Comment No problem... (Score 2, Insightful) 137
so long as we aren't responsible for it?
so long as we aren't responsible for it?
No, it did not say that other species practiced infanticide. It said that infanticide was much more detrimental to us (and what had evolved into us) due to the extended period of helplessness during infancy. Infanticide was much too expensive for us than it is for lions and such.
The more demanding infant seems like all the more reason for an interloping male to kill it. The argument does not seem convincing, to me.
What is says is that monogamy hasn't evolved in other species because they don't practice infanticide.
What I was thinking when I posted was of all the nature documentaries where a male adopts a new female into his "harem" and promptly kills her young. A few weeks ago I saw a somewhat unnerving film of a zebra doing that, picking up the foal by the neck with his teeth, and bashing him down onto the ground. I believe lots of other species do it too, and I've seen films of several.
why it hasn't evolved in lots of other species.
A centrally planned economy? I'm surprised the libertardians didn't climb all over you.
Notice that I said "If we want". I know there is strong disagreement about such things on Slashdot, and I didn't want that issue to distract from the points I was trying to make.
The "Slashdot effect" affects the referenced site.
The "Slashdot affect" is pretending to be a Slashdotter.
1) Read the titles since they're like headlines.
2) If the title is interesting, read the summary.
3) If the sumary is interesting, read the comments.
4) If the summary is REALLY interesting read the article, then read the comments.
5) If the summary is REALLY, REALLY interesting [...]
You forgot:
0) Try to get a first post.
and goatse asci-art days are long gone.
Goatse ASCII art:
o
The summaries are just a suggestion.
Now I regret reading so many of them.
The private sector is currently in a race of its own to make getting to space more practical daily
I read an editorial with the last few days that took the view that the privatized space industry is nothing more than a hobby for starry-eyed billionaires who are willing to sink vast fortunes into it with no prospect of an actual ROI.
Is there actually an in-the-black economy out there, beyond communication satellites?
Yes, mining asteroids sounds like a nice plan. But much like flying cars, I do not see it happening any time soon. But fuck, it's great to talk about, isn't it?
NASA is trying to rationalize its existence. Most of the public isn't interested in progress in science, but the promise of money makes us drool.
Of course, any resulting money would go to whoever gets to market the metals, and the public would get nothing but the bill for bootstrapping it.
If we want the Federal government to boost the economy, we should think more top-down, and ask "where could we invest this amount of money to produce the most bang for the buck?". I'd be more in favor of policies that promote manufacturing, since our economy is rapidly converging toward nothing but flipping hamburgers and gambling on the stock market.
TFA is light on details as to *what* mineral would be mined and how it would all be economically viable.
I'm guessing that the stuff we're running short of would not be readily available in asteroids.
And bringing in an asteroid-load of other stuff might make the prices plummet, which might have a big impact on the economics of fetching it.
This is how they seduce us into sending pork to places with senior senators.
The asteroid belt?
Also not the same as the prestigious and perhaps more familiar National Academies, which consists of The National Academy of Science, The National Academy of Engineering, The Institute of Medicine, and The National Research Council.
What happens if you try it somewhere else?
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
