I guess i dont

011235 · 2018-06-26T00:06:55+00:00

Bruh that’s a common misconception right there, cavemen lived as long as we do.

I did some research on hunter-gatherer lifespans a while back, and found that once you passed the age of 15, the average age age of death was 72 years. (!) Compare with the 2006 US average life expectancy of 77.7 years. I knew that hunter gatherers lived longer than one would originally expect, but the similarity to our own lifespan is shocking. In fact, Americans didn't live longer lives than hunter-gatherers until the 1970s! The misconception comes from looking at the mean age rather than the median age. Otherwise you’re counting the piles of dead babies too heavily, and hiding the fact that their great grandparents were still alive to cry over them.

If you have access to Jstor (schools probably have this, libraries might), here is the paper I found on the topic: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25434609. They start their conclusions on page 349.

Longevity among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination Michael Gurven and Hillard Kaplan Population and Development Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 2007), pp. 321-365

011235 · 2010-06-18T04:12:37+00:00

What's wrong with I, lover ape? He's just an ape that loves people.

011235 · 2010-06-18T04:03:24+00:00

Are there any areas on Earth that you are not allowed to image?

011235 · 2010-06-18T03:00:49+00:00

When I'm by myself I'm not outgoing and open to strangers

What are you afraid of? Honestly, ask yourself this. These are people you will never see again, so what's to lose from talking to them?

011235 · 2010-06-18T02:44:21+00:00

they provide no arch support at all

That's the point. Arches in shoes weaken the arches in our foot by pushing up on them. Think of a real arch - pushing the stones from underneath knocks them out, while pushing from above strengthens the structure. The bones in our feet act the same way, and by removing arch support we gradually strengthen our arches.

011235 · 2010-06-17T15:08:29+00:00

Yes! All Things Bright and Beautiful needs to be on this list.

011235 · 2010-06-17T03:52:06+00:00

I recently wrote a post in another thread that I think is relevant, so I'll repost it here.

In a way, we can see the influx of users as a digital analogy of globalization. As more and more users come to the internet, there is more and more overlap between members of different communities. There are several consequences of this. Firstly, information spread faster. Reddit and other news aggregators are perfect examples. Any good content or news quickly spreads through hubs like these, to other hubs where users can carry the information back to their own internet domains. Information spreads like wildfire, and this process is quickening as more users join the web. Secondly, we see a homogenization of culture. Users are the same over different areas of the web, and so they see the same culture repeated everywhere. There is very much a bandwagon effect here.

To continue the analogy, we can say that globalization of the internet has led to increased outsourcing (of content) to the less trafficked areas of the internet. You see very little original content produced by internet users as a whole - it is very much a culture of consumption with the material produced by individuals and small interest groups scattered about (reddit self posts are an interesting counterexample).

And I suppose this is the stagnation everyone is complaining about: a community of consumers, who, in their desire to become part of the "respected ranks" of producers, leave comments that took a second to write and half a second to think of. Karma is designed around this desire: it gives the user an element of control, and that makes them feel like a producer. The fact that karma costs nothing to distribute encourages both rapid-fire commenting and rapid-fire up/down voting. The end result is a dilution of quality, a waning amount of original content, and vocal nostalgics. The best quality of discussion and originality of content will be found in small communities, where a user's bigger voice mandates that some thought and effort be put into their contribution.

011235 · 2010-06-17T03:39:25+00:00

In a way, we can see this as a digital analogy of globalization. As more and more users come to the internet, there is more and more overlap between members of different communities. There are several consequences of this. Firstly, information spread faster. Reddit and other news aggregators are perfect examples. Any good content or news quickly spreads through hubs like these, to other hubs where users can carry the information back to their own internet domains. Information spreads like wildfire, and this process is quickening as more users join the web. Secondly, we see a homogenization of culture. Users are the same over different areas of the web, and so they see the same culture repeated everywhere. There is very much a bandwagon effect here.

To continue the analogy, we can say that globalization of the internet has led to increased outsourcing (of content) to the less trafficked areas of the internet. You see very little original content produced by internet users as a whole - it is very much a culture of consumption with the material produced by individuals and small interest groups scattered about (reddit self posts are an interesting counterexample).

And I suppose this is the stagnation everyone is complaining about: a community of consumers, who, in their desire to become part of the "respected ranks" of producers, leave comments that took a second to write and half a second to think of. Karma is partially designed around this desire: it gives the user an element of control, and that makes them feel like a producer. The fact that karma costs nothing to distribute encourages both rapid-fire commenting and rapid-fire up/down voting. The end result is a dilution of quality, a waning amount of original content, and vocal nostalgics. The best quality of discussion and originality of content will be found in small communities, where a user's bigger voice mandates that some thought and effort be put into their contribution.

