Wow, he got to live out every commuter's dream: slug a shameless tailgater.

" The slugs probably torn right through your liver"

in this scene I would bet the weapon had Hallow points which mushroom and splinter off like a little frag grenade in your belly easily swiss cheesing your liver.

>> ^Ryjkyj:


It's really just a matter of perspective though. Compare a bee with a slug. Bees are way ahead of slugs as far as visible complexity, yet to us, they're complete idiots. Even if we do rely on them.
And humans have been around for what? Maybe fifty-thousand years? Yeah, we've done A LOT in that time. But what could we do with another fifty-thousand? What about a million? (If for some reason we overcome the astronomical probability that we'll destroy ourselves) I don't really think there's any telling what we could do.
Not to mention the fact that everyone just assumes that aliens will be some sort of humanoid or even just act human or share any of our characteristics at all. Sure, here on Earth, life is carbon-based. But then why does everybody just assume that if we encounter life, it will also be carbon based? Answer: because we can't possibly understand how it could work any other way. And not because we just assume, but because we looked and it seems impossible according to the laws of chemistry. But that doesn't mean we're right just because we can't see the answer.
What about this: math is an abstract concept like you say. But the system most of us use is based on the power of ten. The digit repeats and a new one is added at the tenth place. Could that have something to do with the amount of fingers we have? Well what if the alien in question used a system that repeated at the ninth place? Their whole system would follow different rules. What if they used a system that had an individual symbol for every number up to two-hundred fifty million, seven hundred sixty-seven thousand, eight-hundred and fifty-three? What if they were so evolved that powers didn't even make a difference and they could fill a quadratic equation with numbers that were all based in different powers?
And if they were a race (another human term) whose individual bodies consisted of different, interchangeable parts, then math would be essential to their existence. It would be as natural as eating. To a species like that, we would look like childish morons playing with our own snot. Even though we use separate, distinct powers to program computers.
And that's just assuming that our aliens only understand things as far as the three dimensions we live in. What about a fourth dimensional alien that only communicates through careful waves of sulfur emission? To us, it might just be a giant blur that smelled like shit. You know what we'd do? That's right, we'd light it on fire.


I will admit that a species that has absolutely no comparable experience with us would be a problem. There's a mad, wonderful chapter in Greg Egans Diaspora that discusses the idea of complex creatures that have evolved in multi-dimensional space. I don't recall the exact maths, but they essentially live "rotated" into extra dimensions. I'll grant they will pose a challenge.

But it's not unreasonable to assume that some life forms would have evolved on a similar ecosystem to ours. We're already comfortable in working outside base 10, and there are some smart people who are working out establishing common symbol patterns based on fundamental mathematical principles. I don't care if you can interchange your head with your elbow, or you reproduce by thought, 1+1 =2. That does not change. Same for Pythagoras' theorem, prime numbers and so on.

My overall point is that something that is smart enough to figure out all the problems of going out into space will figure out how to communicate with us.

Or more likely, simply harvest the planet for resources. They're bound to be low on food and fuel by then

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Much as I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I feel he's wrong on this. I've said it before, but I think our ability to understand abstract concepts such as math should mark us as sufficiently different from the other species on our planet.


It's really just a matter of perspective though. Compare a bee with a slug. Bees are way ahead of slugs as far as visible complexity, yet to us, they're complete idiots. Even if we do rely on them.

And humans have been around for what? Maybe fifty-thousand years? Yeah, we've done A LOT in that time. But what could we do with another fifty-thousand? What about a million? (If for some reason we overcome the astronomical probability that we'll destroy ourselves) I don't really think there's any telling what we could do.

Not to mention the fact that everyone just assumes that aliens will be some sort of humanoid or even just act human or share any of our characteristics at all. Sure, here on Earth, life is carbon-based. But then why does everybody just assume that if we encounter life, it will also be carbon based? Answer: because we can't possibly understand how it could work any other way. And not because we just assume, but because we looked and it seems impossible according to the laws of chemistry. But that doesn't mean we're right just because we can't see the answer.

What about this: math is an abstract concept like you say. But the system most of us use is based on the power of ten. The digit repeats and a new one is added at the tenth place. Could that have something to do with the amount of fingers we have? Well what if the alien in question used a system that repeated at the ninth place? Their whole system would follow different rules. What if they used a system that had an individual symbol for every number up to two-hundred fifty million, seven hundred sixty-seven thousand, eight-hundred and fifty-three? What if they were so evolved that powers didn't even make a difference and they could fill a quadratic equation with numbers that were all based in different powers?

