If the species was meant to be in space, its fundamental bodily makeup would already be moving toward a form factor befitting a gravity-free, cosmic-ray rich environment, and as we've yet to see such creatures develop, it's plainly evident our species isn't ready for that.
Like rk said - This means that you don't understand how evolution by natural selection works. Evolution is conservative (not a political stab, conservative in the biological sense). There is no planning ahead. It seems you are misunderstanding evolution by natural selection on a fundamental level.
Humanity has a sort of extended phenotype- our technology. Beavers impact and shape their ecosystem, and there are many other "ecosystem engineers" in the animal kingdom. We Homo sapiens just do this on a bigger, more complex scale. We have evolved along with our tools, and will continue to do so. Reaching out into space is just occupying an otherwise vacant ecological niche. Natural selection is about gene propogation, and any species, given the "chance", will exploit everything possible to ensure their genes are more common than others'.
About the claim that humanity is not "worth more" than other species...You say we SHOULD fall victim to an extinction, but why? Sure, we've screwed with the planet and all the other species inhabiting it, but we see other species doing just that, all the time. Species (think ungulate) will literally eat themselves to death, by depleting all the available resources. But wait- one is then tempted to say that since we have a concept of morality, we should curb our destructive selfish ways! Doesn't that imply we are higher than the lowly moral-depauperate species beneath us?
Back to the issue at hand, however. I think space exploration is a good step in getting humanity to colonize other worlds. Sure, we've mucked up our own pretty well, and one lonely dome on Mars with do squat, but it is a small step in the right direction. Baby steps, we'll get there.
There was an interview with Todd Howard I saw where he says that there are children in the game, but you can't kill them. I guess that is for the best because do we really need FOX News plastering images of children exploding into bloody pieces on TV? Us videogamers have a bad enough rap as it is, what with our penchant for "cop killer simulators"...
First off, I will say I am excited about this game, and have been since I first heard about it.
I am hoping that this game will help some Westerners have a more positive view of Islam. Now, it is it somewhat funny to be saying that, since the protagonist is not only Islamic, but also an assassin. Not something you want to associate with any major religion.
I just hope this game can, in some way, show people that all world religions are not as monolithic as they are often portrayed. Not every Muslim is a terrorist. Plain and simple. Just like not every Christian bombs abortion clinics. MOST Muslims are sane, rational people. Just like Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists. SOME are frickin' nuts. It just so happens that the "frickin' nuts" ones get more airtime. Maybe with this game people can start to sympathize with Muslims, and perhaps see both sides of the story.
It just makes me sad that so many people have this twisted view of Islam, since the only representatives of the religion on TV are eccentric or terrorists.
And before anyone starts quoting the Koran with crazy violent and questionable texts, just remember that ALL the religions are a little nuts, and that most major religious texts (including the Bible) has some pretty scary stuff in it. (Think Old Testament, cutting off of hands, stoning women, beating children, having bears eat some kids who were harassing you, etcetera.)
Oh, and I think everyone is very probably looking to deep into this game, and if anything it makes a great backdrop for a potentially amazing and fun game.
So Nintendo is good at making really fun and well-polished games....and they make a big profit....they increase the amount of people who might call themselves a 'gamer'....this is a bad thing?
I think the whole argument is flawed because it says to me "Nintendo makes great games, they sell well, are fun, and get new people to play them. This is a bad thing because third party developers can't sell their crappy games, and have to spend more time and resources to compete by making decent games."
Maybe the fact that Nintendo makes some good stuff shows that a lot of games/developers suck? I don't know, perhaps it is the phenomena of "wrecking the curve".
Time would be my guess, as well. Perhaps if people have lighter or darker skin than what one would expect from the Vitamin D hypothesis, it is simply due to the amount of time evolving under such pressures, and their ancestors came from a different location.
I know this sounds like it is far too easy to make what seem to be excuses, but it does make sense, and one can easily look at how long people have inhabited certain regions to see if the hypothesis holds water.
The reason I have heard cited for why people such as the Inuit, or Italians have darker skin is because of fish intake.
Coastal peoples, such as the Inuit, have a high intake of fish in their diet, and so get a lot of Vitamin D. Same goes for the Italians.
My guess for the Amazon natives having lighter skin would be that they live in the jungle? Not out in the plains, and so they would still be receiving less sunlight than people living in the Savannah. Just a guess, but it fits with the theory.
So, light skin is still associated with low Vitamin D levels. If there is strong sunlight, or a large amount of fish in the diet, darker skin is advantageous.
As much as I look forward to the new single, nothing will ever take the place in my heart reserved for the song "Lick My Love Pump." Hopefully it will get more than just a two word review.
