The limitation of evolution is this: each successive version needs to be a slight modification on the previous version.
I'd add that practically infinite amount of modifications have provided to be unsuccesful - it's a blind process. The strength lies in diversity. The more diverse the gene pool the readier the pool is to confront even relatively sudden changes, because a lot of variations are readily available.
The ID/Creationists only see the one perfect path because of their religious belief. It would not be right for them to say that god makes 99 wrong decisions per 1 right, because it would degrade the image of an omnipotent entity.
The most flawed paradigm is that there has to be a TV to enjoy the content made for it. TV is just one of the screens to which stream data. In Finland all of the major channels provide many of the shows (own or bought) for free on their dedicated online streaming sites (http://areena.yle.fi/, http://www.ruutu.fi/...) The quality is not 100% of course but it's enough - and the quality baseline gets higher as the technology advances.
Besides the same kind of subscriptions as you described are available (although I don't know if any of the providers stream online content too).
The only quirk is that the households with TV sets need to pay a TV fee. It is to provide the public broadcaster its funding (like BBC). The fee is about $0.90 / day at the moment. It is however slowly transforming into a media fee to reflect the changing media environment.
I think it's sheer stupidity to not have that kind of structure built by humans. I mean come on, six meters and 1500 foam modules. What are we, total imbeciles who cannot built anything taller than Jenga towers?
I find it interesting that animals are actually the forerunners in practical use of almost any technology. I bet they still can't beat the poor future tripper whose lenses have dried up and stuck to the eyeballs. If only people would apply as much care and reason to applying the tech as the scientists when handling the poor beings.
Exactly, we are past the point of no return already. The very foundations of our societies would need to be changed. The inherent energy wasting systems will not die out unless we as human beings change. And that won't happen anytime soon.
The capitalistic and selfish culture is not necessarily bad. The form of capital and rewards which are to be gathered need to be changed. Being for example enviromentally conscious should be marketed as the ultimate achievement and so on. When the bullies in school compete who's got the most efficient or the greenest car or lifestyle a paradigm has changed.
That's an interesting way to put it, because the 1% mixes with the rest how plain it ever was. You make it seem like a perfectly closed system. Besides EPA has found traces of fracking chemicals in ground water at various sites.
"The projected 2010 anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of 35 gigatons per year is 135 times greater than the 0.26-gigaton-per-year preferred estimate for volcanoes."
"Scaling up CO2 releases of volcanic paroxysms to the 35-gigaton anthropogenic CO2 emission level is also revealing. For example, scaling up the 0.05-gigaton CO2 release of the 15 June 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm to the current anthropogenic CO2 emission level requires 700 equivalent paroxysms annually."
"Similarly, scaling the 0.01-gigaton CO2 release of the 18 May 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm requires 3500 equivalent paroxysms annually."
If one considers the amount of magma released in these events and compares that to a super volcano event then one can conlude: "...these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year."
I have been quite optimistic for a long time about what we actually can do about the issues, but it's been fading lately.
The things won't really improve until there have been paradigmatic changes in the foundations of the society. The built-in financial dependencies keep totally irrelevant elements like fast food chains alive - and they won't be quitting. The depletion of resources will eventually force us to innovate from less
Global warming is a natural reaction to the anthropogenic deviation from the more or less balanced natural cycles of the past few hundreds of thousands of years. Think about volcanoes for example. The CO2 output of the humanity is about that of a 100 000 year supervolcano event - per year. The feedback mechanisms can't cope with something like this. The cattle is a significant methane source and the population level is highly unsustainable. It wouldn't be 1.3 billion by itself but because of us.
There's a lot of great research going on about alternatives, and there is a chance to adapt to the inevitable consequences of our actions. Adaptation means giving up a lot though, and if this becomes a survival competition it's all lost.
Humans are definitely causing it. That's the logical conclusion.
We have dampened natural feedback mechanisms while introducing new output.
The problem with solving the issue is that we need to grow as human beings and make the step fast to have any effect. We don't have infinite resources. Everything should be 100% recyclable, societies should be energy neutral and all extra emissions should be sequestered. Our food chains are unsustainable. The mind needs to evolve. We are here together, this is the only planet for all of us and collectively we can change things. The third world is the 99% to put it shortly.
