Wibble4321

Registered bored user

wibble4321 wrote:
Bonobo may form matriarchal society but they still only mate exclusively (and extensively by all accounts) with the most dominant males.  It is a fact of life that evolution has led to the preference of perceived genetic superiority in females selecting male mating partners.  Similarly males most typically (unless environmental issues force otherwise - emperor penguin, I'm looking at you) will mate as broadly and diversely as possible.

The issue of social vs. sexual Alpha has become muddied as psychologists and business coaches attempt to morph evolutionary traits into human social and commercial structures.  The social structure of a group doesn't have to mirror it's sexual one.  Bonobo are matriarchal as are lions, however they are all 'serviced' by an (or a couple) of Alpha males.

Regarding wolves, yes the pack leaders are the parents, but they are the only ones that breed and have first rights in the pack.  The cubs will split and pair and then form their own 'pack' with them as the dominant.  Nothing is ever that simple.
wibble4321 wrote:
madduck I don't see any mileage in them falsely attributing attacks to foxes.  They want the attacks to stop, if they thought dogs were the problem then they would be pushing for more controls and enforcement of dog ownership and supervision.
wibble4321 wrote:
Zeegrr60 In America the Sabs would have been shot as they were the ones trespassing.  The riders were there legally.
wibble4321 wrote:
madduck I'm looking forward to seeing how you fox-proof a field of sheep.  Pretty hard to fox-proof a large enclosure for free range hens too.  
wibble4321 wrote:
oobaka prove it.
wibble4321 wrote:
The Sabs are trespassing on private land.  They have no legal right to be there regardless of what may or may not be going on.  Whether foxhunting was actually taking place (it is illegal) or drag.lure hunting they (Sabs) have no right to be there.  If a random masked stranger were attempting to grab the reigns of a horse I were riding you better believe I'd whip the hell out of them.   What if a masked group of individuals came up and grabbed the steering wheel of your car through the window, or the handlebars of your bike?

As an aside, anyone living in the countryside can see that the ban on foxhunting has caused an explosion in fox numbers, in a bad way.

Foxes are very territorial so healthy and strong foxes will dominate natural habitats resulting in weaker and unhealthy animals heading into towns and cities.  Previously the weaker or sickly foxes were culled by the hunts.  Encroachment of foxes into urban areas where they become at best, pests, at worst a threat to health is rampant.

I'm not a mad fan of foxhunting - of course it is cruel - but there isn't a particularly suitable alternative and frankly 'city folk' are only seeing half the picture and their half if fuzzy and cute.
wibble4321 wrote:
It's all just a setup haven't any of you seen Bedazzled?.
Amazing artistic skill?  Look at how many die in poverty.
Extreme intelligence?  Sure - the catch is you end up like Stephen Hawking.
Political power - sure, then you get impeached or assassinated.
Lifelong beauty and an inability to find true love and an unhealthy dose of narcissism.
An amazing marriage - until your partner dies unexpectedly.
A fantastic sex life - but no emotional partner or long term relationship.
A lifelong best friend - probably someone completely inappropriate like Charles Manson.
High level of athletic ability - probably an idiot who gets his finances ruined and then suffers an early career-ending injury.
Perfect health - while everyone you love around you dies or suffers.
A happy, loving family - see the Mansons again.
Lifelong financial stability - and an early death.  Alternatively one could argue that a vagrant is pretty financially stable.  I'd aim for secure personally.
No anxiety?  Anxiety keeps us on edge.  Otherwise your are just going to be a vegetable in the looney bin dosed up on tranquilisers.

Be happy with what you've got.  If you get a windfall, look to those around you and see what they need.  Take care of the people around you and you'll be the richest man/woman on the planet.
wibble4321 wrote:
monkwarrior No, not really.  His business model isn't to to stock regular product lines at the best prices.  His model is to buy up any overstock product at retail outlets at below market value and resell higher.  He isn't trying to be the cheapest supplier of widget x permanently, just to take advantage of store A's clearance and be the cheapest seller of widget x until he sells out, then move on to widget y.
wibble4321 wrote:
woodyville06 True, and there is no debating that smoking causes cancer and other life-terminating diseases.

