Slashdot Mirror

Isn't Metro just a different GUI library on top of .Net?

No.

Metro is not a GUI library. It's not a library at all. It's a term to describe a new kind of apps, specific to Win8, that are fullscreen, run in a very tight sandbox, and have different life cycle that allows the OS to unload them. Basically, tablet-enabled apps for Windows.

WinRT (Windows Runtime) is the library (and a bit more than that; the term is overloaded). It's not just a GUI library, mind you. It also has file I/O, and sockets, and HTTP, and lots of other stuff. It's most similar to .NET or Java standard class library.

WinRT is not on top of .NET. The implementation itself is pure native code. It it "projected" into .NET, so that WinRT classes and interfaces look like CLR classes and interfaces. This is done on runtime/bytecode level, not on language level, so any .NET language can target WinRT.

Not all Metro apps have to use WinRT. In particular, HTML/JS apps don't use it for GUI, and they may not need to use it for anything else if capabilities provided by HTML5 modules (canvas, IndexedDB etc) are sufficient. If they do want/need to use it, it is projected into JavaScript (sans UI parts, since HTML5 is supposed to be used for that with JS).

The Newtons 26 pin connector: http://myapplenewton.blogspot.com/2009/07/interconnect-port-101.html

Pics:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4281355248_0d8d04f355.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/3090113889_9483dbd7af.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_86fa3woQOHU/SgV_ZUYBrrI/AAAAAAAAAfk/jxzCukhEE2M/s1600-h/IMG_6905.JPG

The Newtons 26 pin connector: http://myapplenewton.blogspot.com/2009/07/interconnect-port-101.html

Pics:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4281355248_0d8d04f355.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3044/3090113889_9483dbd7af.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_86fa3woQOHU/SgV_ZUYBrrI/AAAAAAAAAfk/jxzCukhEE2M/s1600-h/IMG_6905.JPG

Here we are 100 years BEYOND where they said we'd get and still going strong.

No, we are not "going strong." Domestic oil production has been falling on average since 1970. The last couple years have seen an increase, but that's likely only due to a greater-than-expected dip from 2005-2008. Hurricane Katrina made a big dent, for one thing. If you look at this graph you'll see that even with the latest discoveries, we're only back up to where we were in 2003.

With the continued depletion of existing fields, there is no way that curve can ever reach where it was in 1970, unless there are huge vast fields yet to be discovered (which all evidence says aren't there).

No one is sitting on their laurels. To the contrary, we're working very hard to keep the oil flowing unlike some people that just want to destroy our industry, economy, and financial system.

There's a big difference between destroying it and transforming it into something sustainable. I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out the environmental and political costs of our current approach are too high to bear much longer.

Everybody panic!

Oh, wait, nevermind, we keep finding more - and we keep developing new technology to get to the stuff.

Granted, processed oil isn't the friendliest thing to the world, there is a finite (though huge) supply, and cleaner fuels are a better alternative once they're economically viable without gigantic government subsidies. But for now we're just fine.

J A Konrath defends the 99c price point,

Not any more. From his October 4 blog post:

The sweet spot for ebooks may be changing. I've been charging $2.99 for novels because I've been making a lot of money. But I may be doing myself a disservice and leaving some money on the table. The goal is to find that perfect point that balances sales and profits. That means experimenting. In the past, I've been against charging more, because my own experiments showed it didn't work. But I've now seen other authors who it is working for, and that encourages me to experiment some more.

My apps all fall under the free thresholds. The "little" guy really hasn't been hurt by the changes. Google listened, and increased the number of free instance-hours to 28, allowing a free app to have a single idle instance all the time, with occasional spikes.

You do need to configure this though - I personally think that any free app should be automatically configured to be max 1 idle instance and maximum queue time.

http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/09/few-adjustments-to-app-engines-upcoming.html

Sounds like a good time to promote Google's 2-step authentication. Awesome stuff, integrates with a token generator app on my iPhone and makes it significantly more secure without being a hassle. If you have to check your email on an untrusted computer, it doesn't matter if your password is sniffed. It would be unusable without also having the one-time use token.

