Forgot your password?

Comment: Convergent and Recurrent Evolution shows this (Score 1) 63

by deathcloset (#47483385) Attached to: The New Science of Evolutionary Forecasting
I think that convergent evolution would be a very high-level example of how the results of selection can be predictable and are in fact repeated, even if the actual underlying mechanisms and specific genes involved in the convergent adaption in different species differ, the results are the same. Recurrent evolution also seems to support the "non-random" or "predictable" nature of evolution. In other words, if you put a square organism in a round environment, we know that its successful decedents will have rounded edges.

Comment: Why do scientists falsify? Or how can they? (Score 3) 52

by deathcloset (#47226001) Attached to: Japanese Stem Cell Debacle Could Bring Down Entire Center
They must know they will be found out - especially the more sensational the finding. After all, science is not like philosophy. Science is meant to be used, and for something to be used it has to work. People will try to use it and it wont work and they will immediately know that there has been a falsification. I mean, it's not like this kind of stuff is up to interpretation or anything - there is a method and a result. If there is no result then the method is in error. What are they thinking?

Comment: Re:keeping a budget (Score 1) 174

by deathcloset (#46730061) Attached to: Cost Skyrockets For United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project

We'd have the money if we'd kick the trailer trash and hood rats off of welfare and sent the illegals back to their shithole country. Be careful who you kick and where you kick them. This guy might actually figure out fusion energy - eh? This dude is why we have welfare. When you mine for gold there is mostly dirt...but there's gold too. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. And a penny saved is a penny earned. And make yourself a bowl of soup and wrap a hot towel around your head. And don't stay out too late! Ah, whatever.

Comment: These are griefers, not trolls. Trolling is fun (Score 4, Insightful) 116

I understand that some trolling is bullying: that's when it becomes griefing - but most trolling is just sarcastic fun. I have, on many occasions, made joking jest and played the role (with dripping socratic irony) of the troll to the great delight of myself and others.

If somebody is truly upset, however, I would not, could not, continue to deride them. So that's where the fine line may be drawn.

Those that would are to be called griefers, not trolls.

Griefers are trolls intending harm. Trolls in my opinion and in my definition are merely out for Natalie Portman's hot grits - whatever those may be.

Comment: Depression is weird (Score 1) 257

by deathcloset (#46654833) Attached to: Start-Up Founders On Dealing With Depression
When you are depressed you are supposed to have lower mental activity, and yet some of the most brilliant people have been known to be clinically depressed [citation not needed]. So then, if depression sometimes comes with brilliance, what gives?

And does this mean that for some people of this class antidepressants (chemical and psychological) have the effect of actually dulling insight and brilliance?

Be depressed, be brilliant: Be happy, be dumb.

Life is such a bitch.

Comment: Why? (Score 2) 307

by deathcloset (#46654515) Attached to: Should NASA Send Astronauts On Voluntary One-Way Missions?
I'm such a huge space nut but I seriously can't see how sending people to their probable deaths offers a scientific or societal benefit.

Are they better than robots? No.

Change "reasonable chance of survival" into "very likely chance of survival" and I would change my mind, but "reasonable chance of survival" in NASA and space exploration terms means something like a 1/1000 chance of death (just pulling a number out of the air).

If you want something organic up there quick then send a monkey. Then, after the monkey has not died a horrible death, send a person.

I want to live in space. I want space colonies. But I don't want space exploration and colonies to be built on the graves of those who came before us.

I just don't see the benefit. Furthermore I feel that suicidal space exploration has a very dark economic shadow to it.

send more and better robots. That way we don't kill heroes and we also get advances in robotics.

I can't believe I'm even saying this, but it's how I feel.

Comment: Re:Lets divert some military funds (Score 1) 292

by deathcloset (#46545233) Attached to: Back To the Moon — In Four Years

But honestly, what do you think would happen if the US military were suddenly defunded?

A lot of bullshit pork contracts would have their fat trimmed, we'd murder less people for profit, or both.

Well, when you put it like that! ;) - I strongly support not murdering people. I equally strongly support not being murdered. There must be a way to have both.

Comment: Re:We spend 20 times more than the next largest (Score 1) 292

by deathcloset (#46544653) Attached to: Back To the Moon — In Four Years
No, certainly I'm not saying that. I'm just being snarky due to both a lack of sleep and overabundance of caffeine ;)

I just see the military as the muscle and the markets as the fat of a country (Farms are the skeleton and the people the organs - what a weird analogy), and if we are going to divert resources for an effort, I would rather burn fat than muscle (though muscle before organs and organs before the skeleton - yeah, definitely a weird analogy).

