|
On December 08 2013 03:21 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2013 23:05 NukeD wrote:
Is it possible to prove that you dont die if you teleport yourself? As in the teleported you wont be just a perfect clone?
Why are gamers obsessed with cats and zombies? Pretty sure people on the net like cats (as opposed to dogs) because you have to go for a walk with dogs and all that while cats just do their own thing, which just so happens to overlap with a nerds increased affinity to not go outside. Follow up question, are catgirls a thing because people are obsessed with cats or is it the other way around?
Cats also tend to be more curious, leading to more frequent comedic antics.
|
On December 08 2013 02:03 3FFA wrote:
Which chess piece has the most occurrences of being bit?
I'd say pawns, simply because there are a lot more of those.
My theory is that in the vast majority of cases where a chess piece gets bit, the biter just grabs one at random and bites it. Probably because the biter is a cat, a dog, a baby, someone who just doesn't care. If we go with this theory, statistics clearly show that pawns get bitten the most, even if we compensate for larger pieces being more prone to being randomly grabbed. So unless a king is 8 times more likely to get bitten then a pawn, the pawn wins (or loses if you don't like being bit)
|
is marineking gay?
User was warned for this post
|
What could humanity achieve if there were no wars, money greed, religion, fanaticism, political games and if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research?
|
On December 08 2013 07:52 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 02:03 3FFA wrote:
Which chess piece has the most occurrences of being bit? I'd say pawns, simply because there are a lot more of those. My theory is that in the vast majority of cases where a chess piece gets bit, the biter just grabs one at random and bites it. Probably because the biter is a cat, a dog, a baby, someone who just doesn't care. If we go with this theory, statistics clearly show that pawns get bitten the most, even if we compensate for larger pieces being more prone to being randomly grabbed. So unless a king is 8 times more likely to get bitten then a pawn, the pawn wins (or loses if you don't like being bit)
I am not sure that the 8 pawns makes it 8 times more likely to be bit. You say that the average biter probably doesn't care much, and I agree with you on that, but I still think there is some subconscious selection going on in our/the cats/dogs mind. A pawn just isn't as inviting to bite as other pieces imo, such as a good tall queen or king.
We should also bear in mind that the pawns tend to be in the middle of the board, while many biters (such as dogs and cats) will be tending to bite more from the side/bottom of the board.
|
On December 08 2013 08:17 fabiano wrote:
What could humanity achieve if there were no wars, money greed, religion, fanaticism, political games and if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research?
Your question isn't stupid for the thread man, that sort of thing deserves its own thread. 
|
On December 08 2013 08:17 fabiano wrote:
What could humanity achieve if there were no wars, money greed, religion, fanaticism, political games and if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research?
Nothing, because without competition or greed, most people get very complacent.
|
On December 08 2013 08:47 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 08:17 fabiano wrote:
What could humanity achieve if there were no wars, money greed, religion, fanaticism, political games and if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research?
Nothing, because without competition or greed, most people get very complacent.
WIN
|
On December 08 2013 08:17 fabiano wrote:
What could humanity achieve if there were no wars, money greed, religion, fanaticism, political games and if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research?
If those things stopped right here and right now, and nothing else?
Well, no wars would lead to overpopulation. People all over the world are pooping out many kids, and the number of resources isn't growing, or at least isn't growing as fast. War is actually caused by population pressure - every single war, even the Crusades, can be traced to people getting too cramped for comfort. So I guess without the safety valve of war, we'd get more homosexuals or something.
No greed means no innovation. Note that greed isn't technically a bad thing - people innovate because they have a monetary incentive, and people climb the social ladder because of the monetary incentive. The creation and spread of anything from the automobile to whatever iPhone app your ditzy Facebook friend is playing this week was made by someone who wanted to make some cash, and put out something useful, or at least something that many other people want. Without that drive for money, there's no need to create new technology.
No religion doesn't change much. There's no bible belters, but they might as well devote themselves to a fundamental understanding of The God Delusion and not look past whatever is in that text. Technically wouldn't be a religion. It wouldn't be unless some sort of law sanctions it - like Scientology is not a religion in Germany, but rather termed as a manipulative cult. And militant atheists are just as problematic as militant fundamentalists, so you get rid of one devil (no pun intended) and put in another.