This has been said before and this has been repeated many times along the way. This will be repeated through the coming crises, wars and other catastrophies too until it's hammered down to our ego-ridden consciousnes, which for the first time can then feel the suffering of others as its own.
I have prey project installed along with a guest account. The idea is that the possible thief would find the entrance as easy as possible. I can control what the visitor does by making certain software available and besides it appears that the computer is usable (I have the whole armada of Apple i-apps there). This is to prevent the thief from making hardware changes (I have the system hardware lock enabled though) and give some time to me for activating the prey programme.
If I know the IP number where the machine resides I may be able to begin a remote desktop session through ssh, and do all kinds of interesting surveillance. Sending messages to the thief could be hazardous, because the computer might end up being trashed.
Why is it so important to not copy something or to no make something that exists better? The rules that govern free development are quite natural in the corporative world, but in the end we end up being self-centered hypocrites. Shouldn't the consumers decide?
We are colliding now with the control mechanisms of our own mind, which manifest themselves in the need to control. It's a relic from times when we had to fight for our survival. The mechanisms are needlessly defending themselves. This is a logical phase in the evolution of mind that is happening. Consumer EEG devices (like http://emotiv.com/) are slowly coming to the market, which is one indicator of where we are heading.
At the moment peaceful behaviour is forced, where as it should be the obvious way of behaving without any superficial control mechnanisms set in place. People are made docile rather than kept free.
True. The logical objective for the law enforcement would be to have a complete access to all of the people in real time. The thing is that when your reputation/position is high enough you become a "trustworthy" citizen and a member of the club. The system can't reach it's objective because of this inherent feature. It paradoxically promotes lawlessness and law obedience at the same time and upkeeps divisions and inequality in the society.
As long as the average human leadership types are somewhere close to selfish sosiopaths the system keeps human evolution at bay.
Its tragical that these kind of questions are asked only after we have leveled half of the tropical forests or used most of the fossil fuel resources, mostly without any kind of compensation mechanism. Our carbon dioxided emissions are over 100 times bigger than that of all of the volcanoes, per year.
The volcanoes are part of the natural long cycles whereas the human input has been immensely dramatic and something totally extra to the delicate and more or less balanced processes.
I don't believe we really can't alter anything. All of our processes should be carbon neutral and about 100% recycable and reusable. Even that is not enough because the extra gases would still be in the atmosphere and the warmth stored in the oceans takes long time to dissipate. The forests cannot be replanted and the cattle population cannot be massacred, the businesses relying on unnecessary marketing based human needs don't want to kill themselves.
Or maybe then there is a possibility of developing better tech, procedures and methods, but what is most important is that we ourselves have to chance to preserve the only pearl of life we have here on Earth. These debates about AGW are silly, because "A" is the only logical answer. We as a lifeform need to evolve.
Another thought experiment. a 1" rod 1 light year long. you move it 1/16 of a centimeter. How long does it take for the movement to register at the other end? A: its instant, for it does not need to move any faster than the time it took you to move it.
The atoms of the material would carry the signal at the speed of light to the other end. There would be a compression wave travelling along the rod. It would seem to you as if the whole rod moved, but in reality the effect wouldn't be instantly noticeable at the other end. The rod wouldn't have to be so long either, you could measure the same delay using a much shorter rod. Try tapping your mobile phone. The other end seems to move instantly, but in reality there is a delay.
If sound travelled at c in the rod there would be a delay of one year before it reached the other end. If you used the rod as an electromagnetic communication device there would be a delay. In the end the rod is an electromagnetic construction itself. It doesn't matter how rigid it is to you.
If that was the case there would be noticeable effects in satellite communications - think about time, location etc. The effect would have been observed by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Light, is a short of shade in the realm of electromagnetic frequencies, on which we all rest upon.
The limitation of evolution is this: each successive version needs to be a slight modification on the previous version.
I'd add that practically infinite amount of modifications have provided to be unsuccesful - it's a blind process. The strength lies in diversity. The more diverse the gene pool the readier the pool is to confront even relatively sudden changes, because a lot of variations are readily available.
