Freudian slip or deliberate?Shag-ri-La
Freudian slip or deliberate?Shag-ri-La
Can animals one day start advancing like us at their current intelligence levels?
you could tell me why you think so,
Not all animals take the same route in evolution I guess, but intelligence must be related to advancement, we have hands that are dexterous and a mind that is creative, allowing us to build tools that other animals can't, yet at the same time there are other animals which have similarly dexterous hands, build tools and don't quite have the intelligence we have, yet, like chimps, and they don't yet know how to build rockets, not saying that one day they must advance just like us humans, but intelligence must have a say in the way we have evolved don't you think? The ability to make up theories, and then find proof for it later, can less intelligent creatures do that? I don't think so, they may learn, but not like us.
There are a number of things "to be gained": a more polite discussion; the most minimal of contributions to a clear and organised debate; the respect of those you claim to respect in turn. It is a necessary element that allows each individual involved in a debate to see who it is that you are addressing. You might think that all evolutionists are the same person, but this is not so.
Moreover, while I don't recall any particular rule against it on SF, I do expect it falls into the more general requirements of a disciplined format that are, indeed, required on the forums and that it could be called misrepresentation if you begin a response with "[qu ote=X]" and then include a post later from Y without noting the source of their comment. If you don't start arranging your responses so that the various people involved in the debate can see who you're responding to, I will launch a complaint, as I shouldn't be expected to sift through your posts to see what it is I've written and haven't written, because my time is of value also. I don't know how much longer we have on this Earth, but if you don't start using proper address forms I could hazard some guesses as to how much longer you have on this site.
Or, is it rather that you hope to gain from the confusion? Are you here in the cause of honesty, or not? I would hope for the former.
This debate takes enough time as it is. It would take less time for you to recognize your own words (which is easy for me, I don't know about you) than it would for me to go back and check who said what. Plus, you are free to comment on my response to another person as you have.
Freudian slip or deliberate?
It is a matter of politeness and from a forum standpoint, avoids instances where you could attribute words or arguments to people who never wrote such words or made such arguments and thus, avoids flame wars, and threads being thrown off topic as people will naturally want to correct the obvious mistakes you would have been making. This would mean that the subject matter falls to the side and instead, the focus becomes who said what and when.This debate takes enough time as it is. It would take less time for you to recognize your own words (which is easy for me, I don't know about you) than it would for me to go back and check who said what. Plus, you are free to comment on my response to another person as you have.
Can they? Definitely. Will they? Probably not.Can animals one day start advancing like us at their current intelligence levels?
Can they? Definitely. Will they? Probably not.
No problem with nuclear waste:
After 10 or so years in "swimming pool" storage, as now, "glassify" the waste in disks about two feet in diameter and inch or two thick. (A surface to volume ratio high enough so self heating does not soften glass, or quartz if need be. Disk can have thin pure glass outer layer to stop non-gamma radiation. Water cooling could continue if needed during transport)
Then with automatic handling (avoiding gamma rays injury to people) load onto special boat with Aegis ships as escort for trip to deep ocean trench. The subduction zone just North of Puerto Rico is more than 8 miles deep. Automatic "hurler" like large version of the "clay pigeon" hurler used for shot gun practices, slings disk over the ship's stern to start their 100 or so million year trip deeper into the earth. Their shape will assure they rest initially in the bottom mud well separated from each other in a swath several miles wide even with launch rate of 1 per second.
Evolution is not a random process.Maybe, maybe not. Nothing prevents it or pushes it. Evolution is a random process. ....
Yes, Yes, No* & and thanks, I think so too.This sounds amazingly lucid. Would this really work? Is it a good idea? Is there a reference for this? I mean, given that this would be a good idea, it sounds fucking brilliant, Billy.
Well actually, evolution is the result of a series of mutations, which are generally caused by random events, often an error in the replication of a gene, caused by several kinds of perturbations, including cosmic rays.Evolution is not a random process.
Then I will lay in a complaint every time you mix responses from different people into the same post, you will probably accrue infraction points, and at some point you may find yourself getting short bans for infractions of site rules. I do not advise this - particularly not if, as you say, you find it easy to recognise my own words (your comment is bolded, above) despite your supposed time problems with the site (also bolded). If it's so easy for you to recognise my own words, then it should be no real additional trouble to identify them in a posting. I don't like other people putting words in my mouth, or assigning viewpoints to me that I don't myself endorse. That is false representation.
Thanks.
It is a matter of politeness and from a forum standpoint, avoids instances where you could attribute words or arguments to people who never wrote such words or made such arguments and thus, avoids flame wars, and threads being thrown off topic as people will naturally want to correct the obvious mistakes you would have been making. This would mean that the subject matter falls to the side and instead, the focus becomes who said what and when.
No one is asking you to address each sentence. If you are responding to a person, just type in their name and then perhaps hit enter twice on your keyboard and formulate your response. It takes no effort or time, is a more polite and correct way to address people and it will avoid threads being closed down because of off topic posts or huge fights. Normally if you are quoting their posts, then we would expect and it is more polite to have their name in a position that ensures readers who and what you are responding to. It makes for a more cohesive manner of discussion or debate.
If we find ourselves being inundated with reports because you fail at such basic levels of communication, which involves identifying who you are addressing, or if threads veer off topic as a result of your refusal to put names to who you are addressing or quoting, then you will end up facing moderation.
That's only part of it, natural selection is the other part, which is not random. Minor point, I'm sure you get it.Well actually, evolution is the result of a series of mutations, which are generally caused by random events, often an error in the replication of a gene, caused by several kinds of perturbations, including cosmic rays.
You misread. It is easy for people to recognize their own words. I'm not misrepresenting anything, when I reply I don't usually say who I'm responding to because I don't know myself. This is why there are no names in the quotes.
Yes, it would work. When it works.geoff said:This sounds amazingly lucid. Would this really work? Is it a good idea?
Well sure. But without the random events that provide the mutated genes, there would be nothing to select from.That's only part of it, natural selection is the other part, which is not random. Minor point, I'm sure you get it.
I disagree. Vitrification doesn't make waste safer or less radioactive; it just contains it. Thus if they screw up they will likely have to take the (just-as-hazardous) waste and do it again.Thing is: if your bottle maker screws up a batch, breaks down, has a small fire, you lose some money. If your nuke waste vitrification operation screws up, you might have to evacuate everyone for five miles around.
Depends on the nature of the screw-up. An explosion and fire in the intake facilities - the physical location to which hot waste from dozens of reactors all over the continent has been transported in various forms and by various means - might present certain difficulties in the "taking" of the waste. Or even the finding of it.billvon said:Vitrification doesn't make waste safer or less radioactive; it just contains it. Thus if they screw up they will likely have to take the (just-as-hazardous) waste and do it again.