike does not.
That's because you're an idiot. You only see what's obvious, i.e. "look, there's no nasty gases coming out of my bike" ADUH OH YOU THINK?? What you don't see is the pollution that goes into the making of your food, that you need to make that bike move forth, which you'll eat more of unless you hate your silhouette. The tractors and trucks used in the making of your food ate gas too, lots of it, and it's not the only thing. For more elaboration on this see the other comments I posted as a reply to the other replies to the GP post.
A human riding their bike to work produces significantly lower amounts of produced environmental pollutants.
Citation needed. How do you know that? Do you have any idea how much pollution goes in average into each ounce of food you eat? No? So? Where are you pulling your facts from?
I didn't say become Cuba, I said live like Cubans, that is with like $7 a day. The economy depends on spending, people spending. Just imagine everybody is buying twice less stuff at your local Walmart, and that for the sake of simplification Walmart is where everyone in your area buys stuff. Your Walmart makes twice less money, needs a whole lot less employees/becomes smaller, buys twice less stuff from its providers which themselves downsize and lay people off, and before you know it your local unemployment is soaring. So how's spending less a good thing, do tell me? More like you didn't think about it because when you think on a nation-wide scale you just fail to see the hidden consequences.
It will make people eat more, you could expect it to make them eat just enough to make up for the energy spent. The point being, that food is everything but green. There's lots of trucking/tractoring involve in the making and transportation of everything you eat, your food itself produces polluting crap (i.e. how pig shit pollutes underground water), and so on. Unless they're all trying to become skinny, people are going to eat more if they spend more. i'm just knocking on the myth of green/free human energy, which is complete hippie bullshit, and a fallacy comparable to the broken window fallacy.
if we rode our bike to work
What the hell do you think? Muscle energy isn't free energy, it comes from food, and food is anything but green energy. Funny you should talk about "making us feel better", because it's exactly what the type of stuff does, with disputable benefits.
bought less stuff
So your idea of saving the world is downscaling the economy and living like Cubans?
Ha, thank you, I get it now lol.
Well yes and no. Basically, Metasynth is a sort of very fancy MIDI editor. i.e. you draw a line and it sounds like an oboe or something. ARSS is more complete in that you can create any sound with it but it's lower leveled so it'll be harder to make it sound like an oboe. Also, you can turn sounds into images you can turn back into sounds, so you can do a bunch of stuff with that.
As for future developments I'm working on a commercial program that derives from it with a cool interface, much faster, and an emphasis on image to sound synthesis. It's designed to make messing around with images as simple, straightforward, flexible and fun as possible. I'm planning on releasing it in a few weeks.
French tanks? Oh you mean the tanks we bought to Belgium and imported, around the Maginot line?
They're only the tools of the trade, and besides, while I understand perfectly what the Fourier transform does, I couldn't in any way explain how it does it nor remember half of the equation. I just do like anyone else and use a fast already-existing and well-established implementation.
I was pretty gifted in mathematics when I was young, to the point I would easily win school-wide maths competitions despite not working and having skipped a grade. I never worked much on it anymore until my natural aptitudes weren't enough to keep up during high school (I must point out that I'm French and not American), and I got to college (CS) without even knowing what a complex number was or what the sigma sign represented. Then I dropped out of high school for numerous reasons, one being that I performed too poorly due to my lack of interest and investment, particularly in mathematics.
However at that time I had an idea which sounded pretty damn exciting, namely a spectrograph and spectrogram synthesiser, so I started this project and picked up C and digital signal processing, which progressively involved more and more mathematics until I would know everything about complex numbers, Fourier transforms and negative frequencies and would start scratching maddeningly long equations on sheets of paper.
Before I picked that up I thought maths were some sort of pointless intellectual masturbation that only really served mad scientists who write papers about crap like string theory, but when I found out how it relates to all that is multimedia, and even to our senses of sight and audition, it all became very alive and interesting, and the point is, with that sort of stuff you can do anything you want. You can make your own synthesiser and make music out of it, you can create your own visual effects, or you can work for a space agency's contractor and work on systems that will be sent in space, probably a handful of other stuff that could be "creative and not too nerdy". Not too sure what "not too nerdy" involves..
Wait.. I don't get it myself...
A. Your logic is weak
B. Earthworms are weak
C. Logic resides inside your head
A + B + C -> Your head is infested with earthworms!
Get a wife
Oh noes, you made my point completely fall apart by saying that it's not the case for everybody! Or as I like to call it, the exception that destroys the rule.
Interesting, you bring up good points, but you also show something else, these things are needed by only a very tiny percentage of people, people with special requirements.
Yeah, but good luck turning that into money.
Impending doom! More seriously, I'm French, and here, we see boobies anytime of the day. Mainly in commercials. All types of commercials that is. Also in movies, I mean, it's like French actresses really HAVE to show their boobies. It's almost irritating. I don't want to see your boobies at incongruous times, Eva Green.
Anyways, it's not smut, it's not garbage, it's just boobs. It's not alienating anyone. You get used to them. I mean babies don't only stand the sight of boobies, they SUCK on boobies. So if you can't stand the sight of boobs, you know what to compare yourself to.