But then you take out fanaticism, so we can't be worshipping Dawkins anymore. Where does fanaticism begin? What differs passion from it? Is patriotism fanaticism? How about nationalism? Strong love for close friends and family?
Why would we want to take out political games? I hear Obama plays a mean round of Monopoly from time to time.
In all seriousness, politicians are only a reflection of the people that elect them. I can't tell you what would happen without political maneuvering because there has never been a plausible real-world situation without it. We can look to the USSR, for example, for the removal of greed and religion - was replaced with stagnation, rationing scarce resources, and devotion to the state instead of to God. We can look to the 1900's for a time when people tried to abolish war in Europe, and the stress became so great that we got a huge war whose repercussions have permanently impacted the rest of the future, down to the present. There's no precedent for lack of political maneuvering, and virtually every government in recorded history has had some kind of jockeying or under-the-table doings.
With the removal of greed, any extreme devotion to any cause like a god or a country, no political maneuvering (say, the US trying to assert superiority over China), there would be no reason to make any significant advances in technology or research. Maybe we would invent a holodeck or some sort of dopamine release system and just excite ourselves to death.
|
In all seriousness, politicians are only a reflection of the people that elect them.
I disagree with this. In all truthfulness, most of the voters are voting because of what they think the politician represents and who they think he/she is. It isn't rare that what voters thought of the politician from what they were spoon fed turned out to be just a lie to get into the position or that the politician gets the power and suddenly starts acting entirely differently from how he acted when he was running for the position(multiple factors can cause this).
|
what are your general rule of thumbs regarding financial security planning?
|
On December 08 2013 09:32 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 08:17 fabiano wrote:
What could humanity achieve if there were no wars, money greed, religion, fanaticism, political games and if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research?
If those things stopped right here and right now, and nothing else? Well, no wars would lead to overpopulation. People all over the world are pooping out many kids, and the number of resources isn't growing, or at least isn't growing as fast. War is actually caused by population pressure - every single war, even the Crusades, can be traced to people getting too cramped for comfort. So I guess without the safety valve of war, we'd get more homosexuals or something. No greed means no innovation. Note that greed isn't technically a bad thing - people innovate because they have a monetary incentive, and people climb the social ladder because of the monetary incentive. The creation and spread of anything from the automobile to whatever iPhone app your ditzy Facebook friend is playing this week was made by someone who wanted to make some cash, and put out something useful, or at least something that many other people want. Without that drive for money, there's no need to create new technology. No religion doesn't change much. There's no bible belters, but they might as well devote themselves to a fundamental understanding of The God Delusion and not look past whatever is in that text. Technically wouldn't be a religion. It wouldn't be unless some sort of law sanctions it - like Scientology is not a religion in Germany, but rather termed as a manipulative cult. And militant atheists are just as problematic as militant fundamentalists, so you get rid of one devil (no pun intended) and put in another. But then you take out fanaticism, so we can't be worshipping Dawkins anymore. Where does fanaticism begin? What differs passion from it? Is patriotism fanaticism? How about nationalism? Strong love for close friends and family? Why would we want to take out political games? I hear Obama plays a mean round of Monopoly from time to time. In all seriousness, politicians are only a reflection of the people that elect them. I can't tell you what would happen without political maneuvering because there has never been a plausible real-world situation without it. We can look to the USSR, for example, for the removal of greed and religion - was replaced with stagnation, rationing scarce resources, and devotion to the state instead of to God. We can look to the 1900's for a time when people tried to abolish war in Europe, and the stress became so great that we got a huge war whose repercussions have permanently impacted the rest of the future, down to the present. There's no precedent for lack of political maneuvering, and virtually every government in recorded history has had some kind of jockeying or under-the-table doings. With the removal of greed, any extreme devotion to any cause like a god or a country, no political maneuvering (say, the US trying to assert superiority over China), there would be no reason to make any significant advances in technology or research. Maybe we would invent a holodeck or some sort of dopamine release system and just excite ourselves to death.
