Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Concocted? (Score 1) 334

Consider: Someone holds a gun to your head, threatening to shoot you, but in the end doesn't pull the trigger. Just because they didn't shoot you, doesn't make them an instant good guy.

The issue is that Assange (and you) hold for random what Wikileak proponents believe the world should know. Information Wikileak proponents believes should be free. This tactic diminishes the credibility of those involved. Holding the information for ransom effects the exact action that the government performs by keeping the information secret.

If the governments stepped forward and made a deal clearing Assange of all wrongdoing, would he/you/other supporters release the information in the poison pill later on anyway? If yes, and you plan to "shoot the hostage," why should anyone take the threat seriously? Most of all, give credibility where none is due?

Comment Re:Concocted? (Score 1) 334

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335888/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-release-damaging-secrets-killed-arrested.html

Killed OR Arrested.

No government is stupid enough to kill Assange. Evil, maybe, but not stupid. If he was killed, that would make him a martyr. And it wouldn't matter what information the organization had. His death would reinforce his point beyond control. Now if Assange committed suicide and made it look like a murder, he'd do 1000x more damage to the "convoluted" governments than releasing every secret from every government.

Comment Re:Concocted? (Score 1) 334

A-goddamn-men. I'd upvote, except you went AC, AC. Furthermore, stop calling him Robin Hood of the Digital Age. Robin Hood never held the money he stole for ransom when he was caught. Unlike Assange, who threatened to blow his infoload all over the world if the charges against him weren't dropped. Some hero for justice.

Comment Re:Misunderstanding evolution (Score 1) 337

What about the dinosaurs that developed flights twice in its evolutionary life? Just because all the non-spike rabbits were eaten or killed doesn't mean the DNA is gone. The spikes allows the rabbits to survive, despite having a significant cost on the species. As soon as the threat is gone, the spikes should disappear gradually as the less-spiked rabbits breed faster because they have more energy to throw around.

Yes the pelt was an advantage... when it was NEEDED. We don't NEED it anymore. You made my argument, and the argument of the TFA!

We lost our thick body hair because we learned fire and clothing. By taking control of our external temperature away from our body, it stopped developing thick body hair. Letting go of the cost of generating the pelt.

Our jaws are shrinking because we no longer eat by tearing raw flesh from the bones. Our meals are prepared and easy to consume. Our wisdom teeth (and little finger) are the first sacrifices to our readily available food sources. Our mouths will get smaller, we will lose more teeth. Because it costs less to have less teeth and a smaller jawbone.

If the world was suddenly thrown into an ice age. And we lost all our technology and all our of higher knowledge. Eventually we would re-evolve our thick body hair, our jaws would extend, our average height would shrink dramatically. Because the cumulative information is stored in our DNA. And the cost of surviving.

If you want to say that a spiked rabbit and a speedy rabbit are branches of a non-spiked, non-speedy rabbit. And so if all the speedy rabbits die, the spiked rabbit is all that's left. I'm amiable to that. Though the original rabbit sucked ass, in my opinion. But even so, the spiked rabbit would eventually evolve the spikes away because the spikes cost too much. Just because the speedy rabbit died off, doesn't mean the spiked rabbit can't evolve out of spikes and into speediness on its own.

And the ability to track other creatures is not a genetic trait, but a result of higher brain functionality. Though you are correct, partly. The higher brain function is a costly feature. The moment we had a free thought, we clung to it. To justify the larger, stronger brain, we've evolved a weaker body. Less hair, no claws, no spikes, no thick skin, nothing. The bigger our brains become through non-selective breeding, the less our bodies will become to compensate.

You are also right about the timescale. To completely remove the thorns on the trees, it will probably takes 1000s of years, if not much more. But evolution is a constant balance with nature. Change nature and evolution adjusts. So even though its only been 500 years, SOME change in the plant should be seen.

And there are thornless rose bushes, very many species of them, in fact. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080221015317AAxLtH3

Comment Re:Misunderstanding evolution (Score 1) 337

Spikes cost more than smooth bark to grow and maintain. Lets say a rabbit developed spikes to ward off wolves. Then the wolves disappeared. The rabbit would likely go back to a state without spikes. Eventually the non-spike rabbits would breed more and faster due to the lesser energy requirements of simply being small and fast opposed to the cost of the body creating hard, pointy spikes.

Its the same principle why we walk on two feet, it requires less energy than walking on four legs. And growing thick pelts of thin hairs as opposed to a solid pelt of fur is why we have the hair we have now. And now that we don't need the hair, its giving way to baldness.

These trees feel they are still being attacked by something or the non-spiked trees are being destroyed by some force of nature.

500 years is enough time for some change to be noticed.

Comment Re:Clever Modding (Score 1) 337

The appendix is now thought to contain cultures of healthy bacteria so when you have diarrhea, the body can quickly replenish those bacteria afterwards. In developed nations like America the appendix is not as important as in third-world countries. If you removed the appendix of a Honduran, they might die after having a bout of diarrhea from the food they find in the landfills. So if the appendix was evolved out, it'd happen in the developed countries first.

Though that's unlikely, everyone gets has the runs every now and then. And I bet we lose our hair, wisdom teeth, and little finger before we lose the appendix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Maintaining_gut_flora
http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20071012/appendix-may-have-purpose

Comment Re:One idea... (Score 1) 390

No one phases out money. Ever. Toll roads are made as such with the idea that eventually they will be free. And practically every time, the public just about have to rip the money machines out with their bare hands. "Two year contract, then its month to month!" "Oh, you broke your phone? We'd love you sell you a new one. Two more years!" "What? Upgrade your minutes so you give us more money? Two more years!" Actually, this has gone away, but as with toll roads, only have people bitched en masse. But the point stands. Money, not nukes, will end the world. Ironically, though, by a nuke bought with money.

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...