Rather than merely Stop Posting (or paying for a domain), and instead actually putting the effort to remove one's creations is something which is both strange and uncommon on the internet. I never used anything he wrote (that I know of?), but am immensely curious as to what would cause a person to do this. It's VERY different from retiring an old machine or deciding that you don't care about a domain anymore enough to actually update its DNS (or pay for it, perhaps).

Perhaps he's had enough of wasting his life over HTML specifications, or writing yet another book about a 20 year old programming language. Perhaps he has bigger priorities, such as raising his family, or preparing for key resource depletion that is occurring as we "chit chat". Maybe he's decided that the Internet has devolved into a steaming pile of weasel shit used by ruthless people to con the masses out of their privacy in exchange for a quick buck.

PS. Like that nice reverse-trolling in the first link? Notice the fine print in the header when you visit it?

If only Haskell had some decent tutorials.

I have read a couple, and while reading the second one, I have seen something interesting and I wanted to code it and see how it runs. It was only then I realized that I have read 1.5 Haskell tutorials and I yet can't write/run even Hello World in it. Because none of them even bothered to define what the hell a Haskell program is.

$ ghci
GHCi, version 6.12.1: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help
Loading package ghc-prim ... linking ... done.
Loading package integer-gmp ... linking ... done.
Loading package base ... linking ... done.
Prelude> putStrLn "Hello world!"
Hello world!
Prelude> 1+1
2
Prelude> map (\x -> x*x) [1..10]
[1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64,81,100]
Prelude> foldl1 (+) [1..10]
55
Prelude> :t map
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
Prelude> :t 1
1 :: (Num t) => t
Prelude> :t [1..10]
[1..10] :: (Num t, Enum t) => [t]
Prelude> :t \x->x*x
\x->x*x :: (Num a) => a -> a

Haskell might be nice, but judging a language by type of articles about it, both Lisp and Erlang are light years ahead. They explain how to solve problems at hand - and waste much much less pages signing odes how beautiful and concise the syntax is.

Have you tried Learn You a Haskell for Great Good! ?

Returning to Haskell. I haven't found a single decent explanation of what the hell monad is. Most concise to date is "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors". But neither that has advanced my understanding of Haskell or monads any further.

That's very funny stuff! As for category theory, you don't have to
know it to use monads effectively, so I hope the link will be helpful.

After I saw this quote I figured they'd have to find some error in their observations. (Emphasis added.)

"...If the observation is confirmed, it may be the most important discovery in science in the last 100 years.

"However, a big fly in the ointment is the supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which sits just outside our galaxy 168,000 light-years from Earth. It was first seen by the naked eye on February 24, 1987. Three hours before the visible light reached Earth, a handful of neutrinos were detected in three independent underground detectors. If the CERN result is correct, they should have arrived in 1982. So, if I were a wagering man, I would bet the effect will go away because of some systematic error no one has yet been able to think of."

(Quote stolen from Quark Soup)

If only Haskell had some decent tutorials.

I have read a couple, and while reading the second one, I have seen something interesting and I wanted to code it and see how it runs. It was only then I realized that I have read 1.5 Haskell tutorials and I yet can't write/run even Hello World in it. Because none of them even bothered to define what the hell a Haskell program is.

Haskell might be nice, but judging a language by type of articles about it, both Lisp and Erlang are light years ahead. They explain how to solve problems at hand - and waste much much less pages signing odes how beautiful and concise the syntax is.

Returning to Haskell. I haven't found a single decent explanation of what the hell monad is. Most concise to date is "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors". But neither that has advanced my understanding of Haskell or monads any further.

so this will be many years will wait to do it huh... | [Make Money via Internet](http://cubemars.blogspot.com) | Make Money via Internet

I wish I had this on a T-shirt:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wNJtF1XNe8Y/TFmc2jfEfrI/AAAAAAAACL8/eJVbvC6Izr4/s1600/fuck+this+guy.jpg

Citations please.

here and here

At my current employer who shall remain nameless for the time being we do an absolute metric shitload of image and video processing in Java for the US government. There's definitely some issues that continually need ironing out but you can usually get Java to do whatever it is you want if you don't mind spending enough time with it. We also have started using some C# but that's only to replace some positively ancient Access applications and then is probably going to promptly get thrown in the toilet.