I just wish when people did demonstrations they thought about it and modelled them better.
wibble4321 wrote:
woodyville06 No, not particularly.  The lungs operate on the basis of smaller airways the further in you go.  You have your trachea, bronchus/bronchi, bronchiole and alveolus if memory serves.  The entry point is just a broad pipe, no filtering or restriction at this point.  Yeah it will get messy as I said, but you'll exhale a lot of the smoke you inhale rather than filtering it out in the video.
wibble4321 wrote:
Jed Bartlet every way all day.
wibble4321 wrote:
The problem with all of these demonstrations is that our lungs are not filters.  We do not force air in one end and out of the other, we respirate (inhale then exhale).   To properly demonstrate this process, pack your cotton balls into a balloon.  Then inflate and deflate the balloon drawing smoke into and out from the 'lungs'.  Do this for approximately 50-70% of the burn time of each cigarette (no-one sits and inhales an entire cigarette in one draw).  I'm sure the result will still be messy, but nothing like as bad as is made out in these videos.
wibble4321 wrote:
I have to confess, with no experience of riding motor cycles (plenty of push bikes though) my department went on a motor cross riding experience day.  I was plopped onto a 250cc dirt bike and promptly did exactly that.  The acceleration was rather unexpected - pulling me back, the pulling effect exacerbating my twisting of the throttle.

Fortunately a ditch appeared shortly afterwards and welcomed me into its gentle embrace.  We were fully kitted up with body armour etc. so no real harm done except to pride - which I have found in the past to be an excellent way to learn.  I have to say I thoroughly loved the rest of the day but wouldn't ride a motor cycle on the roads for all the tea in China.
wibble4321 wrote:
skeeter01 Tipton brothers Lotto Scandal.  It seems they have their own wikipedia entry!
wibble4321 wrote:
Personally, I'm lovin it.  It's a tad slow, and character development is also slow - but given they are trying to introduce a whole slew of people into what everyone _expects_ to feel familiar that is hardly surprising.

There is some good talent, some of the twists are a little signposted but other than that I'm good with it.  Frankly though, I very much enjoy the rebooted film franchise and can appreciate good sci fi for what it is.  I'm not so immersed into Star Trek that I cannot forgive deviations from established history.  I'm enjoying it as a show for what it is.

On a related note, because it was mentioned, I'm very much enjoying Orville.  Of course  there are niggles and frankly if Seth ask Alara to open this jar of pickles one more time I might have to do something unpleasant...
wibble4321 wrote:
layla_wilson Just because the words have the same root doesn't mean they are interchangeable.  Causing terror does not make one a terrorist.
wibble4321 wrote:
layla_wilson Creating terror is not the only requisite to being a terrorist or performing an act of terrorism.  If that were the case then spiders and Stephen King would be terrorists.  Language is specific and for good reason.  Misappropriation of language leads to misunderstandings and, in the case of Nevada apparently, poorly thought out and worded legal definitions.
wibble4321 wrote:
layla_wilson The state of Nevada can define it how it likes.  Personally I think that is a poor definition as terrorism has to be executed with the intention of change.  With the intention of change (political, religious or social) using violence, force or the threat of force to compel change against the policies of the incumbent.  Otherwise it is an act of wanton violence - albeit a terrible one on a huge scale.

Given the fact that the guy was prepared enough to scout, book two hotel rooms, install cameras to monitor police approaches it seems unlikely that he forgot or neglected to state what his aims were if he had any.
wibble4321 wrote:
He cannot be a terrorist because terrorists are political.  "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."  Unless this is proven to be a politically motivated attack, he's just a nut-job.
wibble4321 wrote:
profworm Have you read the first hand accounts of what happened? The guys on the stage seemed to have at least as high an opinion of Prince as Prince did.  It was an awesome piece of guitaring.
wibble4321 wrote:
I find it difficult to follow without the presence of small mammals, water based mishap or Eastern European vehicles hitting one another like dodgems.  In all seriousness though I didn't expect that from Jim.  A very unexpected side.
wibble4321 wrote:
Let me paint you a picture of conference call hell.  We (the put upon protagonists) happen to be based in Asia.  We work for an American company.  Our conference calls have to happen usually at 10 or 11pm because London also have to join in.  New York of course are just arriving in the office for the main part.  Imagine the level of frustration as you sit there, at 10 or 11 at night waiting while the US end of the call talks about their train journeys into the office, their coffee orders, the inevitable rustling as people unwrap their breakfast bagels and muffins, discussing what happened on last night's TV etc.  That, I don't mind saying, used to royally piss me off?
wibble4321 wrote:
Finally - I got one!