>>3495

As >>3496 says, that study is related to the very 'theory' you're proposing. In fact, all of the other examples of reinforcing behaviours you cite in your first post are either wholly or very strongly effected by the dopamine reward pathway. Pretty much everything that encourages us to do anything is; be that eating food, having sex or taking drugs.

>>3497

There are evolutionary goals that can be achieved through the sharing of societal mores and interaction that happens at a comedy show. Generally, anything that reinforces "getting on with people" ties into the whole altruism gig.

>>3497
>Ah, I used to ponder this sort of thing as a teenlad too.
What a coincidence! I used to be an unnecessarily condescending dickhead when I was a teenlad.

>>3499
Apparently not much has changed.

>>3500

Now I only do it necessarily.

>>3501
Why was it necessary? I was being sincere. I genuinely did ponder it as a teenlad. Ho hum.

>>3452

If you had said intensive porpoises... but alas, you're up shit creek without a dorsel fin.

>>3453
[cetacean needed]

>>3450
Well that's all a bit philosophical and semantic really. Personally I would say that yes, it's surely pretty clear that life isn't separate from the universe. How could it be? It exists and is spawned within it.
I'd also agree that it's fair to say it's an extension of it, but when you get into words like "expression" it starts to muddy the waters a bit and maybe implies some sort of underlying consciousness or will. Maybe you didn't mean that at all though which is why I mentioned the semantic aspect of it.

I do think it's quite a nice way to look at things though, that we are the universes sense organs, a way for it to perceive itself etc etc. That is all pretty well trodden metaphysical ground though, even Bill Hicks had a bloody bit about it.

Anyway, I'm sure there are probably some more rationally minded materialist scientifically inclined headbods who would take issue with that line of thinking.
For myself I think it's a nice way to look at things but it's easy to fall into lazy new age thinking that way and I'm inclined to always keep a sceptical eye on my own thought processes. I think when you get into these sorts of areas then they're not really scientific questions anyway.

Would like to hear other people's perspectives though. Sorry for the ramble, I've had a glass of red and a valium.

>>3455
Oh that's good. That's very good.

I fought god made us hoomans and all the animals and stuff. The muzlims have a name for god.. What is it again?.. Oh yeah - Allan.

>>3480
That's enough now mate.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>3481

I AM SPARTACUS

>>3481
Seriously.

(A good day to you Sir!)

>>3483
I'm going to write to my MP about this.

>>3485
misterpink won't care either.

>>3427
This, This is how the zombies will happen. They'll invent teleport machines and send people through them, but it will rip their souls out. Society won't notice much for a while, only a strange increase in the Hollyoaks viewing figures, but one day it will reach critical mass and they'll not want to be arsed to go to the shops and just start eating each other's brains.

>>3427

>Evidently not mate, you're not the you you thought you were.

I'm not sure what you mean. I won't suddenly find myself immortal in the Matrix when that's what I'd want the service to perform is what I'm saying. It will clone my mind and store it on a hard drive, that's all.

>>3428

There's a guy in China Mieville's Kraken who has a teleport ability and overuses it, the end result being that "he" is driven mad by loads of ghosts of himself who haunt him because "he" is the one who kept killing himself whenever he ported.

The views of an uneducated lower-classian like myself would go thus - The only groups able to fund such exploration will no doubt be corporations and, because of this, the first expeditions will have such emblems as 'the golden arches' painted onto the colony ship hulls.
After securing their new worlds and the bountiful resources found upon them, the now 'mega-corporations' will turn on one another in the name of profits. War will erupt over our system, causing discomfort to many as they're woken by sun bright explosions fizzling in the night sky. Fragmented ship wrecks will drift into our atmosphere and spark like fireworks; Everyone below wondering how such beauty could come from this.

>>3379

Kim Stanley Robinson, 'Red Mars' and the sequels. It's criminal no one has mentioned these yet.

