Common Sense

[aggle-rithm]

Back to the topic...

Evolution/natural selection defies common sense, sometimes. Common sense tells us that it would be much more difficult to kill a dinosaur than a cockroach, yet the cockroaches outlived the dinosaurs. It's because the conditions were right for cockroaches, but not dinosaurs. This defies our common-sense reasoning that says they has to be some sort of plan governing the development of species.

I thought about this because the evolution of terror attacks works along similar lines. There are many terror cells plotting many different things. The ones that don't work are either not attempted again or they are re-worked to make them more successful. The 9/11 attacks were successful because the conditions were right. With all these unsuccessful attacks forgotten, it seems as if, out of nowhere, a bunch of ignorant savages just decided one day to take over airplanes and crash them into buildings. Instead, the attacks should be thought of as the equivalent of cockroaches: ugly, but successful, because they exploited a friendly environment.

 

[Firestone]

If a car is traveling with a helium-filled balloon in the back seat, and the car suddenly stops, the helium-filled balloon moves towards the back.

 

[JimBenArm]

This thread needs to be dragged back on topic or it will be shot at dawn, decapitated at noon and will have it's bottom smacked with a bashful ferret somewhere around tea time.

You have been warned!

OOO. I've been off topic, too! Punish me, punish me!

I've always had a ferret fetish. Just don't tell the wife...

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Back to the topic...

Evolution/natural selection defies common sense, sometimes. Common sense tells us that it would be much more difficult to kill a dinosaur than a cockroach, yet the cockroaches outlived the dinosaurs. It's because the conditions were right for cockroaches, but not dinosaurs. This defies our common-sense reasoning that says they has to be some sort of plan governing the development of species.

right, common-sense says "bigger is better" but by far the most successful creatures from an evolutionary standpoint are the smallest, bacteria and green algea

and of course this same "bigger is better" mindset leads one to see the WTC towers are near invincible

 

[Oliver]

@ConspiRaider & Architect: We need a jawbreaker/language award!

By the way, Architect: What does "Troi´n wyntog ac yn lawog" mean? PM?

 

[Architect]

@ConspiRaider & Architect: We need a jawbreaker/language award!

By the way, Architect: What does "Troi´n wyntog ac yn lawog" mean? PM?

Dunno. I was winding up Remove Bush and 28th by posting the weather forecasts in Welsh, which of course they can't understand, and decided to stick with it. Probably means "today's weather".

www.s4c.co.uk

 

[TjW]

Iay inkthay ouyay ereway overaythinkingay isthay ategystray.

 

[Oliver]

Iay inkthay ouyay ereway overaythinkingay isthay ategystray.

Iay amay stytyng toy uyndyrstand.

 

[Dave_46]

It's very hard to grasp to size of the towers. I think most of us have played with HO trains when we were little, right?

The Twin Towers, in HO (1:87) scale would be about 15' 8" (4.8 meters) heigh and 2' 5" (0.73 meters) wide. Still very huge...

I used a similar analogy when working in one of the Cardington airship hangars a few years ago. At that scale the hangars are 3m (10ft) long. It was the only way I could convey the scale.

Dave

 

[Bell]

a matter of scale.
I grew up in the era the WTC was being built. In fact one of the things I remember was the television networks protesting because the towers would interfere with their signals broadcast from the empire state building. in fact they had a simulation of what it would look like on TV. A ghosting of two Grey wide stripes overlapping the screen. When the towers were built there was almost nothing of similar scale even near them. in fact they were adjacent to the shore of the Hudson where the financial center and winter gardens stand today. with nothing around them they looked quite odd and out of place. For many including me they were not very attractive and seemed almost out of place. they were beyond human scale and seemed to outweigh all of lower Manhattan. gradually we got used to them being there. after many years they were gradually surrounded by buildings not even half their size. It lessened the impact they had at a distance and gradually a balanced skyline was achieved. because of this modern era photographs and videos of the skyline did not truly convey the towers scale. even though you could see them from most all of Manhattan. It was quite a few years before i actually visited them. about 12-14 years ago. most of my previous visits were midtown via the Lincoln tunnel. I had no reason to venture south as all the concerts and entertainment was away from there. because i then had a pre teen son I became more of a 'tourist" showing him the sights and sounds of Manhattan. Was then while holding his hand we both experienced the towers for the first of many times to follow. You ever look at something so tall you have to back up to see the top? Man sometimes I felt as if i had to walk off the pier by the sidewalk cafés at the marina to view them. By then they finally seemed to fit in. To belong. To be something that would be there for the rest of my life and my sons life.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cuesfid/images/wtc02.jpg

Nice post, A W. That's the one thing about the WTC I remember vividly and made such a huge impression while in Manhattan, that you could see them from almost everywhere. They were the first signs of Manhattan I saw when flying in, and the last when we leaved.

I tried to imagine how gigantic it would have been, had the towers collapsed in '93. Not knowing ofcourse that 3 months later exactly that would happen.

 

[Dave_46]

OOO. I've been off topic, too! Punish me, punish me!

I've always had a ferret fetish. Just don't tell the wife...

She knows

Dave

 

[Bell]

I used a similar analogy when working in one of the Cardington airship hangars a few years ago. At that scale the hangars are 3m (10ft) long. It was the only way I could convey the scale.

Dave

Wow, you can build a small railroad in those hangars!

Scale maybe can be conveyed this way, but weight is very hard to convey. To make clear how much those tops of the WTC weighted, and that those weights where all that was needed to collapse the towers to the ground after the initial collapse.

