News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Lightning Strike Kills More Than 300 Reindeer in Norway by f_allwein on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @02:57AM (#12388046)
"They were standing on a hill, moving up that hill."

Bad idea in a thunderstorm. It is recommended to stay in low-lying areas instead: http://www.wildbackpacker.com/wilderness-survival/articles/s...

Re:Lightning Strike Kills More Than 300 Reindeer in Norway by lagadu on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @05:03AM (#12388444)
Technically true but teaching that to reindeer may be something of a challenge :)
Re:Lightning Strike Kills More Than 300 Reindeer in Norway by karmapolice on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @05:25AM (#12388520)
They just learned by natural selection :)
Re:Lightning Strike Kills More Than 300 Reindeer in Norway by classicsnoot on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @09:21AM (#12389768)
IANAB, but lately i have been thinking a lot about evolution and how it changes a species. The context i am considering is social evolution, but i think the rules of biological evolution apply. From what i understand, Reindeer have learned nothing from the event in general. In the localized area, a bunch of Reindeer are out of the gene pool and any of their kin that are close enough to encounter their carcasses but not the the cause are going to freely associate the deaths with whatever the perception sensory suite allows. My assertion: Evolutionary "learning" occurs over a long period of time through strings of events with similar inputs and outputs.

Not an argument or rebuttal; your comment made me think about it. :]

Re:Lightning Strike Kills More Than 300 Reindeer in Norway by karmapolice on Thursday September 01, 2016 @04:21AM (#12403731)
Nah, I was just kidding. Unless there are similar events occurring during a lot of time, making those reindeers that prefer staying more separated and in lower areas have a significant advantage, and these preferences are hereditary...
Re:Lightning Strike Kills More Than 300 Reindeer in Norway by pop8row9 on Tuesday August 30, 2016 @12:10PM (#12391376)
I don't think there's anything wrong with refutations of pop-science. Thanks for posting.