Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 640

"I consider them as alpha predators, just as I wrote, an opinion shared by many. If you domake a distinction between super predators and alpha predators, it is usually based on whether you define it as what a human does without the technology, we have developed, or with it." Without technology we are actually pretty low on the food chain altogether. That would mean no rocks, pointy sticks, or traps.

Indeed. But tell me, exactly how many humans are out there today, competing against other animals with only their bare hands? Making force amplifying tools is such an inherent part of what we do, that your completly unarmed human doesn't exist - at leaast as far as I know.

There are numerous predators in every climate on Earth that could kill us in that case. For that matter most large prey creatures could. We aren't particularly strong, we have no claws, and no teeth.

Which is why to me the argument over alpha predation is silly. Silly to the point that when a human is caught by another predator like a bear or lion, it makes worlwide news. One person out of 7 some billion. Because being completely unarmed is an unnatural state for humans. We have so many tools at our disposal.

We don't even reproduce quickly enough to have the advantage of being disposable individually and numbers.

That's because we traded off the make a million of us per female, and hope some survive, for our big brains and ability to use them. You don't produce intelligent beings by using teh reproduction strategy of locusts or coral.

Without tool usage and organization aka technology the only advantage we really have is that in almost every other species being our size would indicate something far stronger than we are so predators would be inclined to go after what they think would be easier prey but I think that advantage would quickly disappear as predators discovered how weak and easy prey we are (without tools).

But the tools are as integral a part of humanity as every other physical aspect. Few adult humans would, if set in a wilderness situation, not start immediately to build devices in order to survive, to catch food and defend ourselves. I certainly would. I'd start with caveman stuff and work my way upwards.

For the rest. Has it ever occurred to you that I am not ignorant and that I simply disagree with the common assessment and find it to be ignorant and dated?

That's because your assessment is just wrong. You take the ultimate end of living things, and make the process that degernerate them and return their building blocks to nature the alpha predators. This not only turns the concept of predation inside out, but also classifies scavenging as predation. It's pointless, because now that a worm is considered an alpha predator, an actual predator must be reclassified as something else, because predators do not gain their nutrients that way.

That your definition of death may simply be a bit unimaginative in my assessment?

After conversing with you, I can understand that you have a hellava lot more imagination than 99.9 percent of the human race. Imagining things does not make them correct.

This concept is old, it views the world on a very macro scale and further arrogantly assumes that macro is more important than micro simply because we've largely dominated macro.

That's because there are both macro and micro scales. I have no idea why you would consider classification of two different scalse as arrogance. It's a way to classifiy things. It was developed in way of explaining the world and how it operates.

Who are we to assume that being beneath (too small for) somethings notice makes one less significant than being above (too large for) somethings notice?

We're the people who make up the classification systems. One is limited by their viewpoint. If a blowfly that lays eggs on a corpse to generate maggots that eat the corpses and return the elements they are compsed of to the earth wishes, they can come up with a classification method. Its all good.

Eating is nothing more than breaking down the components of a thing and if a thing is not broken down that thing is not truely dead as it may well be possible to revive it.

Holy shit!

at least it likely would be without the organisms you assess as being at the bottom of the food chain eating them first. To say they are not killing those creatures, including humans, is akin to saying you aren't killing if you take the life of someone who is unconcious or could survive with medical attention. These organisms are doing just that and it is they who deal the true death blow and they do it to eat which is predatory.

Ohhhhhhkay, I'll just note that once a living organism dies, it reaches a point where it really cannot be revived, and before any organisms get to it to start decomposing. As the organs fail, toxins are produced that render them incapable of supporting life. This is not some sort of process where the soul just leaves a nice corpse, just waiting to pop another soul into it.

Regardless, you acn always edit the Wikipedia pages and argue with people in the field. This has just gone a little weird for my taste. This is starting to resemble a Family Guy situation where the dog and Stewie are stoned and talk about strange shit..... And here we go!

Comment Insufficiently Realistic (Score 3, Insightful) 87

Until the dolls literally spray genuine, authentic baby shit and vomit on you in the middle of the night, they are going to be inadequate to the task of dissuading girls from wanting to make babies.