And if they were a race (another human term) whose individual bodies consisted of different, interchangeable parts, then math would be essential to their existence. It would be as natural as eating. To a species like that, we would look like childish morons playing with our own snot. Even though we use separate, distinct powers to program computers.

And that's just assuming that our aliens only understand things as far as the three dimensions we live in. What about a fourth dimensional alien that only communicates through careful waves of sulfur emission? To us, it might just be a giant blur that smelled like shit. You know what we'd do? That's right, we'd light it on fire.

"The latest disaster for the solar system is that the United States has decided to go to Mars. And, of course, later we intend to colonize deep space with our Salad Shooters and Snot Candy and microwave hot dogs. But let me ask you this: What are we going to tell the Intergalactic Council the first time one of our young women throws her newborn baby out of a seventh-story window? And how do we explain to the Near-Stellar Trade Confederation that our representative was late for the meeting because his breakfast was cold, and he had to spend thirty minutes beating the shit out of his wife?

Do you think the elders of the Universal Board of Wisdom will understand that it’s simply because of quaint local customs that over 80 million of our women have had their clitorises and labia cut off and their vulvas sewn shut in order to make them more marriageable and unable to derive pleasure from sex and thus never be a threat to stray from their husbands’ beds?

Can’t you just sense how eager the rest of the universe is for us to show up?"

- George Carlin

Economics is "the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses."

Every dollar urinated away on fanciful bull$h1t (per the info in marinara's post, the Golfer Administration ramrodded this through with zero oversight) like this is a dollar that could've landed in someone's paycheck (where it would be taxed) and circulated to buy goods people actually want and use (and taxed again).

That's also another dollar that will never be invested freely by peeps who are a lot more cautious with their dollars than thugverment. And these 'lone' dollars we're discussing are far from alone. Each one also costs many more dollars because government bureaucracies filled with government workers have to move them around.

No one is 'against' solar. they want "viable" (meaning cost-effective) solar systems. And people wanted to fly before the Wright Brothers built a plane in their garage using zero tax dollars.

If I believed that the recovery act went to paying wages, I would support it. But I really doubt it. My own personal idea is for the government to subsidize the minimum wage. It would add $5 in salary to each employee making less than $10. Do the math. for 1 million people, it would cost 10 Billion per year.

It seems like such an easy solution, doesn't it? Just pay people a living wage! Except living wages don't come from government, they come from businesses who have to deal with market demand. The American workforce is roughly 100 million. So with your 10 billion in what is essentially workfare (favoring one burger flipper over another) you've given a whopping 1 percent of low-wage earners a larger paycheck...for doing nothing!

Not only will this money be taxed at a higher rate, prices will rise, just like they do every time some vote-buying slug in office suggests raising the minimum wage. And employers will hire less people at $10 than $5. Supply and demand. Only in liberaland does a forklift driver earn the same as a neurosurgeon, because anything less wouldn't be "fair". It's also why double digit inflation is the norm across Europe.

Umm, that's not really true at all...in America there is a book on how to be a pedophile that was/is sold... Of course it teaches how to do it "gently" and be "reciprocal," but you get my point... This book was not written in any religious manner...

It has nothing to do with tolerance of anything besides the dark side of humanity. It has to do with the fact that there are 650,000 sick fucks out there. Just like there are pedo-people...

>> ^hpqp:

And yet these psychopaths can sell over 650'000 copies of their child abuse manual and get away with it, because of the sick tolerance towards religion.
>> ^laura:
"Let's say a 7 year old slugs his sister?"
"He would get...a 7 year old would get ten or fifteen licks, and it would be a formal setting, in other words, you maintain your patient air, you explain to him that what he's done was VIOLENT, and that that's not acceptable in society, and that's not acceptable in our home...and I would take him somewhere like into his bedroom and I would tell him I'm gonna give him fifteen licks, ..."
"With what?"
"With probably a belt, with a kid that big, a boy...I'd probably use, a belt would be handy...I might use a wooden spoon, or um, a piece of um, uh like plumbing supply line a quarter inch in diameter, flexible enough to roll up."
That should be admissible in court. Beat them in their bedrooms because violence is not acceptable in your home? Fuck you.

And yet these psychopaths can sell over 650'000 copies of their child abuse manual and get away with it, because of the sick tolerance towards religion.

