quote:
Maradon! had this to say about John Romero:
it'd have to be a microscopic subdermal camera
That'd be pretty awesome, though.
quote:
Maradon! still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
it'd have to be a microscopic subdermal camera
What, you don't have one? And do you know what kind of alien craves sugar water and leaves a green spectral trail?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
You want weird? Try having a nosebleed with no blood. Sometimes the tissue in your nose can hemorrhage slightly below the surface of the skin (sort of like a bruise, but shallower in tissue depth). Blood never trickles out of your nose, but your body reads it as a bleeding wound and starts weeping the yellow-clear fluid. It oozes out and trickles out of your nose like a nosebleed but it's yellowish and clear. Very weird.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about (_|_):
What's grosser is when you get a massive nosebleed, and you pull out the gigantic, six-inch long clotted blood-booger. It's like a goddamned earthworm.
I've had that happen when I've had a wicked cold for a while. It's like a cork or a (and this is really gross) mucus plug.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Karnaj got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
What's grosser is when you get a massive nosebleed, and you pull out the gigantic, six-inch long clotted blood-booger. It's like a goddamned earthworm.
That's one of the reasons my sister has hated me for much of my life.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
How do you photograph a smell? That's like drawing dignity.Infinite technology from all over the universe and we drive around in a Ford P.O.S.
I meant the picture of Maradon punching himself.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Maradon!:
How do color blind people handle traffic lights?
hehe, I heard this come up once. They said they just know which is on top.
Would make for an interesting experience with the sideways ones, though.
quote:
So quoth Waisz:
hehe, I heard this come up once. They said they just know which is on top.Would make for an interesting experience with the sideways ones, though.
red top, yellow middle, green bottom. becomes red left yellow center green right (or the other way around, wahtever htat is) diadem fucked around with this message on 12-15-2004 at 07:53 PM.
now the problem comes when it's raining hard and you only see a light....
quote:
Karnaj stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
What's grosser is when you get a massive nosebleed, and you pull out the gigantic, six-inch long clotted blood-booger. It's like a goddamned earthworm.
I used to get those all the time before I got my nose fixed. God, those things are the worst.
The vacuum it creates as it comes out is the absolutely most uncomfortable feeling ever. I'd even cough them up on occasion if I swallowed too much, and nothing would get that taste out of your mouth.
It's not something people hear about.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Maradon!:
If nuns are "brides of God" does that make monks the husbands of God? Wouldn't that make God a bisexual?
Indeed it would.
A further consequence is that God flagrantly enjoys polygamy.
Who am I kidding... he won't. Maybe Satan will take him as a bride of Satan.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Why hasn't someone thought to clone a panda yet?
Actually, I was more thinking why someone hasn't cloned human beings yet.
I mean, let's say someone cloned me. Several times. Now, I decide to mercilessly kill all of the clones, possibly all at once, and harvest their organs and add them to my own body. With all of those organs, I'd be the healthiest guy alive!*
*May or may not have been inspired by Invader Zim.
quote:
So quoth Maradon!:
Why hasn't someone thought to clone a panda yet?
There's a "threshold point" for a race to have enough genetic diversity to survive safely. Giant pandas, last I heard, were skirting the edge of the threshold point. So there's a question if there's even a point to it.
The other thing is that, unique amongst ursines, Pandas have some freaky childrearing situations. Most bears have several cubs. Pandas have one. Most bears have cubs with hair of a decent size. Pandas have hairless little squalling, blind buggers the size of a human pinky finger.
Likewise, Pandas are notoriously difficult health-wise under the best of circumstances, much less when part of an experimental procedure.
All of this aside, I had heard they were considering saving the genetic material of tagged or rescued members of endangered species, just in case they could use it in the future to help the species as a whole. Given that you can't clone from just any cell, though, this seems far-fetched.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Maradon! painfully thought these words up:
Sounds like pandas were just a genetically inferior species that, by all rights, deserves to go extinct. I don't say it with any malice really, but the dodo died out under less dubious conditions.
Actually they were just highly specialized. Pandas feed primarily on a plant that only blooms every so often, in a very limited area of China. And prior to humans invading that area, cutting down the forests and otherwise ruining the setting which Pandas adapted to, there's no evidence that the giant panda was a species in decline. They were just perfectly balanced. And perched on that perfect balance, Mother Nature as she is apt to do, eventually bred out unnecessary adaptations that other ursines have retained.
So it was human alteration of the environment that negatively affected the pandas. On their own they were maintaining their numbers quite nicely. It's only been in the last 100 years or so that anyone really thought of pandas as more than the local bears, and only in the last 30 or so that anyone's seriously considered the fact they're being wiped out by human stupidity.
