Let me ammend the last post. Peer-reviewed reference, please. I think that you will find nothing in the peer-reviewed literature that agrees with your understanding of events.
The only exception seems to have been when modern humans crossed into the americas over the land bridge and displaced a group of humans in south america who'd come up from australia. There is definate archeological evidence of the new arrivals killing off the previous occupants. Almost all of them, one group survived till the early 19th century, when we 'helped them' and wrecked an ancient culture before we understood its significance and real importance to understanding early human involvement in the americas. Hmm, one up for the civilised world there....
Bullshit. You're entire post is somewhat misinformed, but this is the worst bit. There is no evidence that anyone traveled from Australia to South America before people got there by way of the Berring Land Bridge. The earliest that people may have been getting to South America across the Pacific was probably about 500-800 years ago, and those people would have been coming from Easter Island. You have been reading to much popular tripe, and are obviously completely unfamilier with the peer reviewed literature...
Minor nitpick: Organisms do not evolve, populations do. Otherwise, your post is right on. The more highly adapted species (specialists) are capable of filling only very specific niches. When that niche disappears, the population either changes, or dies out. If the change to the environment/niche is very rapid, the species is unlikely to be able to adapt quickely enough, especially if they have longer life cycles and small populations (relative to, say, bacteria). Less highly adapted species (generalists) have a better chance at survival, especially if they have shorter life-spans, and larger populations (which imply greater genetic variability), as it is likely that the genes needed to survive in the new environment are already present in some sub-section of the population, and only need the chance to spread.
That you had, past tense? Lucky... I work in an elementary school, and still have to service a boat load of GX110s (and GX1s, and Bondi Blue iMacs, and several Performas, and three Apple//es).
What do you want to be that the article on elephants gets vandalised by a horde of slashdot users following this article? (Yes, I know it is locked, but only to new and non-users of Wikipedia -- this is slashdot, everyone is has a Wikipedia account, right?)
[blockquote]Kids are not stupid , you know.[/blockquote]
Yes, they are.
Okay, maybe they are not [i]stupid[/i]. They are ignorant, naive, and not fully developed. They have not seen what drugs / uprotected sex / &c. can do to them (or others), and they assume that life won't happen to them. The are immortal and invincible. They are not fully developed adults, and should not be treated as such.
Its funny, 10 years ago, I would have agreed with just about everything you said in your post. Let the kids experiment, let them learn right from wrong on their own. Now, I am glad that my parents did set up limits. I recognize that 10 years ago, many of the decisions that I made at the time were pretty fucking boneheaded. I am glad that my parents put limits on what I could do, and that I didn't manage to do more damage to myself than I did. I certainly feel that teenagers should have fewer limits placed upon them than, say, 8 year olds, but that does not change the fact that they are, for the most part (there are always exceptions), not adults, and do not behave as such.
xander
Re:And kids still need breathing space
on
Big Mother Is Watching
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Overprotective parents are going to be overprotective, no matter what you do. Hell, I would imagine that the most overprotective parents would pack lunches for their kids, and not pay for school lunches. This is a program that allows parents to have some control over what their money buys in the school lunch program, and can still enable kids to have a choice in what they eat. Certainly, there are overprotective parents that will ruin their children's ability to function in the real world, they they are going to do that, anyway. This changes nothing in that regard.
On another note, people on Slashdot whinge constantly about parents not doing a good job of raising their children. This looks like an example of parents trying to do something about raising their children, yet the reaction is largely negative?! Yay for groupthink.
I assume you mean Mac users, in general, because I am a Mac user, and have no problem with X11. This stereotyping of Mac users, I think, is more hurtful to OSS on the Mac than anything else. Most of us don't really care that much.
xander
Okay. I have seen all of those issues. Let me try to address them all individually:
X11 takes a while to load. As you say, it is like running a classic app. Mac users should be used to that. Its not perfect, and it probably could be improved upon, but it doesn't seem so bad to me. Call it a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is perfect integration, and 1 is Windows 3.1 (again, just my opinion)
You have to have X11 loaded from the DVD. I agree, this is a bit of a pain for total newbies, who don't want to configure their OS when they install it. I have always kind of thought that it should be installed by default, and only not installed if you specifically ask to not have it installed (i.e. it shouldn't be on the Dev CD only). There is a a certain logic to it -- I think that it assumes that the only people that will care about OSS are developers (and not people like me who install X11 to use the GIMP because we can't afford Photoshop). Basically, it is a hassle the first time you want to run any X11 app, and isn't a problem after than. However, once you get it up and running, it is there, and isn't going to go away. Let's say a 9 on a scale of 1 to 10 (as it was an [arguably] poor design choice, but has little to know lasting impact when using X11, and doesn't really touch on integration with Aqua or the rest of the OS).