One of the nice things about Java is that it's relatively powerful AND flexible. Now personally I loathe Java for many reasons but even I can't argue that it's become very effective. We could do more work in Ruby and Python but that would mean performance losses that we cannot accept and market support that we cannot accept either. We could do more work in C/C++, Fortran, or similar for the heavy lifting but if you've already got the bulk of the application written in Java it's not *that* hard to make the Java code fast enough to work for our purposes (fast, but not realtime fast). Plus your knowledge pool with your developers stays specialized and high (bad for their careers, but if they don't care then by all means bleed 'em dry I suppose...not that I agree).

Feedback effects of are not "assumed," but are based upon established physical properties of CO2 and water, such as the effect of temperature on CO2 solubility and evaporation of water.

Then tell me this, how would you discern between something acting as a feedback, and something acting as a forcing. Be specific.

There is a correlation between temperature and CO2; the question is why. For this question of causality, there is no null hypothesis, because the null hypothesis has already been excluded.

Yes, there *is* a correlation between temperature and CO2, and the historical record clearly shows CO2 changing *after* temperature. It is a novel assumption that suddenly, this behavior has changed, and as for causality, until you get a time machine, causes have to come before effects :)

The null hypothesis of no statistical relationship between temperature and CO2 is excluded.

Be careful here, you're moving the goalposts - the null hypothesis is that there is no *causal* relationship *from* CO2 *to* global average temperature. The novel proposition you claim is that there is in fact a *causal* relationship. This must be held to strict scrutiny.

-but you are hardly equipped to criticize the quality of those hindcasts unless you can offer a model that does a better job.

One does not need a competing model to demonstrate problems with an existing one. While it may be *nice* to have a new and improved model, it is not necessary to show the problems with existing models.

What you're proposing here is cargo cult science, with the demand that unless I can create a better model than the coconut radio transmitters and the bamboo landing fields, that I have no right to insist that you're barking up the wrong tree.

As for cargo cult science, here are a few more references for you to learn from:

http://misunderstoodfinance.blogspot.com/2010/01/would-feynman-disprove-global-warming.html

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3607

"if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated."

http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html

http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer

http://coldfire-lenr.blogspot.com/2011/09/ready-set-go.html

But the most important public tests are happening today, and at the end of this month in the US.

Look at this graph.

Am I imagining that they've not actually graphed an object giving off energy over time, but an object being heated up and then slowly cooling?

Oh, you think so?

Citations please.

here and here

Steve Jobs has just passed us by. On his visions we all could rely. Now he is gone, but he will move on to that great iPad in the sky. Link

BTW if you think this looks like an iPad (or a Samsung Tab) you are beyond help.

How about the latest Facebook tracking option. It's called ALLforALL: 10:50:09: Breathed in. 10:50:14: Breathed out. 10:50:24: Noticed cat sleeping on chair. 10:50:32: Wind stirring leaves outside house. Temp 71 degrees. 10:51:02: Sun came out from behind cloud. 10:51:12: Had dalliance with Greek heiress 10:51:34: Cleared throat. 10:51:49: Rear section of Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) just crashed through house. 10:52:59: Cat now awake. 10:53:17: Thirsty. --from Thinking Out Loud, http://marperl.blogspot.com/

The problem is generally that Java applications become huge and bloated because the language is so verbose and inexpressive. See Steve Yegge's essay on the topic.

Thank you. That suddenly makes a lot more sense, in a twisted kind of way. I would still maintain that reducing conservatism to fiscal conservatism is not exactly objective.

More importantly, "fiscal conservatism" is not the same as "not wasting". Here's why: Fiscal conservatism means avoiding deficit spending. By the sectoral balances, if the external balance is in deficit (as is the case in many countries, especially the US), this means that the private sector must also be in deficit. That means private actors must run down their savings or increase their debt. This is an unavoidable fact of accounting. But this in turn reduces the amount of spending in the economy (both consumption and investment), and this causes unemployment.

So a consequence of properly implemented fiscal conservatism is that, most of the time, there will be unemployment.

This means that individuals who could be productive and contribute to the well-being of society do not find a job in which they can do so. But this is certainly a kind of waste.