>> ^laura:

"Let's say a 7 year old slugs his sister?"
"He would get...a 7 year old would get ten or fifteen licks, and it would be a formal setting, in other words, you maintain your patient air, you explain to him that what he's done was VIOLENT, and that that's not acceptable in society, and that's not acceptable in our home...and I would take him somewhere like into his bedroom and I would tell him I'm gonna give him fifteen licks, ..."
"With what?"
"With probably a belt, with a kid that big, a boy...I'd probably use, a belt would be handy...I might use a wooden spoon, or um, a piece of um, uh like plumbing supply line a quarter inch in diameter, flexible enough to roll up."
That should be admissible in court. Beat them in their bedrooms because violence is not acceptable in your home? Fuck you.

"Let's say a 7 year old slugs his sister?"
"He would get...a 7 year old would get ten or fifteen licks, and it would be a formal setting, in other words, you maintain your patient air, you explain to him that what he's done was VIOLENT, and that that's not acceptable in society, and that's not acceptable in our home...and I would take him somewhere like into his bedroom and I would tell him I'm gonna give him fifteen licks, ..."
"With what?"
"With probably a belt, with a kid that big, a boy...I'd probably use, a belt would be handy...I might use a wooden spoon, or um, a piece of um, uh like plumbing supply line a quarter inch in diameter, flexible enough to roll up."

That should be admissible in court. Beat them in their bedrooms because violence is not acceptable in your home? Fuck you.

@Mcboinkens Actually, I read that coinage has different laws pertaining to them, and that the only legal infraction is to attempt to pass off something as a coin that it is not (slug quarters). You can destroy or do whatever else you want to coins (if you shoot a penny near the rim with a BB gun it makes a tiny saddle).

I have to completely disagree with the formation of your argument. Unfortunately, you have presented a very shallow, 1 dimensional view of violence; most would refer to it as a scarecrow. I wish to state before I go further that I wish I lived in this world you imagine. I long for a world where violence isn't an answer. Let us take on your examples one at a time, then go into the thrust of the issue.

As far as terrorism goes, it is hard to even understand what terrorism is. It isn't very rigidly defined. Is it terrorism to force people to pay taxes, or is it only when you blow them up when they aren't expecting it? Terrorism is more of a red herring word used to justify actions rather a "thing" itself. that is a dodge of the issue, but then again, so was this word all along. So lets move into some of your better examples.

Was the objective of Vietnam and Korea to stop Communism? If so, then the success rate is 50%. As far as things go in the world, those aren't terrible odds. South Korea still exists as a democracy, violence won out in that case over rivaling violence.

The world war 2 example is a curious example to use. It actually shows a different picture then I think you would like to present. In the end, Germany ended up with a ruined country, as you say. But, that is only because it met up against resistance/violence. In the end, Germany was BOMBED into submitting, not talked into it. A greater force of violence stopped the lesser source of it. It was the rule of the jungle carried out in its most prime. Countless attempts by Brittan and France to talk Germany out of taking over its neighbors had no effect, only when the grind of blood and bullets was too much for her to bear did Germany relent. Indeed, WW2 is a horrible example for you to use...probably the worst I can think of.

Instead you should of used people like Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King Jr. These people were truly non-violent and changed the world. However, they are the conspicuous examples. The reason they stand out in history is because all to often, non-retaliation results in certain defeat. Look at the plight of the native Americans. While history tells the tail of all the tribes that fought, many did not. Many made deals with the White man. The history of these arrangements is grim indeed. For the White man would constantly renig the terms and send into exile the native Americans. Even the great Jefferson, the champion of democracy, sent the native Americans further and further down the trail of tears. They did not fight. The suffered...and suffered. Perhaps, if they fought, they would off been completely eradicated, so, instead, they choose exile and decimation. Which is better, I am not one to say. But surely, their non-violence did not result in one could consider a victory.

You need to remember your fathers. And I don't mean the founders of the USA. I mean 2 billion years of evolution on this planet. Humans are not some sanctimonious super being. We are composed of the same shit, sweat, and tears as everything else. The history of all animals is almost wholly violent. The lion doesn't solve his mating deputes with a rival by any other means than brutality. Your immune system doesn't win out by being less virulent than the infection it sees to mend. Your food won't survive long enough to reap if you don't stop the insects and vermin from eating it. Washing your hands is akin to mass murder of bacteria. Anti-bacterial soap is akin to genocide. But we resolve ourselves of these sins almost constantly so that we can be naive in the construction of our morality when dealing with each other. In this world, it is life for life. Nothing alive doesn't take life as well, spare most planets. Plants are only noble creation along with some fungi. Most every animal on the planet exploits unto pain through violence some other organism. herbivorous being the most foul violator eating the only noble life on the plant. Carnivores are their penitence.

