Oh, just tazer them, declare yourself a god and be done with it.

Heh. This was Tim's response. "All you need is a well-timed eclipse and a laser gun" and they're toast.

This! Is! My BOOMSTICK!

It is growing and speeding up pains.

We've recently clamped down big time on process. People freak out at the schedules, but as project manager I just shrug and say "Do you want to be the one that nixes testing?" And no one really wants to take that on themselves. So we have hella testing, and hella controls on moving code from one stage to the next. Yeah, people are pissed. But the people that get pissed if stuff goes out wrong are people that can get us all fired.

I think the key to an astronaut v. caveman battleground is that you each give them the advantages of their own defining characteristics. Else why say "astronaut" instead of "modern human"? Why say "caveman" instead of "aboriginal hunter"?

Even beyond that, I think the key philosophical question here is: "who wins in a fight between a fit military engineer who can create weapons and has knowledge of battle strategies, or an experienced hunter and killer who is probably stronger?"

So a superior alien race is having Sweeps week and have pay-per-view gladiatorial combat. They grab an astronaut and a caveman and drop them into the battle zone. They implant the knowledge that two enter and only one leaves to be returned home. The battle zone looks like a park, but has a number of buildings in it. The buildings have tools. The caveman has access to the kind of stones he uses in making spears and slings and stone age weaponry. The combatants are given two days to make their gear and then they're loosed to hunt.

So, can the astronaut build something in that period of time that will give him an advantage over the caveman's superior hunting skills and strength? I say give the astronaut the equipment he'd find in the average garage and he could make a crossbow pretty easily. He could also better create traps for the caveman, who we will coincide is not only a better hunter, but more used to killing.

Now that's a scenario where I think you're making the distinct advantages of caveman v. astronaut clear.

why say "astronaut" instead of "modern human"? Why say "caveman" instead of "aboriginal hunter"?

Because modern human doesn't imply former military as Allyson was assuming, and aboriginal hunters would be pretty pissed at being equated with cavemen on many levels.

I say give the astronaut the equipment he'd find in the average garage and he could make a crossbow pretty easily. He could also better create traps for the caveman, who we will coincide is not only a better hunter, but more used to killing.

I don't see it. Why does being an astronaut translate into complex weapon creation and trapping? Why are we conceding that the caveman is more used to killing people?

These days, not all astronauts are military/ex-military.

Astronaut goes to garage. Gets in Hummer. Mows down caveman. The End.

Astronaut goes to garage. Gets in Hummer. Mows down caveman. The End.

Doesn't take a Hummer. Just a Toro.

Both Farscape and Angel say that the cavemen win. That's got to be worth something.

Now that's a scenario where I think you're making the distinct advantages of caveman v. astronaut clear.

I also don't see how astronaut = expert weapons builder. If you put an astronaut and a caveman each in a falling-apart spacecraft, the astronaut's more likely to come back alive (by the simple fact that the caveman is unlikely to know how to read or use duct tape), but that's a different kind of expertise than building a rocket launcher from scratch. Your scenario is essentially Caveman Vs MacGuyver.

Doesn't take a Hummer. Just a Toro.

Or a woodchipper. Or a chainsaw.

Houston, we have a chainsaw massacre.

Even a Saturn.