|
"The donut rock may be a meteorite that landed on Mars" .. "Landed"? I thought stuff from space generally crashed into planets pretty spectacularly. This one though obviously did "land" as there's zero sign of a crater (any minor debris could have blown away in Mars' thin atmosphere, but there'd be at least a bit of a dent, wouldn't there??).
No, given its angular external shape I reckon this is a nut that's fallen off a MASSIVE Mars explorer from some other civilisation.
Of course we don't know the scale; maybe this is not a view down a telescope but down a microscope, and it's really really tiny.
|
|
|
|
|
You're thinking of "landed" as in how an aircraft lands. But they are using the word in a more technical sense. When you think about it, "landed" simply means it ended up on the surface.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect the ET conspiracy crowds will go with the other explanation. And add on to it with explanations of how it is a part from a flying saucer that they were actually on.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly... that's my point (badly made, obviously!) This looks more like it's been carefully placed down, not crashed at thousands of mph.
|
|
|
|
|
How can you tell how hard the rock landed? All we see is rock sitting on the surface. What's your indication of how hard the impact was? Maybe this rock was a thousand times bigger, and this is just a fragment.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
The more books you read, the more you learn.
However, since most people don't actually read beyond secondary school (and definitely not beyond University) it is quite possible that you will know things that the unread do not know.
However, since there are more unread people than people who have actually researched and learned you will be in the minority.
And since the minority is aka "The Fringe" your ideas will be considered garbage.
And, since the unread mass is a mosh-pit of humanity, it is statistically probable that one of those unread people will be your manager.
That manager will tell you what to do and then you will question it since you've read 4 books on the subject. Then you'll argue and say, "but, Ive read 4 books on the subject"
That's when the manager will look down his nose and say, "But who's in charge here?"
Much better to just sit back and doom scroll. 
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, there's a lot of truth to this. To just assume for now that an intelligent person reads... If you're too far on the high end of the intelligence spectrum and speak in a manner that would be commensurate (as defined by whatever markers society tends to agree on insofar as to what intelligence is), then you're going to lose most people.
They say genius and crazy are two sides of the same coin. Both are not understood by the average person, so for all intents and purposes it may as well be. Since human relationships are all about a connection, good luck with that.
The trick is to learn to communicate with those who do not poses the same markers anyway and just accept the fact the role of a real genius is a lonely one. Maybe you'll get lucky and every now and again run into someone you can fully engage with. Don't hold your breath. The vast, vast majority of folks all assume they're smart.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is definitely the paradox of humanity.
The people who are smartest and know what best to do may not be the people who can communicate it clearly.
The people who communicate things clearly may only be able to do so because they glide over the complexity of the issue.
I'd rather have the surgeon who is lower on communication and better on skills. 
And, besides, my belief is...
someone said If you can't explain it clearly, then you don't understand it.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: If you can't explain it clearly, then you don't understand it.
Touché, my good man. Ther person I attribute that line to (right or wrong) is Einstein btw.
Einstein wrote: If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
The great Richard Feynman said that.
|
|
|
|
|
The trick is learning to "talk" at all levels, depending on the audience.
Give me coffee to change the things I can and wine for those I can not!
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - An updated version available! JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: Simon Says, A Child's Game
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: The trick is learning to "talk" at all levels, depending on the audience.
Agree 100%!!!
It's just that you can't beat the Belief-System the person holds.
If they "think" a thing is caused by "thing1" you cannot convince them otherwise.
Because they've read it on the Internet and they know. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: It's just that you can't beat the Belief-System the person holds.
No matter what they say, all humans need a sense of continuity on par with whatever their intelligence perceives. Things can change. But the further down (or up) the st00pid scale you go the harder it is because the last thing a person who doesn't exercise their mind will do... is exercise their mind. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
The true measure of intelligence is the ability to explain clearly to laypeople.
|
|
|
|
|
"They say genius and crazy are two sides of the same coin."
Who are "they" anyway. Passive voice opinions couched as received wisdom make me grind my teeth. I find genius and crazy to be very different coins.
|
|
|
|
|
[Late to this thread, sorry]
Jeremy Falcon wrote: The vast, vast majority of folks all assume they're smart.
That's because that same vast, vast majority of folks really isn't.
I came to a realization at some point in my life: The more you know, the more you realize how little you know. And it only gets worse. Not because you then tend to forget things as you get older, but because you realize there's even more stuff you never knew about.
The majority of people remains blissfully ignorant of entire fields.
I think it really comes down to being dumb and acknowledging it, and being dumb and not even realizing it.
[Edit]
"Dumb" might be too harsh. Being ignorant about something doesn't make one dumb. Donald Rumsfeld was onto something when he said something about "known unknowns and unknown unknowns".
|
|
|
|
|
On my phone so can’t do fancy quotes, but totally agree all fronts.
Intelligence requires looking inwards. Which means that dumb / ignorant folks are rarely introspective.
As an aside, I don’t define intelligence as being able to regurgitate something read in a book either, with no deeper understanding of the material. That’s just being a fancy parrot.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I don’t define intelligence as being able to regurgitate something read in a book either, with no deeper understanding of the material. That’s just being a fancy parrot.
Agreed as well, one can own an impressive library and have read it all, but ultimately if you don't understand the subject matter at least to the point where you can summarize what you just read, it's entirely irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
It's way more than just corporate world.
Governments cannot completely control the people it governs if they are:
-- Educated
-- Gun owners
It is my opinion that most Governments at least mine, wishes everyone was retarded. They are already in the process of removing gun ownership.
Welcome to the new age.
|
|
|
|
|
Preach brother. A government's worst nightmare is an insurrection. However, things do not change without conflict. Can't get your conflict on if you're weak, dependent, and stupid.
Weak people seek power. History repeats because we don't learn as a species so easily. It's just human nature... Just like the markets human nature is cyclic.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Governments cannot completely control the people it governs if they are:
-- Educated
-- Gun owners
Unfortunately, these are often two disjoint sets. 
|
|
|
|
|
StarNamer@work wrote: UnFortunately, these are often two disjoint sets. 
FTFY
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: most Governments at least mine, wishes everyone was retarded
They would rather people be idiots savant - highly educated, but totally uninvolved in politics. This gives the Government the best of both worlds: a high GDP that can be taxed, and no interference from the Great Unwashed.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
You have to be stupid to believe that gun ownership is actually a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
2A supporter and absolutist here. The problem with removing all of the guns is 1.) there's too damn many of them, and 2.) people intuitively understand that removing them is exactly the sort of tyranny the 2A was designed to prevent. I think the government will chip around the edges, but I'm not worried about losing my gun rights, including the ability to carry one concealed most everywhere. Canada, Australia and the UK have done us a favor by showing us the playbook ahead of time, and I think we'll be able to prevent it.
In RE: reading books, being educated and unable to connect with other people. I think the problem might have something to do with the most studious among us being introverted by nature. There certainly are well educated communicators among us; they may be the exception rather than the rule, but they exist.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