The ID/Creationists only see the one perfect path because of their religious belief. It would not be right for them to say that god makes 99 wrong decisions per 1 right, because it would degrade the image of an omnipotent entity.
The most flawed paradigm is that there has to be a TV to enjoy the content made for it. TV is just one of the screens to which stream data. In Finland all of the major channels provide many of the shows (own or bought) for free on their dedicated online streaming sites (http://areena.yle.fi/, http://www.ruutu.fi/ ...) The quality is not 100% of course but it's enough - and the quality baseline gets higher as the technology advances.
Besides the same kind of subscriptions as you described are available (although I don't know if any of the providers stream online content too).
The only quirk is that the households with TV sets need to pay a TV fee. It is to provide the public broadcaster its funding (like BBC). The fee is about $0.90 / day at the moment. It is however slowly transforming into a media fee to reflect the changing media environment.
I think it's sheer stupidity to not have that kind of structure built by humans. I mean come on, six meters and 1500 foam modules. What are we, total imbeciles who cannot built anything taller than Jenga towers?
I find it interesting that animals are actually the forerunners in practical use of almost any technology. I bet they still can't beat the poor future tripper whose lenses have dried up and stuck to the eyeballs. If only people would apply as much care and reason to applying the tech as the scientists when handling the poor beings.
Exactly, we are past the point of no return already. The very foundations of our societies would need to be changed. The inherent energy wasting systems will not die out unless we as human beings change. And that won't happen anytime soon.
The capitalistic and selfish culture is not necessarily bad. The form of capital and rewards which are to be gathered need to be changed. Being for example enviromentally conscious should be marketed as the ultimate achievement and so on. When the bullies in school compete who's got the most efficient or the greenest car or lifestyle a paradigm has changed.
Thanks to you a fuse just blew in Bernanke's head.
The concentrated puerility of multitude of slashdotters enabled you to produce a virtual article. Maybe you should actually be grateful :)
That's an interesting way to put it, because the 1% mixes with the rest how plain it ever was. You make it seem like a perfectly closed system. Besides EPA has found traces of fracking chemicals in ground water at various sites.
It depends how important a resource humans are for mosquitoes. Mosquitoes have not learnt to bite through nets either or stand insect repellants.
Another comparison:
"The projected 2010 anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of 35 gigatons per year is 135 times greater than the 0.26-gigaton-per-year preferred estimate for volcanoes."
"Scaling up CO2 releases of volcanic paroxysms to the 35-gigaton anthropogenic CO2 emission level is also revealing. For example, scaling up the 0.05-gigaton CO2 release of the 15 June 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm to the current anthropogenic CO2 emission level requires 700 equivalent paroxysms annually."
"Similarly, scaling the 0.01-gigaton CO2 release of the 18 May 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm requires 3500 equivalent paroxysms annually."
If one considers the amount of magma released in these events and compares that to a super volcano event then one can conlude: "...these calculations strongly suggest that present-day annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions may exceed the CO2 output of one or more supereruptions every year."
source: http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-22.shtml, http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
Why couldn't a natural phenomenon be unique?
Exactly. It's hardly possible.
I have been quite optimistic for a long time about what we actually can do about the issues, but it's been fading lately.
The things won't really improve until there have been paradigmatic changes in the foundations of the society. The built-in financial dependencies keep totally irrelevant elements like fast food chains alive - and they won't be quitting. The depletion of resources will eventually force us to innovate from less
Global warming is a natural reaction to the anthropogenic deviation from the more or less balanced natural cycles of the past few hundreds of thousands of years. Think about volcanoes for example. The CO2 output of the humanity is about that of a 100 000 year supervolcano event - per year. The feedback mechanisms can't cope with something like this. The cattle is a significant methane source and the population level is highly unsustainable. It wouldn't be 1.3 billion by itself but because of us.
There's a lot of great research going on about alternatives, and there is a chance to adapt to the inevitable consequences of our actions. Adaptation means giving up a lot though, and if this becomes a survival competition it's all lost.
Humans are definitely causing it. That's the logical conclusion.
We have dampened natural feedback mechanisms while introducing new output.
