Forgot your password?

I'd like us to explore with greatest emphasis ...

Displaying poll results.
Deep under the Earth's surface
  1238 votes / 4%
The oceans
  4226 votes / 14%
The surface and top layers of the Earth
  599 votes / 2%
Earth's atmosphere
  417 votes / 1%
The solar system
  6315 votes / 21%
Outer space
  8264 votes / 27%
The human mind
  6100 votes / 20%
How to get through L.A. in rush hour.
  2365 votes / 8%
29524 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I'd like us to explore with greatest emphasis ...

Comments Filter:
  • by fonitrus (1763632) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @06:36PM (#42237037)

    this would work if we only didit try so hard to babyproof the whole nation. stupid is what stupid does and eventually the really stupid ones get into the Darwin awards and help the clensing of the gene pool. But with stupid politicians at the helm trying to Politically correct the nanny state they are trying to create it kinda provides assylum fo all retards :)

  • by AK Marc (707885) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @09:11PM (#42238017)
    That's not how it's done. We don't say we are smarter than someone from the 1700s because we can drive better than they can. Only today's stupid make such comparisons so they can feel better about being stupid. The guy failing basic piloting skills may laugh at us, but mainly because he knows he's stupider, so it's about ego, not intelligence. I'm not smarter than Samuel Clements or Shakespeare, or Isaac Newton, but I know how to work a computer better than any of them. So I can always think of myself as smarter if it makes me feel better.
  • by riverat1 (1048260) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @10:52PM (#42238695)

    The dumbest human alive today is much more intelligent than Joe Average in the 10th century (ymmv...).

    I don't think that's true at all. It may be true that the dumbest human alive today knows more than Joe Average of the 10th century. It may even be true that because of poor nutrition while growing up the average 10th century person was less intelligent than the average person today. But I doubt the human capacity for intelligence is much greater today than it was 1,000 years ago.

  • The first four+. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by riverat1 (1048260) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @11:06PM (#42238763)

    If I could I would vote for the Earth system as a whole. It's all a huge interactive machine with many interconnections. The better we understand how it all works together, the better we understand how we fit into the picture the better we can manage our civilization. And I would include the Moon in the Earth system. Once we're established on the Moon the rest of the Solar System is much closer* than from the surface of the Earth.

    *Closer in terms of the energy (or delta-v) required to get there.

  • by warrigal (780670) on Sunday December 09, 2012 @11:15PM (#42238815)
    With 70% of our planet's surface under at least 1 mile of water it makes more sense to develop ways of exploring (and exploiting) the oceans. We really have no idea what's down there. The "abyssal plains" of the '70s are disproved. What next? Of course, a nice big phallic rocket with lots of noise, fire and smoke will thrill Joe SixPack but where's the payoff? Mining asteroids? You're kidding, right? We can't even get back to the moon.
  • Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NoJustice (2791593) on Monday December 10, 2012 @02:25AM (#42239709)
    If you look at a long enough time scale the only correct answer is outer space. Lets be real. Earth is limited. There is only so much space (assuming resources are not an issue) and humanity (myself included) do not enjoy being packed into a smaller and smaller living space. I say screw entitlements, and increase NASA funding tenfold. Let the stupid people take earth, and Ill see you on the beaches of HD40307g (otherwise known as planet Bob)
  • by xaxa (988988) on Monday December 10, 2012 @08:39AM (#42241059)

    Congratulations on solving the problem of people not being able to drive their vehicles to their destination of choice by preventing them from driving their vehicles to their destination of choice.

    Next: Solving hunger using stomach removal surgery.

    That is why American society is so car-centric.

    The problem elsewhere is usually "how can people travel from A to B", not "how can people drive their cars from A to B".

  • by tompaulco (629533) on Monday December 10, 2012 @11:32AM (#42242515) Homepage Journal
    I am curious. In the cities you mentioned, do they not allow unscheduled emergencies to cause you to have to work any hours other than 9 to 5? Do they not ever have doctor's or dentists appointments, or have to go to run errands? Do they not ever go to lunch? Does the school never call and tell them their child is sick and they need to come pick them up? Stop by and pick up milk on the way home? These are all things I have had to use my car for, most of them in the last week, and public transportation would not have been a remotely viable option.
  • by jbeach (852844) on Monday December 10, 2012 @06:39PM (#42246805) Homepage Journal
    Disagree completely. Jefferson et all were absolutely correct when they considered the public to be the best watchers of the public good - because when things affect people directly, they pay attention.
    The problems we face now have much more to do with corporations being able to pay enough to soak the airwaves with propaganda. The phrase "nanny state" is often a good indicator of the success of this propaganda - it means that people are blaming the poor for what the government's doing rather than the rich and powerful who are most often ignoring the best interests of the poor and middle class as much as possible.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 10, 2012 @08:05PM (#42247431)

    It's not that we're car centric, it's that we're gently anti social and cars enable that.