I think you missed the last part "if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research". I understood it as what would ahppen if people actually worked. 
|
On December 08 2013 09:38 3FFA wrote:Show nested quote +In all seriousness, politicians are only a reflection of the people that elect them. I disagree with this. In all truthfulness, most of the voters are voting because of what they think the politician represents and who they think he/she is. It isn't rare that what voters thought of the politician from what they were spoon fed turned out to be just a lie to get into the position or that the politician gets the power and suddenly starts acting entirely differently from how he acted when he was running for the position(multiple factors can cause this).
I don't mean politicians' plans and motives are exactly those of who elect them, but rather the inadequacies of politicians reflects apathy of voters.
Especially in the US. Many people vote for a party because their family supports the party or their area supports the party and then they just piggyback on the issues that the party promotes. This is why Congress has like 18% approval rating and the re-election rate is about 98%. The shittiness of politicians simply represents (many, not all) people's inability to care.
It's not even hard to discern in most cases. Nearly every interview on the news where some senator is being asked questions about his stances on controversial issues, the senator shifts the conversation away every time the question is brought up. It's ridiculously transparent if you look for it.
|
On December 08 2013 09:56 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 09:32 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On December 08 2013 08:17 fabiano wrote:
What could humanity achieve if there were no wars, money greed, religion, fanaticism, political games and if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research?
If those things stopped right here and right now, and nothing else? Well, no wars would lead to overpopulation. People all over the world are pooping out many kids, and the number of resources isn't growing, or at least isn't growing as fast. War is actually caused by population pressure - every single war, even the Crusades, can be traced to people getting too cramped for comfort. So I guess without the safety valve of war, we'd get more homosexuals or something. No greed means no innovation. Note that greed isn't technically a bad thing - people innovate because they have a monetary incentive, and people climb the social ladder because of the monetary incentive. The creation and spread of anything from the automobile to whatever iPhone app your ditzy Facebook friend is playing this week was made by someone who wanted to make some cash, and put out something useful, or at least something that many other people want. Without that drive for money, there's no need to create new technology. No religion doesn't change much. There's no bible belters, but they might as well devote themselves to a fundamental understanding of The God Delusion and not look past whatever is in that text. Technically wouldn't be a religion. It wouldn't be unless some sort of law sanctions it - like Scientology is not a religion in Germany, but rather termed as a manipulative cult. And militant atheists are just as problematic as militant fundamentalists, so you get rid of one devil (no pun intended) and put in another. But then you take out fanaticism, so we can't be worshipping Dawkins anymore. Where does fanaticism begin? What differs passion from it? Is patriotism fanaticism? How about nationalism? Strong love for close friends and family? Why would we want to take out political games? I hear Obama plays a mean round of Monopoly from time to time. In all seriousness, politicians are only a reflection of the people that elect them. I can't tell you what would happen without political maneuvering because there has never been a plausible real-world situation without it. We can look to the USSR, for example, for the removal of greed and religion - was replaced with stagnation, rationing scarce resources, and devotion to the state instead of to God. We can look to the 1900's for a time when people tried to abolish war in Europe, and the stress became so great that we got a huge war whose repercussions have permanently impacted the rest of the future, down to the present. There's no precedent for lack of political maneuvering, and virtually every government in recorded history has had some kind of jockeying or under-the-table doings. With the removal of greed, any extreme devotion to any cause like a god or a country, no political maneuvering (say, the US trying to assert superiority over China), there would be no reason to make any significant advances in technology or research. Maybe we would invent a holodeck or some sort of dopamine release system and just excite ourselves to death. I think you missed the last part "if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research". I understood it as what would ahppen if people actually worked.