The menu bar is in the Window, not at the top of the screen. I agree, this is a big deal. Not huge, but rather important. It is inconsistent with the rest of the GUI, and is likely to cause some people confusion. In my opinion, this is the worst aspect of X11 on the Mac. Again, however, I think that this is an issue that fades as you get used to your X11 apps. I also wonder -- how easy would it be to place the menus in the menu bar as it is in the rest of the GUI? Is that something that could be easily integrated? or would it require major revision of the X11 or Aqua code? 5 on a scale from 1 to 10.
You don't get cool Aqua stuff. Honestly, this seems trivial to me, and sounds more like of a problem for developers than for users. When I run the Gimp, the windows "float" just like any other window -- their drop shadows look just fine. All of the little buttons in the top left corner are the same. I hardly notice that it isn't the same as any other window. Again, I don't really think it matters that much. 9 out of 10.
In my very subjective opinion, these are, for the most part, minor issues. The integration is not perfect, but it is pretty good. The Mac zealots that complain about it can, as far as I am concerned, get stuffed. If these minor issues are really causing people real consternation, they are behaving like spoiled children.
You don't think it integrates nicely? In its default configuration, I hardly notice a difference between X apps and Aqua apps. The only thing that I notice is that X apps take just a little longer to load, because X takes a couple seconds to load. I am not saying that you are wrong -- the integration is not perfect, and some improvement wouldn't hurt, but, in my own opinion, X seems fairly well integrated. Could you explain to me what is terribly wrong with it?
I think you hit the nail on the head. At the moment, I sit on the executive committee of a small non-profit. We are a fencing academy -- we teach fencing classes, host tournaments, go out for beer from time to time, &c. We don't have a lot of rules governing how people behave (other than the standard "don't point a foil at someone who is not wearing a mask," "show proper respect to the referee and other fencers," &c.), but every single rule that we have has been created because some idiot decided not to excercise common sense. For instance, we actually had to put signs up asking people not to write on the floor!
Easier communication and transportation played a significant role as well, of course.
Indeed. Throughout my life, I have lived in 6 different states (Arizona, Iowa, California, New Jersey, Colorado, and Nevada). I feel no special affinity with any one of those states. As the population becomes more mobile, a person's identity is based less and less upon what state they are "from," and more and more on national identity. I wouldn't be suprised to see something similar going on with national identities in Europe in terms of the EU.
Yes, in fact, I have studied archaeology. In fact, that is what my degree is in. While I am more knowledgeable with regards to lithic tools of the Great Basin, human origins was part of my course of study. Thrown weapons came much later than chopping tools. There is little evidence that human ancestors became hunters until after bipedalism developed. There is very little evidence that Austrolopithicus used much more than clunky coppers. Most of the evidence points to human ancestors being scavengers on the savanah. Did I suggest that "Thog" hit animals over the head with clubs? No. That is just silly. This "Thog" that you mention probably hit the carcass long after the lions and hyenas were gone. He probably chopped it apart using very basic core choppers, as described above. He was likely hunted by large felines, hyenas, and birds, among other things. The earliest evidence for thrown weapons is not much over 75,000 years old. That is an awefully short time period for binocular vision to evolve, and doesn't explain binocular vision in other primates. Sorry, you are just flaming, and you don't seem to understand what you are talking about, especially when you project some kind of fairy tale about "Thog" onto a comment that had nothing to do with anyone named "Thog."
As far as the archaeological record is concerned, thrown weapons came a long time after the first stone tools, which, in turn, came quite a bit after bipedalism. Your model does not fit the empirical evidence. Also, humans are not the only animals to use tools (which is what you are implying (6)). Chimpanzees are taught to use tools by their communities (thus, different groups of chimps may use different tools), and many other animals, from birds to sea otters, use tools for different things.
Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the Christian idea of the Rapture? The chosen people, hand selected by God (or the machines, or whatever) will be elevated to sublime consciouness, while the rest of us die out by fighting wars &c. Yipee!
As was stated above, they are comparing the features that the different browsers have. Betas are supposed to be feature complete, thus the comparison is fair. As long as they are not comparing render speed, memory usage, &c., there is no reason to cry foul.
Slashdot Mirror
This got modded troll? This is one of the greatest /. posts of all time!
Ah. Thank you. That is a much better picture than the one I found, which was taken from farther away. :)
Is that a Super Decathalon that I see?
Let me ammend the last post. Peer-reviewed reference, please. I think that you will find nothing in the peer-reviewed literature that agrees with your understanding of events.