I'm confident, in agreement to another comment, that even a 10% or 20% slash of the US military would offer no real danger to the sovereignty of the united states (we still maintain a standing militia of the people anyway, after all and yeah, NATO and the overwhelming ratio of "good guy"/"bad guy" countries.), and in spite of my deepest appreciation and respect for the US military, conflict in all it's forms is something that most certainly must be reduced - and the reduction of which is a sure indicator of the progress of a world.

Also expansion and exploration is a sure indicator of the progress of a world.

So naturally I agree that taking money from where it is being wasted and putting it in more important places is good. I only take offense at the idea that the military is considered the most likely entity from where to take that money when there are OBVIOUSLY much more wasteful entities that should be done away with first. I leave it as an exercise to you, dear replyee and/or reader, to enumerate what those more wasteful entities be.

time for more caffeine.

Comment: Re:That's great and all... (Score 1) 292

by deathcloset (#46543901) Attached to: Back To the Moon — In Four Years
Evolution saith: you are where you are.

Your environment shapes your evolution. Humans have the ability to live in more environments than any other complex lifeform - and some environments that even the simple lifeforms can't live in (virtual worlds for example). If you live subterranean, you become subterranean.

Maybe that's ok: whatever works is another of evolution's favorite sayings. After all, subterranean life has some real advantages: the naked mole rat doesn't get cancer and lives for a very long time, but they are blind because they don't need eyes any more. I want to keep my eyes. I like looking at the stars.

Now, having said all that, the obvious irony is that if we do go-a-exploring in space and want to build bases on the actual surface of rocky harsh planets, well, the best way to do it is to make them subterranean!

Maybe the solution is to try to be as many animals as we can an to try to live in as many environments as we can. Maybe that will cause evolutionary forces to bestow on us the greatest and largest variation of shapes.


Comment: Re:Yeah, too bad there's no real reason to do so.. (Score 1) 292

by deathcloset (#46543771) Attached to: Back To the Moon — In Four Years

... We have limited resources to throw at space. This is the time to throw them at something that will give us some return.

We have limited resources to throw at space because we have limited resources down here - but I know a place with ~limitless resources and it's called space. True, it's full of mostly nothing, but where there is something there tends to be a whooooooole lot of something.

What's on the moon anyhow? Rocks? Are you sure that's all? We can't really be sure unless we look.

Comment: Re:Lets divert some military funds (Score 3, Insightful) 292

by deathcloset (#46543591) Attached to: Back To the Moon — In Four Years
By slashing the US military budget like that we could quickly and easily build a moon base which along with our country would quickly and easily be taken over by another country's military.

;) oh I kid.

But honestly, what do you think would happen if the US military were suddenly defunded? Do you think the other countries would be like - good for them! We don't need militaries any more any how and certainly not a single one of us big countries with our current militaries would ever dream of using our forces again the US, even as defenseless as they are right now with all their resources and food and two coastlines and pop music...

All snarkiness aside, I agree with your sentiment and wish we had interplanetary spacecraft and bases on more than one moon :( - almost even at the risk of the US's national security...almost.

And I almost actually believe that even if the US military were to shrink hugely that we would not be attacked, because I don't think the average citizen in a non-us western country would want to attack/invade another civilized country. No, not the people, but the governments of those countries (governments are things which function almost like independent living entities themselves seemingly making their own decisions) are what there is to be concerned about.

Yes, civilized countries maintaining huge military powers is just the way it is right now. In the future when countries don't have militaries anymore I'm sure we will look back on our time the same way we look at the american old west: we will understand that the environment of the time required that everyone carry a pistol, and that the harshness of the climate (ecological, financial and social) resulted in far more altercations than would seem reasonable - but they will understand.

And they will probably make a ton of movies about our time too.

And they will probably watch them on their fancy-dancy moon bases.

whatever. good for them.


Comment: Internet should go where it should go (Score 1) 279

by deathcloset (#46488771) Attached to: U.S. Aims To Give Up Control Over Internet Administration
I'm fairly certain that in asking this question that I'm just being a biased Californian-based US citizen, but aside from being better able to allow internet users to hide from spies, what other benefit will this action bestow? And actually will this actually allow internet users to better hide from spies? I thought the US is doing an alright job, except for the peeping that is - they should have done a better job at that... Anyhow, now to read the friendly article.

Loose bits sink chips.