And for the record, dodos were wiped out because they hadn't evolved means of deflecting musketballs. Go figure.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
And for the record, dodos were wiped out because they hadn't evolved means of deflecting musketballs. Go figure.
I'm working on it.
I wonder what software Deep Blue was running when it beat Gary Kasparov.
quote:
We were all impressed when Maradon! wrote:
Overspecialization and an inability to adapt sounds like an inferior species to me. And dodos were also highly aggressive despite having no natural defensesI wonder what software Deep Blue was running when it beat Gary Kasparov.
Humans are the exact same way. The only difference is that our end product left us with brains that as a byproduct were capable of what we consider higher reasoning, at which point we started violating natural process (Darwinian Evolution, for instance)
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael said:
Humans are the exact same way. The only difference is that our end product left us with brains that as a byproduct were capable of what we consider higher reasoning, at which point we started violating natural process (Darwinian Evolution, for instance)
We are able to adapt and survive, however, and we are not violating natural process any more than ants that build an anthill. We're nothing more than a particularly successful result of natural process.
Pandas, evidently, cannot.
quote:I think he means that we've overridden natural selection by preserving people who could not function if left to their own devices.
See, your Maradon! means your hair. So technically it's true.
We are able to adapt and survive, however, and we are not violating natural process any more than ants that build an anthill. We're nothing more than a particularly successful result of natural process.
quote:
Maradon! wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
We are able to adapt and survive, however, and we are not violating natural process any more than ants that build an anthill. We're nothing more than a particularly successful result of natural process.Pandas, evidently, cannot.
Here we are, born to be kings.
WeÂ’re the princes of the universe.
Here we belong, fighting to survive.
In a world with the darkest powers.
And here we are, weÂ’re the princes of the universe.
Here we belong, fighting for survival.
WeÂ’ve come to be the rulers of your world.
I am immortal, I have inside me blood of kings.
I have no rival, no man can be my equal.
Take me to the future of your world.
Born to be kings, princes of the universe.
Fighting and free, got your world in my hand.
IÂ’m here for your love and IÂ’ll make my stand.
We were born to be princes of the universe.
No man could understand, my power is in my own hand.
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, people talk about you.
People say youÂ’ve had your day.
IÂ’m a man that will go far.
Fly the moon and reach for the stars.
With my sword and head held high.
Got to pass the test first time - yeah.
I know that people talk about me I hear it every day.
But I can prove you wrong cos IÂ’m right first time.
Yeah.yeah.alright, watch this man fly.
Bring on the girls.
Here we are, born to be kings, weÂ’re the princes of
The universe, here we belong, born to be kings.
Princes of the universe, fighting and free.
Got the world in my hands, IÂ’m here for your love.
And IÂ’ll make my stand.
We were born to be princes of the universe.
quote:
`Doc probably says this to all the girls:
I think he means that we've overridden natural selection by preserving people who could not function if left to their own devices.
I don't see how that's relevant, but even so, it's not true. We have not changed who survives, we have only changed the conditions for survival, which is something that happens endlessly in nature.
If there are lots of predators, a condition for survival will change to rapid breeding. If there is overpopulation and food becomes scarce, a condition for survival will change to energy conservation and slow metabolism. If there are lots of sluggish animals about and not a lot of vegetation, predation will become a condition for survival.
Same deal with humans.
quote:It sounds to me like you're talking about dwarves (one example), overweight people (a second example), people susceptible to infection (a third example), or serial killers (a fourth example). I'm referring more to people with impairments that make them completely incapable of functioning independently under any conditions. Like if you gave them fifty thousand dollars and a house stocked with a month's worth of food, then walked away, they'd live for less than a week.
Maradon! really knows where their towel is...
Same deal with humans.
I'm not saying we should change our pracices, because that's a separate moral issue. The fact remains, however, that we have essentially voided natural selection.
Of course, if you're still talking about animals despite quoting a post talking about people, that's different. We've changed the conditions required for the survival of, say, dogs or housecats or pandas. But when it comes to humans, at least in some places, the natural laws have been completely overridden by morality-based social laws.
quote:
This one time, at Maradon! camp:
I don't see how that's relevant, but even so, it's not true. We have not changed who survives, we have only changed the conditions for survival, which is something that happens endlessly in nature.If there are lots of predators, a condition for survival will change to rapid breeding. If there is overpopulation and food becomes scarce, a condition for survival will change to energy conservation and slow metabolism. If there are lots of sluggish animals about and not a lot of vegetation, predation will become a condition for survival.
Same deal with humans.
