What is more important, politics or paleontology?

[fanwuq]

Apples vs. Jumping Rope:

Once again, depends on the situation. If you need to survive in the wilderness, the apple gives you food and some water, but you can use the jumprope to catch fish or climb trees, or cut part of it off and fray it to use as a fire starter. The jumprope can make you healthier by giving you a way to exercise, but you can exercise without the jumprope. The apple, however, can give you food, and if you're stranded, you can't get food without the apple. Finally, the apple has seeds, which can be used to make more apples, which can be used to make more trees. Apple wins. QED.

Give me another one!

Wrong. If you are stranded in the wilderness. You can probably see some animals and wild fruits. Eat what the animals eat--no use for the apple. Use the Rope to catch the animal (very difficult, but usable). Use apple to lure animals and ambush them... but why not use the available foods in the forest that the animals usual eat? If you are stuck in the wilderness, chances are that your energy intake would be so much lower than your energy wasted. Most likely you will die anyway. If you have a pot, hatchet, knife, tent, and bow and arrows; you might be able to live. In real life, I don't want apples or jump ropes, so both lose.

Flamethrower wins in wilderness and your house. You can use it to cook and start a forest fire. People will come and find you, but you will probably cook yourself before that. Music player is just useless. In your everyday life, everyone has iPods; they are not fun. Flamethrower is not that useful either, but at least you are not a Fridrich clone if you have one.

Next-- Rubik's cube or bar of soap?

 

[JTW2007]

Wrong. If you are stranded in the wilderness. You can probably see some animals and wild fruits. Eat what the animals eat--no use for the apple. Use the Rope to catch the animal (very difficult, but usable). Use apple to lure animals and ambush them... but why not use the available foods in the forest that the animals usual eat? If you are stuck in the wilderness, chances are that your energy intake would be so much lower than your energy wasted. Most likely you will die anyway. If you have a pot, hatchet, knife, tent, and bow and arrows; you might be able to live.

True. I concede.

Next-- Rubik's cube or bar of soap?

The cube is much more entertaining, but the soap has other benefits. In everyday life (at least for me), the cube repels people, particularly when combined with a lack of soap, but the soap attracts people, particularly when combined with a lack of cubes. Together, they cancel each other out. In everyday life, they are both readily available, so that isn't a worthy debate. In a survival scenario however, I don't so much care about staying clean, so I would pick the cube.

 

[Escher]

In a survival scenario however, I don't so much care about staying clean, so I would pick the cube.

But surely a bar of soap would stop you from getting nasty diseases out in the wilderness? Presuming you had other things you could survive with out there and you weren't going to die in a matter of days anyway

 

[eamsch]

cats or dogs? i think cats are cuter, but dogs could help you catch food.

 

[AvGalen]

For friendship: dog
For food: cat

 

[Deleted member 2864]

^ +1 Arnaud

 

[jacob15728]

For friendship: dog
For food: cat

Well, dogs would most likely have more meat on them, so actually the dog would be better. Unless, of course, you are taking taste into account. But in order for you to decide that, you would have to have eaten both dog and cat in your lifetime. Sicko...

 

[ross mccusker]

without politics, the government wouldnt fund paleontology digs.. i guess so politics