2012-11-14, 14:03 | Link #3241 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
See, the difference is the states that talk about leaving are not pure red states. They are only red because of the electoral college. So they would have to deal with a civil war internally as much as externally.
__________________
|
2012-11-14, 14:11 | Link #3244 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 38
|
That's still a ridiculous statement to make. "It's okay, I'm sure we'll only have a few months of millions of people dying."
As demonstrated in one of those articles about the petitions, Austin and San Antonio filed petitions to secede from Texas because they aren't loonies and want to stay with the US. |
2012-11-14, 14:13 | Link #3245 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Battle of Antietam (September 17, 1862) is still the bloodiest day for America. About 23,000 dead and wounded. (there were more American combat deaths in this one battle that in the entire Iraqi War.)
Both sides thought the Civil War in 1861 would only last three months, with nine months tops. It lasted until 1865.
__________________
|
2012-11-14, 14:21 | Link #3247 | ||
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
It won't be war. Just terrorism. Turns out massive battles with muskets and cannons creates a lot of injuries, but not many instant kills. Medicine pretty much sucked until the discovery of penicillin.
__________________
|
||
2012-11-14, 14:28 | Link #3249 | |
cho~ kakkoii
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
|
Quote:
Crap... now I'm starting to sound like Gundamfan... I'll go cool off with a dose of reality. Later folks.
__________________
|
|
2012-11-14, 14:40 | Link #3250 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
The human DNA uses 4 basic nucleobases which means it holds twice the information per quaterny "bit". But thats not the main problem. The real problem is how this data is used to create an organic lifeform. It is extremely polymorphic (actually a combination of extreme recursiveness and polymorphism). This is an attempt to demonstrate this polymorphic recursiveness: The DNA is the blue print for all sorts of organic basic modules. In the first iteration, these basic modules define the immidiate behaviour of the cell. But when the cell is influenced by the creation of the basic modules, it will alternate its basic module building behaviour according to the DNA (recursive polymorphism in a feedback system). Complex organic life typically starts as one cell, from this cell more diverse variants of cells are created through cell division. Somehow there is a preprogrammed cell diversfication algorithm in the DNA. It might start randomly with certain cells becoming a little different, and their offsprings become a little different some more (this form of parent cell => child cell creation is another recursive process, and since the cells diversify ever more in the process, it is also polymorphic). Once there are different types of cells, they seem to organize in patterns that create organs, cells of different types might actually interact in a very complex way to give the organs a predefined way to grow. However, this must be considered a recursive and polymorphic process. Each of the layers above is based on a very complex interaction algorithm. But this algorithm does not work entirely correct without interaction of each of the three layers. (consider complex life an incredibly complex and polymorphic fractal) Now even this simplicist take on it results in quite a messy code. In reality this whole process is certainly more complex. To really understand each and every implication of changing certain parts of it, requires modelling and understanding that far surpasses current and near future technology. Admittedly the DNA contains a lot of garbage information, but there is still plenty of relevant information in it. So, the best you can hope for, is that scientists make some sense of the data by comparing DNA of individuums with minor differences. However, that doesn't mean they really understand the whole algorithm. They just know how to tweak certain parts of the code to get certain, minor changes. It is still a long way (read very very very long) to the understanding that is needed to completely remodel complex organisms in ways that produce relatively predictable results based on "DNA programming".
__________________
Last edited by Jinto; 2012-11-14 at 14:59. |
|
2012-11-14, 15:02 | Link #3251 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
And of course, there is the whole problem of defining and predicting intelligence.
And the lack of samples of early human DNA. And the simple observation that hunter gatherers still exist, even if they're rare. While they're much better than we are at hunting and gathering (at least the kind of hunting that doesn't involve modern or medieval weapons), I've never heard of them being noticeably smarter than we are. Quote:
|
|
2012-11-14, 15:07 | Link #3252 | |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
@Jinto I understand what you are trying to say, but my conclusion are based on the fact that human advancement has rarely been a gradual process, along the way there have been a genius that makes a big step in advancing science or technology. So i.e. without Einstein there would be no satellites in orbit and without newton I bet there would have been no landing on the moon. Maybe I am an optimist, nay, a fool, but I stand by my beliefs nevertheless.
Quote:
I will take any day a bullet wound instead of a pellet from a musket which lacked the precision of modern weapons but basically destroyed whatever they hit (there is no such thing as an entry and exit wound). Even modern medicine would have a hard time dealing with such extensive wounds. Last edited by mangamuscle; 2012-11-14 at 15:21. |
|
2012-11-14, 15:13 | Link #3253 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Wonders of wisdom rather than intelligence maybe? Sometimes those that may not grasp something like a particle accelerator can be extermely wise.
"Smart" can be a variable depending on the subject matter. One can be smart in one field and totally inept in another.
__________________
|
2012-11-14, 15:15 | Link #3254 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Gensokyo
|
I don't know what you guys are arguing, that guy has a thesis that can not be proven untrue, nor true. I can also say dinosaurs all died from the flue (if my memories are correct somebody put such a hypothesis), impossible to prove I say nonsense, but impossible to prove I don't spout nonsense either.
And first of all, what is >intellect<? Rational thinking? Learning? Art? Discoveries? Imagination? Meeh, there's so much way of defining it. |
2012-11-14, 15:28 | Link #3255 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
There are many prime examples of old movies and literature that describe a future of things - that is actually history today according to the timeline - but still far far away future according to the technological progress. But at the same time they fail to predict the rapid progress in other fields. So, predictions based on (popular) believe are kinda fun. But thats it. Of course there is always a chance for a game changing break through on a another field of science that seriously influences the progress of (many) other fields of science. But even then... if you have some technical knowledge that allows you to see the road blocks on the way... and you see a planet sized road block on that way, you can estimate, that the chances are rather dim for an occurence of such a significant break through in a field of science to overcome it.
__________________
|
|
2012-11-14, 15:29 | Link #3256 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Obama Bristles at McCain Over Pledge to Block Susan Rice Nomination over Benghazi
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...hazi-comments/
__________________
|
2012-11-14, 15:58 | Link #3258 |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
@Jinto TBT average people do not create the images of what future technology will look like, you are obviously talking about the fact that in the second half of the xx century rocket science took one of those huge steps I was talking about with the launch of the first artificial earth satellite and many scientists (and science fiction writers) expected there would be many of those huge steps in the near future, that belief was fueled by the human landing of the moon, but all of them were just gradual advancements, so even if nasa's budget hadn't been cut each year after the apollo program cancellation, there would have been no successful missions to mars and beyond.
I am not aware that cat girls (the example and cited, I could talk all day about similar advancements but I will spare you all) are nowadays a common answer to what people expect from the future, I think that even in an otaku only poll there are no expectations at all that someday technology might produce them IRL. As for the planet sized roadblock, I do not see such thing, just a hurdle that modern technology at the current speed of innovation will tackle in the near future, what I would call a planet sized roadblock is i.e. the speed of light limit which no matter if we invent antimatter reactors would block any possibility to visit but the closest of star systems. |
2012-11-14, 16:08 | Link #3259 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
A review of the history of such attacks under all the administrations of the past 50 years or so http://mediamatters.org/research/201...-bash-o/189890
__________________
|
|
2012-11-14, 16:27 | Link #3260 | |
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
It's interesting though, how you believe that mankind will obtain full mastery over the foundation of life itself in the near future based on optimism, yet at the same time readily dismisses the possibility of interstellar travel for eternity despite both fields of science are really still in their infancy. |
|
|
|