I'm all for making government more efficient and eliminating waste there. But that has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, it is simply a matter of proper management. Fiscal conservatism, on the other hand, necessarily causes at least one kind of waste (not in government, but in the economy at large) most of the time.

i think iphone is better than sony ericson | http://cubemars.blogspot.com/

every year comes its gettting high tech | http://cubemars.blogspot.com/

How did they get a trademark in the first place? Isn't prior art such as this (made popular by encyclopedias the world over) in the way? So if I make a website to timeline the evolution of something or allow others to do so on my site, then I'll be in trouble? Can someone explain this to me? Thanks.

Hackers' Lounge:1 - Payload Anatomy of InMotion Hosting Defacements
http://hackerslounge1.blogspot.com/2011/10/payload-anatomy-of-inmotion-hosting.html

you did it again tomithy | http://cubemars.blogspot.com/

My source is here.

Note, I do know about the payroll tax and sales tax. You also left out local taxes. I don't agree with the GOP when they imply that the people that don't pay federal income taxes are evil. In fact, my blog has a scheduled post for Oct 2 that deals with this fallacy.

But my point is that that we already charge people tax penalties for not doing things. Not buying a home is one of the biggest examples.

This is true, and it's because these devices cannot pass (or do not attempt) Google's Compatibility Test Suite. Proving compatibility via a crapload of tests is a requirement for Google services.

The post also fails to mention a rather large category of apps that are also excluded from the Playbook: apps based on the NDK, which is to say apps that have components written in C++. That includes pretty much all modern games, as well as other CPU-intensive operations.

Absurd release schedules?

http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/search/label/Stable%20updates
Chrome was 12 in July, it's 14 now.

If Firefox is losing to Chrome it is NOT because of the "absurd release schedule."

Doesn't stop Russia from selling its latest and greatest weapons to China.

You're funny.

The only documented incidents I'm aware of are where Republicans were caught red-handed pulling a slimy stunts like that.

That indicates not just a disrespect for their opponents, but for the whole voting process.

Please feel free to educate us with references to other such incidents by any party.

Nope, pretty much all board game apps require Java, many bank websites, etc require this. I'm not saying they should, just saying they do.

That may change in the near future. In my area, applets are often used for simple chemical structure editors, but there are some commercial and free/open-source javascript solutions for this. Even 3D molecular viewers, like twirlymol:

http://baoilleach.blogspot.com/2009/01/twistymol-is-dead-long-live-twirlymol.html

There are many advantages, such as better page integration, no startup time, no "install java" popup, etc.

Personally I can't wait for StringCells.

mmmm, stringy.

Already exists.

tell me about it. My android tablet keeps getting the mobile version of sites, even when google has said that user-agents without mobile should get the full view.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/03/mo-better-to-also-detect-mobile-user.html

Here's the gist:

*) There are no "Wall St" firms on Wall St anymore (nor anywhere close). NYSE trading floor is not that important in grand scheme of things. The neighbourhood became residential about 15 years ago, and now there's 20,000 residents like me.

So what? Wall Street is The Symbol of US stock trading so it is intuitively obvious it is the correct place to hold the protest.

*) When the protest started (two weeks ago), there were minimal number of protesters (1000) despite the protesters claims to have 20k people.

Strange, I've been watching this very closely and I have yet to come across the 20k claim. Perhaps you saw the claim of a some small minority of the protesters because you live in an information bubble created by your previous search history.

*) There's "OVER 9000" cops downtown, and it makes getting around quite annoying since I have to navigate police barriers (not a big deal, but just annoying). There's definitely more cops than protesters at any given area. At the beginning of protest, they had a 2-cop shoulder-to-shoulder line blocking Wall St. The only protesters were 6 people dressed in white robes (could pass for either Star Wars freaks or priests), cops were quite bored.

I'm sorry the protests are grit in your cloaca. These protesters are trying to get those 9000 cops to do their damn jobs: arrest those responsible for this economic catastrophe. Unless you happen to be one of those criminals, your butt should be down in that square showing solidarity with the 99% of us who have been robbed.

*) Cops are polite and keep to their business (that is, stand there and look serious). I can't say same about the protesters.