If you can't actually fill them with a truly realistic substitute for unwanted infant fluids, they're worthless.

Comment Re:Followed by: (Score 1) 422

I think scientists can make some larger statements on the impacts. No one can tell you what exactly it would be like at any particular location, But what you're doing is exaggerating the amount of uncertainty, and then trying to defend warming trends by invoking even less certain predictions. It's hard not to see how you aren't just being a contrarian simply because you don't like the answers science can provide.

When rain belts shift northward in North America, arid conditions will begin to become the norm in large parts of the American Midwest, and that will mean American food security will become, at some point over the next century so, one of the most serious issues the US has ever had to face. And this isn't a matter if whether it will happen or not, the debate is over WHEN it will happen.

Pumping vast amounts of formerly sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere is just plain bad. We should be moving at all speed to alternative energy sources, and either leaving the oil and coal in the ground, or finding some other use for it that doesn't involve releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

Comment Re: Followed by: (Score 1) 422

You do understand, I trust, that different countries have different birth rates, right, so while one country may have a very high birth rate, another country may have a very low one. You know, how Japan's population is shrinking, and India's is growing?

It often makes me wonder if being a political partisan either causes stupidity, or political partisans are just inherently stupid people.

Comment Re:chain of custody (Score 1) 75

Well it's interesting since the iDevices don't store a fingerprint. They store a hash of the results of a fingerprint sensor. It's not like they can reconstruct a real fingerprint and send it to the FBI. For it to be useful in a forensic sense it the perp would have to put her finger on an 'Apple fingerprint hash device' whose internals were open enough to satisfy a well heeled defense team and Apple use the device to say this person was or was not the person who fingered the phone at a certain time. Sounds like a lot of hassle to go through for Apple just to add a bit of evidence to a criminal case for a couple hundred dollar device with a cracked screen.

Also sounds pretty clunky for a misdemeanor theft case. Mostly, police departments would like you to just talk to your insurance company and forget the phone.

Comment Re:Even pros don't tinker with every possible menu (Score 1) 156

Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem.

How does this excuse having a terrible interface?

You only think it's terrible because you don't need what it does. If you did, then you would think it's a great interface, because it does what you need. This is how I can tell you don't need a DSLR. You need a simplified, Fisher-Price camera. Sometimes those are great, and I have one. When I am just taking snapshots, that's what I use, because it is simple and good and small and light. I don't use the DSLR at all unless I need something it's got that the super zoom doesn't, like RAW. It doesn't have any more lens.

Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands.

So make the settings that need to be changed fast easy to change fast.

Yes, that's what they have done. You're just seeing settings you don't need to change and thinking about how inconvenient all those settings are for you, because you think the universe revolves around your balls.

There are a lot of features you could not possibly change faster than the time it takes to pull out a cell phone that given that they are buried in a menu somewhere.

You are completely incorrect. No camera has more than three or four levels of menus and I can navigate a menu structure like that much faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket. I may not have a spare hand at all, so the phone might not be an option at all. I can work my phone menus with one hand. I cannot work the phone and the camera at the same time with one hand.

Your solutions are dumb because they make the situation more complicated. All cameras will eventually have fancy-pants multitouch displays and then there will be absolutely no benefit whatsoever to phone interfaces. In the interim, that kind of functionality is of use only to a subset of users. If a brand did what you describe then the professionals would go elsewhere and the company would rapidly gain a reputation for making toys and then go away.

Comment Re: Congrats Linus (Score 1) 87

Likely, for Linux to be good, it needs to be good. How Linus is, and how he operates, determine to a large extent what Linux is. In other worlds, you need to encourage Linus to keep being himself to preserve Linux - he can't be some other politically correct moron and still achieve what he did. Just like Steve Jobs, Einstein and many ither geniuses, just learn to accept that you cannot get it both, and for good reason. Btw, I really like how Linus leads, a lot. Should be worth 75 Hardvard case studies if not more.

This should be at +5 and quickly! The innovators of great note are not wired for political correctness.

Slashdot Top Deals

He's dead, Jim.