Forgot your password?

Comment: How did they build the pyramids (Score 4, Insightful) 160

by fermion (#47759577) Attached to: How the Ancient Egyptians (Should Have) Built the Pyramids
Nice Explaination: Lots of beer and bread

Not so Nice:Whips and violence

Some of the confusion seems to come from an unwillingness to accept that humans can be very self absorbed and mean. While some form of simple machinery must have been used, the basic resource for the pyramids was an expendable supply of labor. People tend to accept harder or more dangerous work if that is the life they know. We saw that recently in coal mining disaster where many people died because the owners did not have a practice of clearing the mine between shift changes. It increases profits and make coal cheaper, but is a huge risk to the workers. Raising the pyramids was probably not different.

Comment: Re:"Paleolithic diets" now vs then (Score 1) 258

by fermion (#47758099) Attached to: The Evolution of Diet
Here is what seems pretty well established. Pre-agrarian humans were probably no more or no less active that the agrarian people that followed. Hunter-gatherers in fact had to balance calories consumed by the group with calories available. This may have lead to situations where the entry of new infants were tightly control and old age became an issue. p> In every situation where agrarian humans competed with hunter-gatherers, the hunter-gatherers pretty much were wiped out. The agrarian humans created their stocks by domesticating the best food available into reliable crops. These crops provided a surplus that lead to classes of people, the rulers, the workers, the artisans, the warriors. However, these classes probably became the norm because of the superior source of nutrition, not just the reliable calories.

Also, the agrarian lifestyle was probably a choice. Hunter-gatherers probably had land on their migration plant that was proto-crop like. Initially it was probably just because they hung out in one spot, at some food, left the seeds, and the next year the seed sprouted. Over time they probably learned to intentionally raised stock that would be available as they migrated back. Eventually they made a decision to stay put.

Therefore it there is a diet that is most healthy for us, overall, it would be the diet of the agrarian society maybe 5,000 years ago. This is the diet that allowed one group of humans to dominate a probably less well feed other group of humans.

Comment: Re: The world we live in. (Score 0) 567

by Cruciform (#47751247) Attached to: New Nail Polish Alerts Wearers To Date Rape Drugs

There's no doubt that they are used but the prevalence is likely as exaggerated as "stranger danger".
In the UK 75 cases of suspected dosing were investigated and only one person turned out to have a date-rape drug in their tox screen. The other cases appeared to be people drinking to excess.
This doesn't put the blame on the victim instead of a rapist. We should also be aware that the regular old issue of people getting shitfaced is still a real contributor to creating vulnerable targets for predators.

Comment: This doesn't compute...or does it (Score 1) 111

by Cruciform (#47751183) Attached to: Is Dong Nguyen Trolling Gamers With "Swing Copters"?

The original creator comes up with the idea, usually among many ideas. Then they have to decide which one to go with. Then you have to design and implement, refine, and see what works, until you have something worth releasing.
Then you might have to put the effort into social media or advertising.
Then you might become popular.
Then someone else looks at what you created and breaks the concept down into components that are easily reproducible in a day or two, while their artist copies your art. They flood the store with them.
The only real counter to something like that is to create a game that's complicated enough that reproducing the game mechanics that make it popular takes long enough that the clones don't come out in time to bite into the profit during the critical first week/month.

Comment: On uncertainty (Score 1) 269

by Tablizer (#47750245) Attached to: Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

I have to agree with conservatives on one point: we don't know enough about Earth to make any reliable predictions.

Maybe the Earth will somehow balance itself and the warming will level out. Or trigger positive feedback mechanisms that accelerate warming and/or change. We just don't know.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about altering the "normal" path. It's pretty clear we are gambling big-time via pollution and green-house gasses.

Some of the more thoughtful conservatives say we should go ahead and gamble: humans will adapt around change. Even though I disagree, that's a valid position, for science can't tell us WHAT to do, only what will happen (at best). If simulations show that juggling rakes has a 20% of putting your eye out, and you agree with the odds, and do juggle rakes and your eye gets put out, and you accept the consequences, at least you are honest. Blind, foolish, but honest.

I guess some conservatives want to be proverbial lion trainers. The problem is that we all have to be in the same cage with them.

Comment: Re:Wow... really, Slashdot? (Score 1) 249

by Yunzil (#47749711) Attached to: How many devices are connected to your home Wi-Fi?

Given how this is supposed to be a community of nerds, I'm surprised at how many people here are proudly stating that they don't even have a wireless router (or they choose not connect anything to it, or they don't even have an internet connection).

I mean, the whole point of technology is to improve quality of life, right?

You're missing the point. I don't have any of that technology in your list. I have a desktop PC and a phone. Having wi-fi is not going to improve the quality of my life.

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]