*) Protesters themselves...oy. Whatever it is they are protesting, they are an embarassment to their cause. I've chatted to a few, and had a few come over for drinks, and uh...Well, it's exactly what you'd expect, well-meaning but clueless younger people who are looking for attention and "feeling of doing something".

It sounds like you have an agenda and thus a selection bias in who you had over. There are always some crazies and dimwits at every protest and within every movement. From the livestream.com video I get the opposite impression: these are college students who have the intellect to actually belong in college. But I too may have a selection bias. So perhaps we could meet in the middle and agree these are random sampling of human beings.

*) They protest evil corporations. Nevertheless, most of them have latest iphone4 (just look at the videos - they are ones taping). It doesn't bother them that Apple is largest corporation in the world who isn't very nice to its users.

*) There's a huge number of DSLRs at the protest - combined with iphone4, means nobody there is really starving.

Unfortunately there isn't a lot of choice for the non luddite but to buy electronics made by slave labour in some totalitarian state because we ourselves now live in a budding totalitarian state. Hopefully these protests will lead to worldwide democracy that serves the needs of all so that there are no products made by slaves.

*) I started speaking to one of protesters about bitcoin. He was very interested in it and buying some if they are likely to appreciate. He was *shocked* when I pointed out that's exactly what "evil bankers" do.

Funny, I don't remember bitcoin getting trillions of dollars from the Feds for a bailout because criminals run freely between bitcoin and the fed.

*) Cops don't really give a damn about protesters. They are charged with enforcing certain rules - such as, no "permanent structures". So, every so often, a cop walks through the protest site checking things out. Each time a cop does so, there's 10 people with cameras surrounding said cop to ma

At the big-U's, of course there will be a latent aversion to prof's lecturing to a camera and reusing said lecture every semester. If I am just watching a video of a prof or reading his lecture notes online, it will be more difficult for the universities to justify the ever-more exorbitant admission cost if it's just delivered online (although most classes seem to be more of teaching yourself than the lecturer teaching you, but that's what college is about anyways, learning how to learn). College has been going online for awhile, but the question of 'should it be' is a reasonable one; will it save students money, or just dilute the college process into even more of a degree-mill spectacle than it already is? Or just create more busywork? I say it depends mostly on the context, subjectivity, and type of degree program.

I bet in 100 years our descendants will be asking what it was like to sit in a classroom with people and how weird it must have been to learn in a group.

I'm teaching a course at UQ that I've deployed some of my own teaching technology onto (hopefully rolling out to the masses soon... ok, maybe not 'masses' but a trickle'd be nice). Part of my theory is that "online" is not so much about pushing teaching out onto the web as it is about pulling the web into teaching. So in my course there's a fair amount of "web" interaction that happens right there in the lecture theatre (more as I add missing features), and that provides continuity that means the discussions you're having in the lecture can be continued out of the lecture, in revision, etc. Universities have never actually cared about owning content delivery -- more often than not the course textbook was not written by the lecturer. They care about delivering the teaching experience. So much so that in the course I'm teaching this semester, we decided to get the students to give about two-thirds of the talks (as tech conference talk+demo presentations) so they'd get some experience not just building tech but also explaining it and teaching their peers. Lectures aren't just about "reading out the notes", and online isn't just about "put a video on iTunes U or Lectopia.

On-star has no more rights to the location of ex-customers than Texaco does.

Citizens should not be required to rip out the electronics to prevent a previous business partner from illegally spying on them.

In fact a good case can be made to legally require all corporations you cease doing business with to destroy all OLD records about you, with exceptions for records of transactions you engaged in. (see my blog entree from June for more information

The agreements could be standardized by convention... Or by legal requirements (like Nolo Press contributes to). That might eliminate 90% of lawyer's workload. People googling on advice can also reduce the need for paid advice, or allow individuals to use what little they really need more effectively (so, less billable hours).

See also Marshall Brain's Manna on breaking down tasks and deskilling them, even lawyering.
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

If you can just make lawyers twice as productive with some tools, what happens to half the lawyers we have now?