Stephen Hawking would survive in the wild? Blind people would get by okay?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
ACES! Another post by `Doc:
It sounds to me like you're talking about dwarves (one example), overweight people (a second example), people susceptible to infection (a third example), or serial killers (a fourth example). I'm referring more to people with impairments that make them completely incapable of functioning independently under any conditions. Like if you gave them fifty thousand dollars and a house stocked with a month's worth of food, then walked away, they'd live for less than a week.
Such people DO die out at an accelerated rate or, alternatly, more frequently fail to reproduce.
quote:
From the book of Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael, chapter 3, verse 16:
Stephen Hawking would survive in the wild? Blind people would get by okay?
What's "in the wild"? In a jungle or under the circumstances that animals survive under? No, certainly not, but remember: We changed the conditions for survival. Our conditions for survival are things like marketable skills, motivation, and social aptitude. People with these attributes frequently live longer and breed more frequently than people without them. True some rednecks breed like mad, but whether it seems like it or not, they also die like mad due to a lack of healthcare and exposure to dangerous situations. It's not a signifigant difference, but even among lesser mammals, natural selection is an extremely slow process taking place over hundreds of generations.
Natural selection is still very much at work in human society and at the same pace as in lesser species. All we did was change the conditions for survival.
quote:
`Doc had this to say about pies:
It sounds to me like you're talking about dwarves (one example), overweight people (a second example), people susceptible to infection (a third example), or serial killers (a fourth example). I'm referring more to people with impairments that make them completely incapable of functioning independently under any conditions. Like if you gave them fifty thousand dollars and a house stocked with a month's worth of food, then walked away, they'd live for less than a week.
Three seconds without internet,
Three minutes without air,
Three hours without shelter,
Three days without water,
Three weeks without food.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael said this:
Stephen Hawking would survive in the wild? Blind people would get by okay?
"In the wild" is not our habitat. Take away all our technology, and would you survive in the wild for long?
The idea that natural selection doesn't apply to us is laughable. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 12-23-2004 at 05:15 PM.
We obey the laws of natural selection, but our laws are different.
I could be wrong, I'm sure Pved will catch me if I am.
quote:
So quoth Vorbis:
It was my understanding that Darwinian Evolution (the survival of the fittest and all that jazz) was not too long ago corrected to be simply, "Those that reproduce survive"I could be wrong, I'm sure Pved will catch me if I am.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Plenty of things that reproduce don't survive.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about the Spice Girls:
We are able to adapt and survive, however, and we are not violating natural process any more than ants that build an anthill. We're nothing more than a particularly successful result of natural process.Pandas, evidently, cannot.
Actually, we just have a relatively general nieche, while pandas fill a very specific one, which was just fine for them until some bastard came along and cleared the bamboo forests. Keep in mind though, there aren't really superior and inferior species, only species that survive and those that do not. Soon it looks like the panda is to be one of those that do not, which is a shame.
When the environment changes out of our nieche, we won't fare any better than the pandas.
quote:
Vorbis had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
It was my understanding that Darwinian Evolution (the survival of the fittest and all that jazz) was not too long ago corrected to be simply, "Those that reproduce survive"I could be wrong, I'm sure Pved will catch me if I am.
Yes, but so is Maradon.
Consider this a placeholder post, I'll get back to you.
quote:
From the book of Pvednes, chapter 3, verse 16:
Actually, we just have a relatively general nieche, while pandas fill a very specific one, which was just fine for them until some bastard came along and cleared the bamboo forests. Keep in mind though, there aren't really superior and inferior species, only species that survive and those that do not. Soon it looks like the panda is to be one of those that do not, which is a shame.When the environment changes out of our nieche, we won't fare any better than the pandas.
You're trying to say human beings are no more adaptable than pandas? I really can't see that being true.
I can't think of any concievable environmental change that would wipe out humanity. At this point I'm pretty certain even a cataclysmic meteor impact wouldn't do us in.
quote:
From the book of Maradon!, chapter 3, verse 16:
You're trying to say human beings are no more adaptable than pandas? I really can't see that being true.I can't think of any concievable environmental change that would wipe out humanity. At this point I'm pretty certain even a cataclysmic meteor impact wouldn't do us in.
Drop the global average temperature a few degrees or so, almost everyone dies...raise the global average temperature a few degrees or so, almost everyone dies...overcrowd the planet, almost everyone dies...run a largish comet or asteroid into the planet without Bruce Willis to save the day, almost everyone dies...
The list goes on.
Despite building great big air-conditioned metal hives, we're just as much a part of the environment as anything else.
We can't just adapt to something just like that, while the panda can't adapt to eating not-bamboo, nor can we adapt to eating cotton or used cars. If anyone can, they were born that way; and if that was what it took, we'd be surpassed by the usedcarnivores.