This world is a cycle of pain, and its root is violence. Violence is what drives evolution forward. One of the expatiations of the Cambrian Explosion is the arrival of carnivores. And billions of years later, you stand on the top of the tradition of exploitation. And you won't be rid of it be ignoring it inside you. You might construct a society that can slowly cope and perhaps even bread out billions of years of evolution. And in perhaps 10 thousand years, you can look back and see that you reduced human violence by 20%. And that would be a great accomplishment. Only to then be wiped out by a asteroid ending all human life to be replaced by the new slug overlords. The great comedy of life is to think you can make a difference in the 80 years we have vs the billions that the history of life has been with us. Unless you are talking about complete genetic experimentation to change the face of what it means to be human, I don't see anything working. Maybe you make a government system that handles the nature of man better, but the nature of man...the 2 billion year old murder animal, is still set before you.

Like I said, I don't like this world. I would rather live in your fantasy world. A world of reason, of peace, of progress. We don't have that world. We have a world of brutal, violence. It's only true self is that of conflict and competition that is all to often violent. It the a 2 billion year old rule that we didn't make up but have had to better realize, lest make poorly designed strategy to deal with the beast that is man.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^BoneRemake:
UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTEEEEEEEEEEE

"violence doesnt solve anything "
and yet we go to war, explain that mrs former cop.

By the way, you forgot to quote her whole comment, which in its entirety goes:
"My message to the young people out there is that violence does not solve anything. It can get you into more trouble than what it's going to solve. [If you are being bullied] don't suffer in silence: find a trusted a adult and let them know what's going on."
So first off, your question about wars was completely off-topic. But I'll take a shot at answering it anyway.
She didn't say people were smart. She didn't say people don't ever get violent. She instead pointed out violence doesn't solve any problems. Did we solve the terrorist threat with the Iraq and Afganistan wars? Did we stop Communism with the Vietnam and Korean wars? Part of the reason Germany went to war in World War 2 was because their economy was in the crapper after World War 1 and they owed money in reparations. Did they solve that problem by getting their country bombed to rubble?
Nations go to war for many reasons. There's the ostensible reasons like "spreading freedom" that the population is forced to buy and there are the actual reasons like securing resources or the sheer madness of the country's leadership. My question for you is, at the end of the day, can you really think of a war that "solved" a problem in a way that couldn't have been solved peacefully?

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Mm, no, in fact its designer Vincent Connare says it was originally intended for Microsoft Bob, the patronising interactive Windows interface for the, er, technologically challenged. Mind you, Even if it had been chosen for use in MS Bob it still would have been shit.


I stand corrected. I do remember reading about Comic Sans being more legible for dislexics, and it seems there are actually a few dislexic-friendly fonts based on it -
http://www.dyslexic.com/articlecontent.asp?CAT=Dyslexia%20Information&slug=67

but yes, the original designer did intend it for Bob
http://www.connare.com/whycomic.htm
(it's weird though, the story says he was too late for Bob, which was released in '95, even though he made the font in '94. I couldn't find a release date for MS 3D Movie Maker, which was first app to include it)

>> ^castles:

I've heard things like 'we share 93% of our DNA with slugs' or something like that - so what does it mean that only '1-4% of our DNA is Neanderthal'? Can someone explain?
EDIT:
Here's the kind of stuff I'm talking about..
Mice, men share 99% of genes
Humans related to humble mud worm
Genome Study Finds Rats, Humans Share Stretches of DNA


The difference is hereditary and pair structure. Genetically speaking, many of the chromosome base pairs are nearly identical from animal to animal. Reproductively speaking, there can't be to much variance in the chromosomes for successful mating. A rat can't mate with a human for example. However, other pre-Homo sapiens's and Neanderthal could, and unlike mules, mate and have non-sterile offspring. The 1-4% is direct ancestry. If you were to compare, like that study did with mice, actual base pair similarity, it would rank higher than chimps most likely (99.9999% or something). However, there is a chance that they are more dissimilar than chimps, and through some reproductive fluke, were still able to have virile offspring. The point is, the difference he was highlighting is the direct mating heritage of early man with Neanderthal, much like someone saying they are 4% Indian, even though they are both 100% human.

I've heard things like 'we share 93% of our DNA with slugs' or something like that - so what does it mean that only '1-4% of our DNA is Neanderthal'? Can someone explain?

EDIT:
Here's the kind of stuff I'm talking about..
Mice, men share 99% of genes
Humans related to humble mud worm
Genome Study Finds Rats, Humans Share Stretches of DNA

Wait... so what happened to the slug? Seems like this deleted scene has a deleted scene...

There's also this one: http://videosift.com/video/The-World-s-Most-Terrifying-Penises-The-Leopard-Slug

But it has one of the most annoying voice tracks ever. Attenborough ftw.