Reads like a future history of the colonisation of mars from the point of view of the first 100 sent there. Really well written, fantastic characterization.

Dynos don't give a one-off reading, they give a full torque and power map across the whole rev band.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamometer

Take it to a jeweller or specialist pen shop - they do still exist in large cities. Ask them to take out apart and see if it can be fixed. Don't attempt it yourself; you'll probably damage it permanently like a fat-handed twat.

I'm surprised a few sharp taps wouldn't be enough to dislodge or at least break the blockage. I would take the advice of >>3430 before you start pouring perchloric acid all over the shop.

>>3429
Oh and for future reference threads like these best go in /uhu/.

>>3432

Duly noted.

The "railings" in the middle of a dual-carriageway are specially designed safety barriers that do a very complex job. They are there to prevent vehicles from crossing over into the other carriageway (to prevent head-on crashes). They need to be flexible enough to cushion the impact, but not so flexible that they catapult cars out into the inside lane. They also have to deal with a huge range of vehicle weights, from a 700kg smart car to a 44 tonne lorry. The design of these barriers is a constant work in progress and they are a crucial safety technology.

https://www.youtube.com/v/aTodeeJ3-co

The better solution for pedestrians is segregation - providing alternative paths that are protected from traffic and noise. Walking alongside a busy arterial road is never going to be pleasant, but it's usually quite easy to design pedestrian routes that are separated from that traffic. Where you have pedestrians interfacing with dual carriageways you have a fairly costly engineering challenge to provide crossings (bridges and underpasses don't come cheap) so you generally want to keep pedestrians away from such routes.

>>3373

I didn't mean so much the barriers in the center, but rather guard rails like the ones pictured (which are usually only placed along specific stretches of road).

>>3374

Those barriers exist mainly to route pedestrians towards safe crossing points. Their design is less complex than a median barrier, but they're still built to provide the greatest possible energy absorption in the event of a vehicle impact, protecting both motorists and pedestrians. The design of these barriers is prescribed in British Standard 3049 - much more thought has gone into their design than you might imagine.

The use of pedestrian barriers at all is a hotly disputed topic amongst planners and traffic engineers. In many circumstances, the use of barriers reduces the visibility of pedestrians to motorists, which can dramatically increase the risk of accidents. Guardrails can be almost completely opaque at some angles, which poses an especially serious risk to children. Any design that worsens the visibility problem is a complete non-starter, as most new guardrail designs are specifically optimised to improve visibility.

There might be a case for transparent polycarbonate barriers, but these would have several downsides - less energy absorption in the event of a crash, higher cost, lower durability and greater vulnerability to vandalism.

>>3375

Thanks for this. I'm not a motorist nor an engineer, so perhaps I shouldn't venture like this, but I do think that perhaps there's an argument to be made for visibility over the aptitude of the materials, particularly in places where there's no barrier at all.

It occurs to me now that my 'trellis' idea would be bollocks, unless the plants were very low to the ground.

I also wanted to mention that I recognise the practical solution you offered in your last post, but I encountered one of those areas where segregation isn't possible today. It doesn't sound like much, but alongside certain roads even the smallest indication that pedestrians have an area where they are meant to be makes the entire experience much less alien. I remember having to cross a dual carriageway, and even a hint of tarmacked path showing the accepted route was a great comfort.

About damage and vandalism, I'd hope that the materials would be cheap enough so that the individual panel could be replaced in the event that one gets destroyed by vehicle or drawn on. I also had this idea that the barrier would be high and arched with kind of curved roofing lip at the top, but this would probably be too costly and may attract enough glare to distract drivers.

>>3375
That's really interesting, thanks.

(Polite sage for adding no value to the conversation.)

>>3362
Or that way too.