What this really has to do with Slashdot is t-shirt color. How much more black can our t-shirts be? And the answer is none. None more black.
I think we are looking at this all wrong. The sudden, bizarre disappearance of bees can only be explained by one possibility.
The "waggle dance", which has long been interpreted as a dance that reveals information to other bees, is actually a message to humans which goes something like this-
"So Long and Thanks for All the Nectar." (the last word may also be pollen, we are still analyzing the message.)
I got a funny image when I read this. "The difficulty comes when the automatic battlers need to target humans. In such cases Mr Canning says that permission from a human operator should be sought."
I could only think of a stammering robot with a self-confidence problem, consulting a fleshy meatbag as to whether or not it is socially acceptable to pursue a violent course of action against a homo sapien, and adding at the end, "please?"
Outstandingly Mediocre is such a great-sounding phrase. It makes me think of a documentary that would play with dramatic music and an overly serious narrator.
Cautiously optimistic I think nicely sums up my feelings.
Really, both arguments are pretty valid. We have all seen crap from Bethesda, and we have also seen gold. Some of us like the games, some of us deplore them. It should go without saying, but we all have tastes and personal preferences and developers know they cannot make everyone happy. That being said, we all need to remember that devs are people too, and these guys (and implicitly gals) making the game are, in fact, gamers. Or at least were. Or have some investment in gaming. These guys know what kind of fanbase they bought with the rights, and I cannot assume that they will botch it too badly. (of course, I could very well be chewing on my hat when these games come out, like I said, I am trying to be optimistic here)
All that being said, I was uneasy at the thought of a non-isometric Fallout game. When one thinks of Fallout, on thinks of isometric view. However, everything evolves, things change, and technology is better. Thinking about it, I look forward to exploring the world from a more natural perspective. Being able to look up at buildings, the walls of Vault city, or across a landscape are all things that are immersive, as well as being snuck up on by bandits or deathclaws. I look forward to more detail in the world, and being able to stride through the Wasteland.
However, I do worry about the implementation of XP, perks, skills, etc. The main thing I worry about is dialogue and individual characters. I felt that the Elder Scrolls series is pretty lacking in memorable NPCs. Granted, Fallout had plenty of identical villagers, but there was a pretty hefty slew of characters.
Worst case scenario we stick Fallout 1 and 2 back in the old CD tray. Nothing will ever be better than the originals, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
If the species was meant to be in space, its fundamental bodily makeup would already be moving toward a form factor befitting a gravity-free, cosmic-ray rich environment, and as we've yet to see such creatures develop, it's plainly evident our species isn't ready for that.
Like rk said - This means that you don't understand how evolution by natural selection works. Evolution is conservative (not a political stab, conservative in the biological sense). There is no planning ahead. It seems you are misunderstanding evolution by natural selection on a fundamental level.
Humanity has a sort of extended phenotype- our technology. Beavers impact and shape their ecosystem, and there are many other "ecosystem engineers" in the animal kingdom. We Homo sapiens just do this on a bigger, more complex scale. We have evolved along with our tools, and will continue to do so. Reaching out into space is just occupying an otherwise vacant ecological niche. Natural selection is about gene propogation, and any species, given the "chance", will exploit everything possible to ensure their genes are more common than others'.
About the claim that humanity is not "worth more" than other species...You say we SHOULD fall victim to an extinction, but why? Sure, we've screwed with the planet and all the other species inhabiting it, but we see other species doing just that, all the time. Species (think ungulate) will literally eat themselves to death, by depleting all the available resources. But wait- one is then tempted to say that since we have a concept of morality, we should curb our destructive selfish ways! Doesn't that imply we are higher than the lowly moral-depauperate species beneath us?
Back to the issue at hand, however. I think space exploration is a good step in getting humanity to colonize other worlds. Sure, we've mucked up our own pretty well, and one lonely dome on Mars with do squat, but it is a small step in the right direction. Baby steps, we'll get there.
There was an interview with Todd Howard I saw where he says that there are children in the game, but you can't kill them. I guess that is for the best because do we really need FOX News plastering images of children exploding into bloody pieces on TV? Us videogamers have a bad enough rap as it is, what with our penchant for "cop killer simulators"...
First off, I will say I am excited about this game, and have been since I first heard about it.
I am hoping that this game will help some Westerners have a more positive view of Islam. Now, it is it somewhat funny to be saying that, since the protagonist is not only Islamic, but also an assassin. Not something you want to associate with any major religion.
I just hope this game can, in some way, show people that all world religions are not as monolithic as they are often portrayed. Not every Muslim is a terrorist. Plain and simple. Just like not every Christian bombs abortion clinics. MOST Muslims are sane, rational people. Just like Christians, Hindus, Jews, and Buddhists. SOME are frickin' nuts. It just so happens that the "frickin' nuts" ones get more airtime. Maybe with this game people can start to sympathize with Muslims, and perhaps see both sides of the story.