The problem with solving the issue is that we need to grow as human beings and make the step fast to have any effect. We don't have infinite resources. Everything should be 100% recyclable, societies should be energy neutral and all extra emissions should be sequestered. Our food chains are unsustainable. The mind needs to evolve. We are here together, this is the only planet for all of us and collectively we can change things. The third world is the 99% to put it shortly.
This has been said before and this has been repeated many times along the way. This will be repeated through the coming crises, wars and other catastrophies too until it's hammered down to our ego-ridden consciousnes, which for the first time can then feel the suffering of others as its own.
I have prey project installed along with a guest account. The idea is that the possible thief would find the entrance as easy as possible. I can control what the visitor does by making certain software available and besides it appears that the computer is usable (I have the whole armada of Apple i-apps there). This is to prevent the thief from making hardware changes (I have the system hardware lock enabled though) and give some time to me for activating the prey programme.
If I know the IP number where the machine resides I may be able to begin a remote desktop session through ssh, and do all kinds of interesting surveillance. Sending messages to the thief could be hazardous, because the computer might end up being trashed.
Why is it so important to not copy something or to no make something that exists better? The rules that govern free development are quite natural in the corporative world, but in the end we end up being self-centered hypocrites. Shouldn't the consumers decide?
We are colliding now with the control mechanisms of our own mind, which manifest themselves in the need to control. It's a relic from times when we had to fight for our survival. The mechanisms are needlessly defending themselves. This is a logical phase in the evolution of mind that is happening. Consumer EEG devices (like http://emotiv.com/) are slowly coming to the market, which is one indicator of where we are heading.
At the moment peaceful behaviour is forced, where as it should be the obvious way of behaving without any superficial control mechnanisms set in place. People are made docile rather than kept free.
True. The logical objective for the law enforcement would be to have a complete access to all of the people in real time. The thing is that when your reputation/position is high enough you become a "trustworthy" citizen and a member of the club. The system can't reach it's objective because of this inherent feature. It paradoxically promotes lawlessness and law obedience at the same time and upkeeps divisions and inequality in the society.
As long as the average human leadership types are somewhere close to selfish sosiopaths the system keeps human evolution at bay.
Truly, and a marketing genius too. It also shows a great sense of tact how subdued the iPhone 4S event was - people must have known already.
No need to state the obvious.
Its tragical that these kind of questions are asked only after we have leveled half of the tropical forests or used most of the fossil fuel resources, mostly without any kind of compensation mechanism. Our carbon dioxided emissions are over 100 times bigger than that of all of the volcanoes, per year.
The volcanoes are part of the natural long cycles whereas the human input has been immensely dramatic and something totally extra to the delicate and more or less balanced processes.
I don't believe we really can't alter anything. All of our processes should be carbon neutral and about 100% recycable and reusable. Even that is not enough because the extra gases would still be in the atmosphere and the warmth stored in the oceans takes long time to dissipate. The forests cannot be replanted and the cattle population cannot be massacred, the businesses relying on unnecessary marketing based human needs don't want to kill themselves.
Or maybe then there is a possibility of developing better tech, procedures and methods, but what is most important is that we ourselves have to chance to preserve the only pearl of life we have here on Earth. These debates about AGW are silly, because "A" is the only logical answer. We as a lifeform need to evolve.
It seems that there's a whole lot of great development and innovation happening in the field.
This is Slashdot.
Another thought experiment. a 1" rod 1 light year long. you move it 1/16 of a centimeter. How long does it take for the movement to register at the other end?
A: its instant, for it does not need to move any faster than the time it took you to move it.
The atoms of the material would carry the signal at the speed of light to the other end. There would be a compression wave travelling along the rod. It would seem to you as if the whole rod moved, but in reality the effect wouldn't be instantly noticeable at the other end. The rod wouldn't have to be so long either, you could measure the same delay using a much shorter rod. Try tapping your mobile phone. The other end seems to move instantly, but in reality there is a delay.
If sound travelled at c in the rod there would be a delay of one year before it reached the other end. If you used the rod as an electromagnetic communication device there would be a delay. In the end the rod is an electromagnetic construction itself. It doesn't matter how rigid it is to you.
If that was the case there would be noticeable effects in satellite communications - think about time, location etc. The effect would have been observed by now.