>>3362

Conversely,

∫dx/x = logx + c = log(kx)

It's interesting. Multiplying x by a constant only has the effect of shifting the graph line up or down so the slope stays the same.

http://www.fooplot.com/#W3sidHlwZSI6MCwiZXEiOiJsb2coeCkiLCJjb2xvciI6IiMwMDAwMDAifSx7InR5cGUiOjAsImVxIjoibG9nKDEweCkiLCJjb2xvciI6IiMwMDAwMDAifSx7InR5cGUiOjAsImVxIjoibG9nKDEwMHgpIiwiY29sb3IiOiIjMDAwMDAwIn0seyJ0eXBlIjoxMDAwfV0-

>>3365
That's how logarithms work. log kx = log k + log x. If k is constant, then so is log k.

>>3366

(A good day to you Sir!)

I hope bees swarm Westminster and sting everyone to death. I hate seeing how we're destroying nature so people can make more imaginary bits of paper which themselves are worth imaginary gold.

>>3355
>so people can make more imaginary bits of paper which themselves are worth imaginary gold.
Don't do that; it's entirely disingenuous and you know it.

>>3356

>it's entirely disingenuous

And unhygienic. If paper is imaginary then I've been wiping my arse with my bare hands.

The neo-hybrid genetic legacy is being bred-out and diluted rapidly. It will leave a poorer sapien creature, unable to continue the legacy built by its betters. This will lead to greater and more frequent instabilities or "inexplicable" disasters - politically and economically - and finally a massive collapse and die-back. Doesn't need to be too grand, a muddy and petty spiral is all that's needed. At the die-back point where the genetic stock is boiled down to thousands is where the real magic will happen and Darwin and co.'s concepts will have their impact (It's otherwise difficult to make significant changes to a species with a massively wide genetic base that interbreeds freely). For generations it will reshape the next cycle of Man until both Man and the environment are able and stable enough to rebuild and establish an ongoing permanent civilisation once more.

Genetic legacies seem to indicated previous bottle necks. I suspect it's happened at various points in the past and each time that cycle's Mankind has been stamped back down and remoulded. Sometimes never getting past stone age or bronze, others a bit further. The more we learn about the world and what is in it, the more we find that it is older than we had imagined and the hominid form is found to exist for longer.

When we think of all civillised history we know of can be contained in mere handful of thousand years....imagine what could be contained in a million - lost and found and lost again? I think each time evolution has its impact and this is how our type is changed over time when we stumble or hit a wall. Hard to say if we're better for it in any objective sense or just randomly different and given another roll of the die (if indeed we are still close enough a species to still be 'us' or 'we' by then). With enough shots at it and random chance eventually a hominid or hyper-intelligent animal type will come out that is capable of very long term stability and either adabtable enough and organised enough to survive the natural kill off cycles and disasters or fast enough to get all the eggs out of this one basket.

Yes, I am willing to share what I have been smoking and drinking.

Anyone interested in this thread should watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3qF26MbYgOA#t=747

It is basically the Astronomer Royal talking about the evolution of humanity on Earth, summarising that if any future relatives of outs are left here when the sun finally cools down and supernovas in 7 billion years, they will be as different from present day humans as we are from bacteria.

It's pretty fascinating. In-case the YT link breaks, its 12:30 till the end.

humans are rapidly evolving every day. technology is the third leg of the human race, it is a development born out of our intelligence and time given with it. We are driving our own evolution and sooner or later it's going to reach a point where it changes our existence more dramatically than any bio-evolutionary development can. I don't believe we'll reach a markedly different point of 'natural' evolution, I think we'll destroy ourselves before that with the evolution we've pushed on ourselves.

There's this great researcher at Cornell who's done a bunch of work decoding how to talk directly to your brain, sort of bypassing the front end of your optical system. In other words, she's actually just skipping the eye and talking directly into the peoples brains. Which really introduces sort of a bizarre "Snow Crash" reality way sooner than I would have guessed. So, she's solving the coding problem, [door distraction] there's the sort of the CCD front-end problem, which is kind of hard, and she's like well, that's a bitch, why don't we just skip that, figure out what the protocol is to talk to the brain. And it turns out, one of the interesting things, it's a way more compact representation of information, so, you know, that's gonna happen, that's something you guys should be thinking about, that your subjective experience of reality is probably going to be driven directly into your brain much sooner than I think most people expect.

singularity isn't a joke or a mistake. life is going to get very strange very quickly.