What if with limited AI you can make lawyers 10X more productive? What do 90% of the current lawyers do, considering lawyers getting out of school now are finding now jobs for them?
http://lawschoolscam.blogspot.com/
http://www.lawyerswithdepression.com/

Or do we get a legal arms race of pointless lawsuits to keep lawyers employed? IIRC the USA has something like 2X to 5X more lawyers per capita than much of the rest of the world to begin with...
http://www.averyindex.com/lawyers_per_capita.php
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_country_in_the_world_has_most_lawyers_per_capita

My site has a lot about post-scarcity economic alternatives to a collapsing exchange economy in the face of the decline of the value of moct paid human labor:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/

As I understand it, diaspora had two selling points: one it was not under the control of a large corporation who could abuse you, and two you were able to choose who you shared what with. Google+ scooped that second feature already, and it probably won't be long before facebook does too if they haven't already

Facebook has had that for a while - at least a year, anyway, using Lists. You can choose to post updates/photos/whatever to people who are members of a list, and only those people will see it. It's worked well for quite a while - until this week, as they have changed it so that people on those lists can now see who else is on the list, which is quite a step backwards. Unfortunately, it mirrors Google+ behaviour in this regard.

I didn't think you could see what Google+ list you were on (so wouldn't see who else was on that list). I think if something was posted to that list, you would be able to see who else it was shared with, but it could have been a custom list of names, or a selection of different lists (you could, of course, probably work it out by tracking common posting recipients).

I did see that Facebook created lists, however it was a bit too late as I would have to go through my entire list of friends to sort them if I wanted to use them (which I don't really have the time to do), where the set up for that has been done from the start with Google+

Bad form, replying to self, but I found a pic!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OjHZJ0p3NPI/SwNY8JRh5XI/AAAAAAAAAIw/pMNkZxVeDlI/s1600/gelmini.jpg

She can stay!

As I understand it, diaspora had two selling points: one it was not under the control of a large corporation who could abuse you, and two you were able to choose who you shared what with. Google+ scooped that second feature already, and it probably won't be long before facebook does too if they haven't already

Facebook has had that for a while - at least a year, anyway, using Lists. You can choose to post updates/photos/whatever to people who are members of a list, and only those people will see it. It's worked well for quite a while - until this week, as they have changed it so that people on those lists can now see who else is on the list, which is quite a step backwards. Unfortunately, it mirrors Google+ behaviour in this regard.

I have a question that may or may not be related. I keep asking but haven't heard a good answer.

1. 1) Although many people own a little stock, most equities are owned by just 1% of the population. The bottom 50% owns 0.5%.
2. 2) Stocks went down overall in the 2000's.
3. 3) And yet, wealth inequality grew during the 2000's; the rich continued to get richer while everybody else got poorer.

How is that possible? Why hasn't the weakness of the stock market and real estate leveled the distribution of wealth? If high-frequency trading, or insider trading, or anything "unfair" has happened on a large scale, it should be detectable because the distribution of returns should be more skewed - that is, the best should be beating the market by a wider margin than before. Are they?

The point of the documentary seems to be that propaganda from large corporations has made people think these are much larger problems then they actually are. People on both sides abuse the system. In the case of the coffee, the woman nearly died (Baux score of 95, with 140 being "comfort care only") with third degree burns to 6% of her body (16% burned total), and medical bills of $10,500 for her 8 day hospitalization, and over two years of treatment including skin graphs. Here is a picture of her burns, if you're still doubtful.

...see 50,000 Years of Nativism Down Under at iSteve...

...and...

Out of Africa onward to Wallacea and The Australian Aborigines may not be just descendants of first settlers at Razib Khan's GNXP.

About interbreeding with older populations, there's been a lot of research lately. Widespread Denisovan admixture in Papuans and Australians, Archaic admixture in Africa confirmed. We have always mixed, and we will always mix. It is beneficial for natural selection: the "best genes" of population A+B are always better than the best genes of A, or those from B, separated.

About interbreeding with older populations, there's been a lot of research lately. Widespread Denisovan admixture in Papuans and Australians, Archaic admixture in Africa confirmed. We have always mixed, and we will always mix. It is beneficial for natural selection: the "best genes" of population A+B are always better than the best genes of A, or those from B, separated.