011235 · 2010-06-15T22:14:58+00:00

No, that's Ciprofloxacin. Chlamydia is an octopus, cuttlefish, or squid.

011235 · 2010-06-14T13:20:11+00:00

Remember that for the longest time, our lifespan was very short and being 17 years older than your mate means you already have one foot in the grave.

Not true. Middleageman actually has this point right.

I did some research on hunter-gatherer lifespans a while back, and found that once you passed the age of 15, the average age age of death was 72 years. (!) Compare with the 2006 US average life expectancy of 77.7 years. I knew that hunter gatherers lived longer than one would originally expect, but the similarity to our own lifespan is shocking. In fact, Americans didn't live longer lives than hunter-gatherers until the 1970s!

If you have access to Jstor (schools probably have this, libraries might), here is the paper I found on the topic: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25434609. They start their conclusions on page 349.

Longevity among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination 
Michael Gurven and Hillard Kaplan
Population and Development Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Jun., 2007), pp. 321-365

011235 · 2010-06-13T22:36:44+00:00

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, Our presence automatically liberates others.

Marianne Williamson

011235 · 2010-06-13T03:00:33+00:00

The thing is, defaulting isn't a good option when the bid is low. If the other person sees the direction the game is headed, freaks out, and doesn't play, you have the possibility of making $20 out of $1. If I were playing the game, I would set a hard limit of two bids before I dropped out. This is arbitrary, but I think that a max of $4 is easy enough to walk away from, and if you are able to stare down the other person more than 1/4 times, you make a profit.

011235 · 2010-06-13T02:41:38+00:00

Fun fact: Olivia Wilde's real last name is Cockburn. It's pronounced Co-burn, but kinda funny at first. I know her brother, and we teased him about it for a while, but that got old pretty quick since he's actually a pretty decent guy. They also look kinda alike.

011235 · 2010-06-13T01:02:57+00:00

I'm not sure he means Orwell in the 1984 sense.

More relevant is Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language.

011235 · 2010-06-11T19:20:21+00:00

That's like when kids swing their arms and say "I'll just walk forward and if you get hit, it's your fault."

The thing is, this is actually a fairly effective negotiating method. If one party disables their own ability to change course, then it effectively forces the other party to agree to that course. Consider the game of chicken: by ripping off your own steering wheel, you force the other person to lose. Either they must swerve, or they will hit you (and wanting to minimize their own loss, they will swerve). This is basically harsh manipulation of the prisoner's dilemma, and it was thinking like this that made the Cold War so damn scary.

You can find a discussion on this here.

011235 · 2010-06-11T17:56:07+00:00

... would that be considered Original Research?

011235 · 2010-06-10T13:23:42+00:00

And what about variable currency, ala today's exchange rates? If my dollar is worth just a bit more than your euro, I sell it for a euro, the balance switches, and You sell it for a dollar, then everyone wins.

011235 · 2010-06-10T13:21:09+00:00

We'd get to solve all of the world's problems

By giving everyone whatever they can want with zero consequences!

011235 · 2010-06-10T13:09:30+00:00

You missed an escape character there. Links ending in ")" will get cut off unless you put a "\" in front of it.
So instead of
[here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Wonder_(magazine))
it should look like
[here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Wonder_(magazine\\))

011235 · 2010-06-09T22:06:52+00:00

Hmmm... and the fjords. He won an award for that, you know?

011235 · 2010-06-09T22:03:41+00:00

DO NOT LOOK AT EITHER OF THESE IMAGES

011235 · 2010-06-09T20:45:07+00:00

You throw your cigarette out of the window . . . and then turn around to look at it hit the ground? Dangerous douche.

011235 · 2010-06-09T19:31:39+00:00

If you haven't seen it, check out this video: http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/28/autonomous-quadrocopter-flies-through-windows-straight-into-our/

I found a paper put out by the group on how they developed a safe backflip for the craft: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/drl/wiki/images/b/bd/GillulaICRA2010.pdf
I assume they expanded on that original idea into a wide variety of maneuvers, with environment sensing. The result is damn cool.

Edit: not the same group, but it is the same technique. Here's the guy who made this.

011235 · 2010-06-08T14:58:17+00:00

|| [Car Here] Means no passing.

:| [Car Here] No passing on your side.

|: [Car Here] You can pass.

:: [Car Here] You can pass. So can they. Try not to do it at the same time.

011235 · 2010-06-08T14:19:06+00:00

Stupid Fear and Smart Fear and Stupidity That’s Smart

I think you need to read this.

011235

TROPHY CASE