 

[pvt1863]

Evolution/natural selection defies common sense, sometimes. Common sense tells us that it would be much more difficult to kill a dinosaur than a cockroach, yet the cockroaches outlived the dinosaurs. It's because the conditions were right for cockroaches, but not dinosaurs. This defies our common-sense reasoning that says they has to be some sort of plan governing the development of species.

I'm not sure that evolution defies common sense in this case. Yes, common sense tells us that it is harder to kill a dinosaur than it is to kill a cockroach, and that is true. But common sense also tells us that smaller animals tend to have larger populations than larger ones and that animals with larger populations are less likely to go extinct.

I actually threw together a 30 question + 1 essay common sense science test to demonstrate the problem of counter-intuitive science. I posted it on the IMDB board for World Trade Center. I've had a few people try it out by answering some science questions using their common sense, and so far the best response was someone who got nine questions and the essay wrong. One of the more annoying CTers on that board promised to do the test today. We'll see how well he does.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/nest/63187281

Most of the questions there deal with heat transfer since that is my field of expertise. I think it would be fun if a lot of people threw something like this together while focusing on their particular field of expertise.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm not sure that evolution defies common sense in this case. Yes, common sense tells us that it is harder to kill a dinosaur than it is to kill a cockroach, and that is true. But common sense also tells us that smaller animals tend to have larger populations than larger ones and that animals with larger populations are less likely to go extinct.

I actually threw together a 30 question + 1 essay common sense science test to demonstrate the problem of counter-intuitive science. I posted it on the IMDB board for World Trade Center. I've had a few people try it out by answering some science questions using their common sense, and so far the best response was someone who got nine questions and the essay wrong. One of the more annoying CTers on that board promised to do the test today. We'll see how well he does.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/nest/63187281

Most of the questions there deal with heat transfer since that is my field of expertise. I think it would be fun if a lot of people threw something like this together while focusing on their particular field of expertise.

nice questions, i like the lake one, the water actually goes down, doesnt?

 

[28th Kingdom]

I'm not sure that evolution defies common sense in this case. Yes, common sense tells us that it is harder to kill a dinosaur than it is to kill a cockroach, and that is true. But common sense also tells us that smaller animals tend to have larger populations than larger ones and that animals with larger populations are less likely to go extinct.

I actually threw together a 30 question + 1 essay common sense science test to demonstrate the problem of counter-intuitive science. I posted it on the IMDB board for World Trade Center. I've had a few people try it out by answering some science questions using their common sense, and so far the best response was someone who got nine questions and the essay wrong. One of the more annoying CTers on that board promised to do the test today. We'll see how well he does.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/board/nest/63187281

Most of the questions there deal with heat transfer since that is my field of expertise. I think it would be fun if a lot of people threw something like this together while focusing on their particular field of expertise.

1. It is possible to add insulation to a pipe and, as a result, increase the heat transfer rate between the pipe and the ambient air.

Are you serious?

You think this is a common sense question? You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?

by gattboy 20 hours ago[SIZE=-1] (Sat Jan 6 2007 15:08:12 ) [/SIZE] [SIZE=-2]Ignore this User | Report Abuse[/SIZE] quick history test-

how many times in the past has a US president used false military evidence to start a war?


I like that guy... hahahaha - see, he has common sense.

 

[Architect]

28th,

You're a fraud and a coward. Answer the technical points put to you or return whence you came.

 

[Firestone]

You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?

Perfectly applicable to the collapse of the WTC-towers.

Oh, also read this:

28th,

You're a fraud and a coward. Answer the technical points put to you or return whence you came.

 

[MortFurd]

1. It is possible to add insulation to a pipe and, as a result, increase the heat transfer rate between the pipe and the ambient air.

Are you serious?

You think this is a common sense question? You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?

[qimg]http://i.imdb.com/boards/post.gif[/qimg] by gattboy 20 hours ago[SIZE=-1] (Sat Jan 6 2007 15:08:12 ) [/SIZE] [SIZE=-2]Ignore this User | Report Abuse[/SIZE] [qimg]http://ia.ec.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/78/41/49.gif[/qimg] quick history test-

how many times in the past has a US president used false military evidence to start a war?


I like that guy... hahahaha - see, he has common sense.

And just what "commonly known and accepted piece of information" are we supposed to apply the unprecedented collapse of two 110 story buildings in order to come up with your "common sense" answer that it had have been an inside job?

"Common sense" tells me that "common sense" don't know jack **** about what happens when a jumbo jet crashes into one of the tallest buildings in the world.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

1. It is possible to add insulation to a pipe and, as a result, increase the heat transfer rate between the pipe and the ambient air.

Are you serious?

i woudl think if you know what insulation is you would be able to supply a common sense answer to that (the common sense answer is "no" since that defeats the purpose of insulation, but given the context im assuming that answer is wrong)

You think this is a common sense question? You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.

you mean like the collapse of a 110 story skyscraper?

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?

and what commonly accepted peice of information are you applying to teh collapse of the WTC?

 

[ConspiRaider]

@ConspiRaider & Architect: We need a jawbreaker/language award!

Humbly, Sir Oliver, I admit I do need some kind of award. I mean hell, I've been trying six ways from Sunday to get 28IQ to officially add me to his Ignoren Listlich and publicly post it so other JREFers would then know I have arrived.

Ich maken (mit Architecten helpen) eine Tallen Talen auf Der Grosse Dinosauren und Der Snowen Yeti und Das Nessie Auf Wasser Lochen zu chasen und essen Das kleine noggen 28IQ, aber er Ignoren Listlich appendlich NICHT! MEIN GOTT! Ist nicht so schon, fur mich. Awarden haben nicht.