The questions-not-worth-their-own-question-thread III
- Thread starter salty mud
- Start date
- Status
Bigfoot3814
Deity
So the differences are subtle to say the least. Okey doke.
People sometimes mix heavy metal and regular metal together. Usually I figure they're synonymous too, except when one wishes to differentiate between that and glam bands like Motley Crue. Black metal usually has to do with neo-Nazis and has a lot of repetition (I think it's called tremolo or something like that). Death metal is like, Slayer and stuff, with lots of growling and distorted guitar sounds. Think Dethklok.
lolwut
EDIT: Apparently I am quite slow.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I believe they have reviewers actually rate the images with words, and the editors probably arbritarily associate the words with the filtering. E.g. filter out 'sexy' images.
There's a 'game' where players help Google label images for its search engine: http://images.google.com/imagelabeler/
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
But not to the extreme of not using soap.
Do anti-bacterial soaps actually contain antibiotics that we give to people in pills?
No. Bacteria are more resistant to the cold than you are.
salty mud
Deity
Bacteria are put into a state of hibernation in the cold, are they not? When they become warmer, they will wake up and continue infesting areas with filth.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
The difference between heavy metal and death or black is noticeable at least, metal in general can have positive or optimistic messages too! It's the death/black that are not really differentiated. Usually death metal has lower, growled vocals while black has high, shrieked vocals.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
What are the major weaknesses of Jared Diamond's theories in Guns, Germs, and Steel? I'm currently reading it, and I'd like to keep those weaknesses in mind as I read it. I do believe though that his words do have some merit.
The problem of Egypt is a big one, I think. There's also the failure to discuss how people can screw up their own environment (Collapse talks about this at length, though, which I was happy about). But the main criticism leveled at his book that, IIRC, he hasn't answered, is that long-term factors such as geography are being credited as responsible for short-term dominance of a given society. (A problem alluded to with the Egyptian reference.) His discussion of the world after Cajamarca is at best sketchy and inadequate, as well.
That, and he's overcomplicating things.
The vast majority of humanity has lived in Eurasia; by pure chance alone that would seem to indicate a higher propensity for more developed societies.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
That, and he's overcomplicating things.
I thought the criticism was that he was oversimplifying things. Does he discuss fundamental differences in culture? Or does he dismiss that as a result of the factors he has enumerated?
Wasn't he also trying to explain why the majority of humanity has lived in Eurasia?
There is that too, according to some. I guess he just doesn't hit the happy medium?
Fundamental differences in culture are usually the weapons leveled against his arguments. Diamond claims that those differences arose due to biogeographical factors; his claim is also that isolation, which was a factor that can be attributed to both China after the hai jin and the American supercontinent, prevented better cultural modification and diffusion. My main problem with that is the example of the Middle East, which ought to have gotten a lot more powerful in the 17th century and beyond with that sort of connection to both ends of Eurasia, but didn't; lolwut?SS-18 ICBM said:
EDIT: I don't recall if he discussed why the majority of humanity lived in Eurasia; the book is not on hand so I can't double-check.
I've never got around to reading it, but after interacting with far too many people who regard it as more holy than The Bible, I have an idea.
He gives no credit to ideas, be they cultural or scientific. These have altered history and societies in myriad ways and his main suggestion is, I think, the rather optimistic one that humans are so inventive that we'd always have come up with them at the right time.
His argument helps explain why the Easter Islanders are such a prominent modern culture; the idea of sustainability always occurs to humanity, and became popular just when resources dictated that they needed it.
Or not.
Globex
President Scorpio
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 437
I think he explained in his book that the decline of the power of the Middle East was due to environmental degradation. The Middle East had a more fragile climate than other regions of Eurasia and deforestation and other factors reduced the agricultural productivity there.
In the 17th century, really? I would be surprised if that were the case.
Globex
President Scorpio
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 437
I'm pretty sure there were other factors involved but environmental degradation is the main one that Diamond talks about.
I've passed Algebra I and Geometry and am currently enrolled in Algebra II. Would it be possible for me to learn basic to basic/intermediate calculus and trigonometry within a couple of months? . If so, which book should I buy/borrow (or which website should I take a look at)?
This book is a good companion to Diamond's work. Was in part inspired by it as a counter argument. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691121354/bookstorenow16-20
Mowque
Hypermodernist
i guess the answer is based off of how smart you are? Newton INVENTED Calculus with not much more math education then you (or am i confusing it with something else?)
- Status
Similar threads