I never developed wisdom teeth, apparently this is an evolutionary step forwards that affects approx 30% of people. We just don't need them.

>>3352
I for one am glad to have wisdom teeth. Otherwise I'd have twice as many gaps as I currently do.

>>3335
'Plump', yes, but not far or obese. Being fat was synonymous to being glutton and generally corrupted. Even Henry VIII wasn't as obese as the lass on OP's picture, and he's become fat due to a chronic disease.

>>3334
It's obviously evolutionary. Obesity is linked to bad health, which means you'd be unable to provide for your family. Since you would also pass these traits onto your offspring, we are hardwired to consider it sexually unattractive.

>>3338
>It's obviously evolutionary. Obesity is linked to bad health, which means you'd be unable to provide for your family.

That's bollocks though, as >>3335 pointed out historically it could just as easily be seen as a sign of health.

>Since you would also pass these traits onto your offspring, we are hardwired to consider it sexually unattractive.

Except quite a lot of people do find it sexually attractive, although they might not admit it to their mates. Like the previous poster said I'd be inclined to think it has a lot more to do with cultural norms and conditioning than any sort of evolutionary reason.

>>3339
>That's bollocks though, as >>3335 pointed out historically it could just as easily be seen as a sign of health.

Someone who was fat (hard define fat (I will say that gluttons were punished and disliked)) was seen as wealthy and therefore desirable, in much the same way that pale skinned people were desirable (as they didn't work outside). It may have had very little to do with sexual attraction (which often wasn't the motivator of marriage in many cases). The actions of the well documented aristocrats probably didn't reflect the behaviours of the badly documented plebeians, which is a problem when looking at past trends: plebs of course made up most of the population.

To go far as call it "bollocks," shows you are foolish and easily jump to rash conclusions. It certainly is possible that it is societal and it is certainly possible that it is biological.

For me, the fact that fat people are generally disliked in nearly all cultures and the evolutionary benefit of disliking fat women (who are less capable of child birth and less likely to survive for multiple children) and men (who are were worse providers, at least outside of the aristocracy) shows that it is biological, at least to a certain extent.

I will dismiss societal influence, which I am sure is there but I believe it is mostly biological. Although I will say that I think it all comes to the question, "how fat are we talking here?"

>>3340
>I will dismiss societal influence
I meant I won't

If you type 5318008 into a calculator and turn it upside down you get 'BOOBIES'.

>>3316

I like this one:

s = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + ... = 1 + 2(1 + 2 + 4 + ...) = 1 + 2s

Therefore, s = -1.

>>3328
AIUI, the associative law does not apply to diverging series, so strictly speaking you can't do that.

>>3322
I actually only wrote it as e^iπ = -1 because I think it looks prettier that way. I guess that way it doesn't have 0 in it which is kind of important.

I can't think of any other cool science facts. Earlier this week I worked out that my PhD project fundamentally shouldn't work so I'm a bit shitty with science at the minute.

>>3329

It's not a rigorous proof but it can be shown in better ways that 1 + 2 + 4 + ... = -1.

>>3298
Fuck off.

>what age does biology predict that men will find women the most desirable and why?

When I was a teenager I was much more randy then now. I would say I peeked at 17. My guess is hormones.

I think OP is asking at what age a male will be predicated as heterosexual or homosexual, and I think quite a few people on this thread have missed the point. I don't have a clue as to the answer beyond hearing people say 'I knew I was gay when I was 9' a lot.

>>3298

18 of course.

I can barely get an erection at 22. If I had my 15 year old penis I'd be making women pedophiles all over the north east.