    Not seriously anti-social, despite what the anti-gun psychotics, or the pro-healthcare movement think. But it is gentle, and it is socially pervasive.

    We don't want public transportation. We don't want to live in cities.

    Yes, there are younger, highly socialized demographics that crave urban areas...public transportation, a new restaurant every night. A small, 'simple' apartment. But oddly enough that isn't a demographic majority here, despite some interesting redistricting implications.

    Your fairly typical run-of-the-mill American wants to live /near/ a city in the suburbs, with a commute of strictly less than 25 minutes.

    We want to sleep in a gentle cul-de-sac where it's quiet, there's no highway noise, and we can only see 3-4 neighbors houses.

    We want to choose who we interact with, when we interact, and go home to our family and lawn. We feel safer there.

    And why the cars are a necessity. Because they give us an hour alone each day that we can't get at work, in our cubicles, at home with a wife/husband/kids/dogs. The car supports the suburban lifestyle that is not economical to service with public transit. And when it is economical -- we don't want to use it anyway.

    Public transportation is creepy as hell. There's always a crack dealer, a hooker, a crazy guy who talks to himself and tries to talk /at/ (not with) you. There's always "that guy" holding his ipod high in the air flashing devil horns, rocking away hard bumping into people. There's that one day every other week where it's overcrowded and you're grinding up against people, or there's no place to sit comfortably because the seat was given up to grandpa or the girl in a wheelchair. And you know...I don't fault any of those people in particular -- even the guy obviously selling dimebags in the second to last row.

    But even though it's their right -- it makes a lot of us just slightly uncomfortable.

    Just uncomfortable enough that we'll move to the damned suburbs and take the car instead of the bus or train to deal with this shit. Yes, we would rather pay several thousand dollars a year in lease/loan/insurance/gas/upkeep than ride public transport. Yes, it makes poor economic sense. Guess what -- people trade money for happyness and quality of life. This is an example of the choice some people make.

    Yes, there's millions of you that have no problem whatsoever with the situations I've just described.

    But there's enough of us willing to say "fuck it, I'm not going to risk getting stabbed by someone whose mentally unwell just to get to work".

    The car is our sanctuary, solitude, and our illusion of safety where we ignore the millimorts per mile and think we're safe from the psychotics in public transportation.

    And to the people who call this antisocial or perverse... well... screw you. My illusorary peace of mind has value too.

    Yeah, it has absurd implications for gas and oil consumption, for the environment. But that's really largely moot -- the problem with commuters aren't the cars. It's that employers require you in the office 5+ days a week in an era with home computers and VPNs.

    People gripe about the suburbs, and yes, they use more gas than people in a city ... but we could still cut traffic 80% or more by eliminating commuters. Then and only then am I willing to hear that suburbia is "unsustainable"

  • by angel'o'sphere (80593) on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @08:32PM (#42255775) Homepage Journal

    The dumbest human alive todsy is certainly not more inteligent than an average in the 10th century.
    I even would chalange the idea that they know "more" (looking towards the US education system e.g.)
    They only know DIFFERENT things.

    Can you cross the atlantic in a sailing ship? How many people do you know who can?
    For a typical 10th century Viking that was a no brainer.

    Can you forge sword? You know one who can?

    Can you navigate by the sun under fog? Using a crystal? Did you even know that is easy? Do you know one who can?
    Can you navigate by the stars?

    Can you bake your own bread? Brew your own beer? Build a house on your own (in a few days/weeks)? Build a boat? Make your own tools?

    Do you know when to bring out seeds? When the best time is to harvest? Can you forcast weather for a single day at least?

    Can you provide simple first aid? Clean a wound? Sew a wound?

    Can you make a fire from nothing? Can you hunt a deer? Open it? Skin it?

    Should I continue ....

  • by Roger W Moore (538166) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:26AM (#42269579) Journal

    I think that probably most of variation in intelligence, as measured by Mensa in logic tests, doesn't come from genetics, though.

    I have strong doubts that Mensa's logic tests measure anything that an intelligent person would regard as intelligence.

  • by Narnie (1349029) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @02:35AM (#42269893)

    You must not supplement your coffee with additives. My experimentation has uncovered sugar, milk, and some forms of alcohol may be added without absolutely ruining the drink. Future experiments with protein additives are planned. I'm not sure why, but my intuition tells me that powered bacon should be next.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.


Forgot your password?