It just makes me sad that so many people have this twisted view of Islam, since the only representatives of the religion on TV are eccentric or terrorists.
And before anyone starts quoting the Koran with crazy violent and questionable texts, just remember that ALL the religions are a little nuts, and that most major religious texts (including the Bible) has some pretty scary stuff in it. (Think Old Testament, cutting off of hands, stoning women, beating children, having bears eat some kids who were harassing you, etcetera.)
Oh, and I think everyone is very probably looking to deep into this game, and if anything it makes a great backdrop for a potentially amazing and fun game.
Eunuch astronauts.
Agreed.
So Nintendo is good at making really fun and well-polished games....and they make a big profit....they increase the amount of people who might call themselves a 'gamer'....this is a bad thing?
I think the whole argument is flawed because it says to me "Nintendo makes great games, they sell well, are fun, and get new people to play them. This is a bad thing because third party developers can't sell their crappy games, and have to spend more time and resources to compete by making decent games."
Maybe the fact that Nintendo makes some good stuff shows that a lot of games/developers suck? I don't know, perhaps it is the phenomena of "wrecking the curve".
Time would be my guess, as well. Perhaps if people have lighter or darker skin than what one would expect from the Vitamin D hypothesis, it is simply due to the amount of time evolving under such pressures, and their ancestors came from a different location.
I know this sounds like it is far too easy to make what seem to be excuses, but it does make sense, and one can easily look at how long people have inhabited certain regions to see if the hypothesis holds water.
The reason I have heard cited for why people such as the Inuit, or Italians have darker skin is because of fish intake.
Coastal peoples, such as the Inuit, have a high intake of fish in their diet, and so get a lot of Vitamin D. Same goes for the Italians.
My guess for the Amazon natives having lighter skin would be that they live in the jungle? Not out in the plains, and so they would still be receiving less sunlight than people living in the Savannah. Just a guess, but it fits with the theory.
So, light skin is still associated with low Vitamin D levels. If there is strong sunlight, or a large amount of fish in the diet, darker skin is advantageous.
As much as I look forward to the new single, nothing will ever take the place in my heart reserved for the song "Lick My Love Pump." Hopefully it will get more than just a two word review.
What this really has to do with Slashdot is t-shirt color. How much more black can our t-shirts be? And the answer is none. None more black.
I think we are looking at this all wrong. The sudden, bizarre disappearance of bees can only be explained by one possibility.
The "waggle dance", which has long been interpreted as a dance that reveals information to other bees, is actually a message to humans which goes something like this-
"So Long and Thanks for All the Nectar." (the last word may also be pollen, we are still analyzing the message.)
I got a funny image when I read this. "The difficulty comes when the automatic battlers need to target humans. In such cases Mr Canning says that permission from a human operator should be sought."
I could only think of a stammering robot with a self-confidence problem, consulting a fleshy meatbag as to whether or not it is socially acceptable to pursue a violent course of action against a homo sapien, and adding at the end, "please?"
Outstandingly Mediocre is such a great-sounding phrase. It makes me think of a documentary that would play with dramatic music and an overly serious narrator.
Cautiously optimistic I think nicely sums up my feelings.
Really, both arguments are pretty valid. We have all seen crap from Bethesda, and we have also seen gold. Some of us like the games, some of us deplore them. It should go without saying, but we all have tastes and personal preferences and developers know they cannot make everyone happy. That being said, we all need to remember that devs are people too, and these guys (and implicitly gals) making the game are, in fact, gamers. Or at least were. Or have some investment in gaming. These guys know what kind of fanbase they bought with the rights, and I cannot assume that they will botch it too badly. (of course, I could very well be chewing on my hat when these games come out, like I said, I am trying to be optimistic here)
All that being said, I was uneasy at the thought of a non-isometric Fallout game. When one thinks of Fallout, on thinks of isometric view. However, everything evolves, things change, and technology is better. Thinking about it, I look forward to exploring the world from a more natural perspective. Being able to look up at buildings, the walls of Vault city, or across a landscape are all things that are immersive, as well as being snuck up on by bandits or deathclaws. I look forward to more detail in the world, and being able to stride through the Wasteland.
However, I do worry about the implementation of XP, perks, skills, etc. The main thing I worry about is dialogue and individual characters. I felt that the Elder Scrolls series is pretty lacking in memorable NPCs. Granted, Fallout had plenty of identical villagers, but there was a pretty hefty slew of characters.
Worst case scenario we stick Fallout 1 and 2 back in the old CD tray. Nothing will ever be better than the originals, eh?