games will never get that realistic on account of player limitations. allow me to splatter some dude by pressing a button, great, but if I have to get off the couch, put down my diet coke, and wipe the cheetos off my fingers to do it, your game has just made a powerful enemy
And where your analogy falls down there is that some fish are, as far as we can tell, immortal.
Do you actually have a credible source for this claim? There are a few very simple immortal organisms (eg, the hydra, which can be separated into individual cells and still survive), but if you've found an immortal catfish, you'll probably want to show the Nobel committee.
aging certainly does not depend on the rate of reproduction. organisms that can successfully reproduce earlier in their lives will always be at a selective advantage to those that can only reproduce later. aging and reproductive age are correlated simply on account of the fact that while later onset of reproductive age has its own benefits, you can't reproduce after you're dead.
Old age is a feature, not a bug. With less turn-over it would be difficult to life as a whole to adapt to changing environment. It has drawbacks as knowledge lost by the dead individual. Advanced life forms overcome that with culture.
Earlier simpler life forms probably lacked the aging feature, and were superseded by others who had it.
The question of what causes age has been answered satisfactorily for some time. The cause is the fact that selective pressure decreases with age on account of mishaps associated with being alive. For example, after 10 years, a fly not subject to old age will have a far greater chance of being eaten by a spider than a 10-day old fly, so whatever genes allowed the former to live that long are most likely already lost.
By contrast, your off-the-cuff theory is hard to support. What of sharks, or other organisms that have hardly changed at all since prehistoric times? Surely they should live extremely long lives by now, since they do not need to "make room" for new editions.
The whole idea of "making room" for new versions is curious, because if the new versions are indeed superior, they should be able to out-compete the old versions.
to be fair, you could more or less say the same thing of Van Gogh during his life. It may be that ours is a society that yet lacks the capacity for introspection necessary to recognize the splendor of Hitler's art, and future generations will someday look back upon us and sadly shake their heads and marvel at the callousness of which we were capable.
But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it's called the human condition. You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.
thank god for the occasional subhuman who, given power, foolishly uses it in the public interest, or abdicates it for the public good (a temptation to which god himself appears curiously unsusceptible.)
What saved the NIF from cancellation was that its backers persuaded politicians that it was vital for Americas nuclear programme.
Science at this level is neither easy nor cheap.
this is why I fully support North Korea's nuke program. Just think of all the new science we'll get to do on our end as a result (at least in the short term)
Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense.
I'm not sure that's actually true. a supreme court quotation from the wikipedia 1st amendment article:
[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
saying "these people should be hanged" or whatever does not seem likely to incite imminent lawless action, which I (perhaps incorrectly) presume to mean action that the law cannot be expected to stop, such as in the case of a mob boss telling his crony "shoot that guy there in the head, right now," which would not be protected.
A) Healthy people overpay to cover the costs of the sick people or B) the company can charge you more when you're healthy to cover the costs of when you're sick.
or C) people get genetic tests under false names, find out they're going to be really sick, and then get the ultra-deluxe insurance they wouldn't have purchased otherwise, thus driving up rates for everybody, and forcing everybody to get genetic testing before deciding whether they want to pay for insurance.
According to the CIA world factbook, the current male:female ratio of the world population is 1.01:1. If anything, the local imbalance in China/India/etc. is countering out an opposite imbalance just about everywhere else. For example, in Canada and the UK, the ratio is 0.98, the US has 0.97, and Russia has 0.86 (How's that for convenient? A country with a male shortage and a country with a female shortage right next to each other). China and India both have 1.06.
except the age distributions are different, because the causes are different. there are fewer russian men not because fewer are born, but because russian men die very young. This means that for 20 year olds, the male:female population is probably pretty close to 1:1, but for 70 year olds, you'll likely have many more females. At breeding age, the ratio should still be pretty close to even, and then drop off rapidly in favor of women.
We've been altering germ lines since the first time someone survived long enough to have kids as a direct result of medical treatment for some inherited condition. The better we get at extending the lives of people with genetic diseases, the less selective pressure there will be to rid the gene pool of the adverse mutations that cause them. How will we solve the problem of this increasing number of mutations without germ line therapy?