Well everything would be fine and dandy, sure, but by removing all the aforementioned factors, it would be even more difficult to get people to work for human advancement than it is right now.
|
On December 08 2013 08:20 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 07:52 Simberto wrote:On December 08 2013 02:03 3FFA wrote:
Which chess piece has the most occurrences of being bit? I'd say pawns, simply because there are a lot more of those. My theory is that in the vast majority of cases where a chess piece gets bit, the biter just grabs one at random and bites it. Probably because the biter is a cat, a dog, a baby, someone who just doesn't care. If we go with this theory, statistics clearly show that pawns get bitten the most, even if we compensate for larger pieces being more prone to being randomly grabbed. So unless a king is 8 times more likely to get bitten then a pawn, the pawn wins (or loses if you don't like being bit) I am not sure that the 8 pawns makes it 8 times more likely to be bit. You say that the average biter probably doesn't care much, and I agree with you on that, but I still think there is some subconscious selection going on in our/the cats/dogs mind. A pawn just isn't as inviting to bite as other pieces imo, such as a good tall queen or king. We should also bear in mind that the pawns tend to be in the middle of the board, while many biters (such as dogs and cats) will be tending to bite more from the side/bottom of the board.
Hm.
One more thing to keep in mind is that pawns are usually the first to die. Now, i am not in a chess club or anything, does the relation between pawns and other pieces change over the time of a game? One thing this means is that it favors kings, because at any point during a game there are always 2 kings on the board, but other characters become less and less. This means that there is practically no chance that a queen is getting bit more often then a king.
I agree that the chance that one specific pawn gets bit is less then for any other piece on the board, but as said, there are a lot more of them then of any other piece on the board, so for any other piece to surpass them on a just set-up board, it would have to be 4-8 times more enticing to bite then a pawn.
Without quantitative tests, we have reached an impassé here where we are more or less idly speculating without any way to reach an actual conclusion.
|
On December 08 2013 08:17 fabiano wrote:
What could humanity achieve if there were no wars, money greed, religion, fanaticism, political games and if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research?
They would only be able to achieve everything said before "making us all advance in all relevant fields of research" with all relevant fields of research already advanced far beyond the level they are currently.
|
On December 08 2013 09:32 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2013 08:17 fabiano wrote:
What could humanity achieve if there were no wars, money greed, religion, fanaticism, political games and if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research?
If those things stopped right here and right now, and nothing else? Well, no wars would lead to overpopulation. People all over the world are pooping out many kids, and the number of resources isn't growing, or at least isn't growing as fast. War is actually caused by population pressure - every single war, even the Crusades, can be traced to people getting too cramped for comfort. So I guess without the safety valve of war, we'd get more homosexuals or something.
This is actually not true. Apart from black Africa, Afghanistan, New Zealand and Israel, all countries have a fertility rate lower than 2,1. Don't let you fool by the human growth data. These are merely caused by advances in medical supply and lead to people living longer, but not more people in the end. Actually I think destabilization through lack of young people will be one of the main problems in the future.
So either we invent some radical new medical technology or we make more babies.
On December 08 2013 09:32 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
No religion doesn't change much. There's no bible belters, but they might as well devote themselves to a fundamental understanding of The God Delusion and not look past whatever is in that text. Technically wouldn't be a religion. It wouldn't be unless some sort of law sanctions it - like Scientology is not a religion in Germany, but rather termed as a manipulative cult. And militant atheists are just as problematic as militant fundamentalists, so you get rid of one devil (no pun intended) and put in another.
But then you take out fanaticism, so we can't be worshipping Dawkins anymore. Where does fanaticism begin? What differs passion from it? Is patriotism fanaticism? How about nationalism? Strong love for close friends and family?
"worshiping Dawkins". What a nonsense. there is no church of dawkins. and nobody preaches to dawkins.
Or to put it more politely: it is highly debatable, because religion can be easily abused through "god wants X". It's quite hard for Atheism to create a common goal and redirect responsibility all at once.
|
Northern Ireland23723 Posts
On December 08 2013 08:17 fabiano wrote:
What could humanity achieve if there were no wars, money greed, religion, fanaticism, political games and if everyone worked towards making us all advance in all relevant fields of research?
Boredom I guess?
|
holy shit i just realized this is a thread from 2005
|
your Country52797 Posts
Why am I obsessed with bananas when I prefer apples?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