Nor would Hellen Keller who was blinded and deafened by (probably) Scarlet Fever
I was blinded and deafened by Disco Fever. Never look directly into the glittery ball, they told me. But did I listen? No. I was already deaf. The Bee Gees took care of that.
Furthermore, who's to say that all those credit card holders wouldn't have bought these songs anyway? Perhaps they should all get charged an extra convenience fee.
law enforcement doesn't need to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order to charge someone with a crime, only to get a conviction. So if this is legal, the police could conceivably charge someone based on his DNA only, then once he is actually located (perhaps 30 years later), have him convicted based on this evidence, and whatever other evidence they find in the interim.
yes, but the question is whether DNA alone is enough to charge someone with a crime, when you have no other identifying info. So instead of saying "we're charging John Smith for the crime of X," you say "we're charging this DNA profile for the crime of X." If you can do the latter, you could prevent the statute of limitations from running out. However, it seems perhaps a dubious thing to do, even if the DNA evidence would be sufficient to convict the person.
If the RIAA can go after people based on their IP address, why can't law enforcement press charges based on a DNA profile they find at a crime scene? The latter is doubtless more useful as a means of identifying the perpetrator, and that would presumably prevent the statute of limitations from running out. I'm not proposing this would be just, but I don't think that would stop the law from doing it without a court case. Is this something that's done, and I never heard about it?
Slashdot Mirror
games will never get that realistic on account of player limitations. allow me to splatter some dude by pressing a button, great, but if I have to get off the couch, put down my diet coke, and wipe the cheetos off my fingers to do it, your game has just made a powerful enemy
if they die of diseases and cancer they will undoubtedly die of old age because of diminishing selective pressure.
And where your analogy falls down there is that some fish are, as far as we can tell, immortal.
Do you actually have a credible source for this claim? There are a few very simple immortal organisms (eg, the hydra, which can be separated into individual cells and still survive), but if you've found an immortal catfish, you'll probably want to show the Nobel committee.
aging certainly does not depend on the rate of reproduction. organisms that can successfully reproduce earlier in their lives will always be at a selective advantage to those that can only reproduce later. aging and reproductive age are correlated simply on account of the fact that while later onset of reproductive age has its own benefits, you can't reproduce after you're dead.
Old age is a feature, not a bug. With less turn-over it would be difficult to life as a whole to adapt to changing environment. It has drawbacks as knowledge lost by the dead individual. Advanced life forms overcome that with culture.
Earlier simpler life forms probably lacked the aging feature, and were superseded by others who had it.
The question of what causes age has been answered satisfactorily for some time. The cause is the fact that selective pressure decreases with age on account of mishaps associated with being alive. For example, after 10 years, a fly not subject to old age will have a far greater chance of being eaten by a spider than a 10-day old fly, so whatever genes allowed the former to live that long are most likely already lost.
By contrast, your off-the-cuff theory is hard to support. What of sharks, or other organisms that have hardly changed at all since prehistoric times? Surely they should live extremely long lives by now, since they do not need to "make room" for new editions.
The whole idea of "making room" for new versions is curious, because if the new versions are indeed superior, they should be able to out-compete the old versions.
What DIDN'T Hitler Do? Succeed as an artist?
to be fair, you could more or less say the same thing of Van Gogh during his life. It may be that ours is a society that yet lacks the capacity for introspection necessary to recognize the splendor of Hitler's art, and future generations will someday look back upon us and sadly shake their heads and marvel at the callousness of which we were capable.
I bet all those people who blithely sat on their hands while Iran developed rock-throwing technology must be feeling pretty foolish.
But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it's called the human condition. You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.
thank god for the occasional subhuman who, given power, foolishly uses it in the public interest, or abdicates it for the public good (a temptation to which god himself appears curiously unsusceptible.)
What saved the NIF from cancellation was that its backers persuaded politicians that it was vital for Americas nuclear programme.
Science at this level is neither easy nor cheap.
this is why I fully support North Korea's nuke program. Just think of all the new science we'll get to do on our end as a result (at least in the short term)
Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense.
I'm not sure that's actually true. a supreme court quotation from the wikipedia 1st amendment article:
[Our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
saying "these people should be hanged" or whatever does not seem likely to incite imminent lawless action, which I (perhaps incorrectly) presume to mean action that the law cannot be expected to stop, such as in the case of a mob boss telling his crony "shoot that guy there in the head, right now," which would not be protected.
Going to the trouble of a physical cut and paste from magazines implies you are willing to expend time and effort on your threat.
or you just have a curious fascination with arts and crafts
A) Healthy people overpay to cover the costs of the sick people or B) the company can charge you more when you're healthy to cover the costs of when you're sick.
or C) people get genetic tests under false names, find out they're going to be really sick, and then get the ultra-deluxe insurance they wouldn't have purchased otherwise, thus driving up rates for everybody, and forcing everybody to get genetic testing before deciding whether they want to pay for insurance.
Once swine flu or H1N1 is mentioned all logic and reason goes out the window. Didn't you know that?
yeah, mention swine flu and suddenly people get all pig-headed and OH MY GOD GET THEM IN QUARANTINE
According to the CIA world factbook, the current male:female ratio of the world population is 1.01:1. If anything, the local imbalance in China/India/etc. is countering out an opposite imbalance just about everywhere else. For example, in Canada and the UK, the ratio is 0.98, the US has 0.97, and Russia has 0.86 (How's that for convenient? A country with a male shortage and a country with a female shortage right next to each other). China and India both have 1.06.
except the age distributions are different, because the causes are different. there are fewer russian men not because fewer are born, but because russian men die very young. This means that for 20 year olds, the male:female population is probably pretty close to 1:1, but for 70 year olds, you'll likely have many more females. At breeding age, the ratio should still be pretty close to even, and then drop off rapidly in favor of women.
I felt it would make sense to point out that in other places it is very likely that female children would be preferred.
/Mikael
what makes you think this, out of curiosity?
We've been altering germ lines since the first time someone survived long enough to have kids as a direct result of medical treatment for some inherited condition. The better we get at extending the lives of people with genetic diseases, the less selective pressure there will be to rid the gene pool of the adverse mutations that cause them. How will we solve the problem of this increasing number of mutations without germ line therapy?
Nor would Hellen Keller who was blinded and deafened by (probably) Scarlet Fever
I was blinded and deafened by Disco Fever. Never look directly into the glittery ball, they told me. But did I listen? No. I was already deaf. The Bee Gees took care of that.
Yeah a lot of self diagnoses probably revolved around: "It hurts when I pee ... that bitch/bastard" :-)
if you can't remember whether the offender was a bitch or a bastard, you're probably partly to blame
Furthermore, who's to say that all those credit card holders wouldn't have bought these songs anyway? Perhaps they should all get charged an extra convenience fee.
great, now I have to go find IE6 and download it myself. thanks a lot jerks
Bird strikes have been aviation's bane since there was such a thing as aviation.
I think the birds would claim that such strikes have been aviation's bane for only the past 100 years or so.
law enforcement doesn't need to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order to charge someone with a crime, only to get a conviction. So if this is legal, the police could conceivably charge someone based on his DNA only, then once he is actually located (perhaps 30 years later), have him convicted based on this evidence, and whatever other evidence they find in the interim.
yes, but the question is whether DNA alone is enough to charge someone with a crime, when you have no other identifying info. So instead of saying "we're charging John Smith for the crime of X," you say "we're charging this DNA profile for the crime of X." If you can do the latter, you could prevent the statute of limitations from running out. However, it seems perhaps a dubious thing to do, even if the DNA evidence would be sufficient to convict the person.
I admit there's something transfixing when looking at a humanoid robotic form laying waste to everything around it.
speaking as pioneer of the first human-robot marriage (and subsequent divorce), I can tell you that it gets old real fast
If the RIAA can go after people based on their IP address, why can't law enforcement press charges based on a DNA profile they find at a crime scene? The latter is doubtless more useful as a means of identifying the perpetrator, and that would presumably prevent the statute of limitations from running out. I'm not proposing this would be just, but I don't think that would stop the law from doing it without a court case. Is this something that's done, and I never heard about it?
Kill the simpsons already.
they're so far gone that even that wouldn't be funny.