Minor nitpick: Organisms do not evolve, populations do. Otherwise, your post is right on. The more highly adapted species (specialists) are capable of filling only very specific niches. When that niche disappears, the population either changes, or dies out. If the change to the environment/niche is very rapid, the species is unlikely to be able to adapt quickely enough, especially if they have longer life cycles and small populations (relative to, say, bacteria). Less highly adapted species (generalists) have a better chance at survival, especially if they have shorter life-spans, and larger populations (which imply greater genetic variability), as it is likely that the genes needed to survive in the new environment are already present in some sub-section of the population, and only need the chance to spread.
That you had, past tense? Lucky... I work in an elementary school, and still have to service a boat load of GX110s (and GX1s, and Bondi Blue iMacs, and several Performas, and three Apple //es).
What do you want to be that the article on elephants gets vandalised by a horde of slashdot users following this article? (Yes, I know it is locked, but only to new and non-users of Wikipedia -- this is slashdot, everyone is has a Wikipedia account, right?)
Argh! Damn BBCode! Use the preview button... Use the preview button...
[blockquote]Kids are not stupid , you know .[/blockquote]
Yes, they are.
Okay, maybe they are not [i]stupid[/i]. They are ignorant, naive, and not fully developed. They have not seen what drugs / uprotected sex / &c. can do to them (or others), and they assume that life won't happen to them. The are immortal and invincible. They are not fully developed adults, and should not be treated as such.
Its funny, 10 years ago, I would have agreed with just about everything you said in your post. Let the kids experiment, let them learn right from wrong on their own. Now, I am glad that my parents did set up limits. I recognize that 10 years ago, many of the decisions that I made at the time were pretty fucking boneheaded. I am glad that my parents put limits on what I could do, and that I didn't manage to do more damage to myself than I did. I certainly feel that teenagers should have fewer limits placed upon them than, say, 8 year olds, but that does not change the fact that they are, for the most part (there are always exceptions), not adults, and do not behave as such. xander
Overprotective parents are going to be overprotective, no matter what you do. Hell, I would imagine that the most overprotective parents would pack lunches for their kids, and not pay for school lunches. This is a program that allows parents to have some control over what their money buys in the school lunch program, and can still enable kids to have a choice in what they eat. Certainly, there are overprotective parents that will ruin their children's ability to function in the real world, they they are going to do that, anyway. This changes nothing in that regard.
On another note, people on Slashdot whinge constantly about parents not doing a good job of raising their children. This looks like an example of parents trying to do something about raising their children, yet the reaction is largely negative?! Yay for groupthink.
Who is paying for the school lunch program? The kid, or the parent?
I assume you mean Mac users, in general, because I am a Mac user, and have no problem with X11. This stereotyping of Mac users, I think, is more hurtful to OSS on the Mac than anything else. Most of us don't really care that much. xander
In my very subjective opinion, these are, for the most part, minor issues. The integration is not perfect, but it is pretty good. The Mac zealots that complain about it can, as far as I am concerned, get stuffed. If these minor issues are really causing people real consternation, they are behaving like spoiled children.
Ah. Nevermind, then.
You don't think it integrates nicely? In its default configuration, I hardly notice a difference between X apps and Aqua apps. The only thing that I notice is that X apps take just a little longer to load, because X takes a couple seconds to load. I am not saying that you are wrong -- the integration is not perfect, and some improvement wouldn't hurt, but, in my own opinion, X seems fairly well integrated. Could you explain to me what is terribly wrong with it?
I think you hit the nail on the head. At the moment, I sit on the executive committee of a small non-profit. We are a fencing academy -- we teach fencing classes, host tournaments, go out for beer from time to time, &c. We don't have a lot of rules governing how people behave (other than the standard "don't point a foil at someone who is not wearing a mask," "show proper respect to the referee and other fencers," &c.), but every single rule that we have has been created because some idiot decided not to excercise common sense. For instance, we actually had to put signs up asking people not to write on the floor!
"Running around dark rooms, popping pills, and listening to repetitive music."
They're everywhere! Argh! *boom*
Why not:
aytch tea tea pea colon slash slash es el ay es aytch dee oh tea dot oh are gee ?
Yes, in fact, I have studied archaeology. In fact, that is what my degree is in. While I am more knowledgeable with regards to lithic tools of the Great Basin, human origins was part of my course of study. Thrown weapons came much later than chopping tools. There is little evidence that human ancestors became hunters until after bipedalism developed. There is very little evidence that Austrolopithicus used much more than clunky coppers. Most of the evidence points to human ancestors being scavengers on the savanah. Did I suggest that "Thog" hit animals over the head with clubs? No. That is just silly. This "Thog" that you mention probably hit the carcass long after the lions and hyenas were gone. He probably chopped it apart using very basic core choppers, as described above. He was likely hunted by large felines, hyenas, and birds, among other things. The earliest evidence for thrown weapons is not much over 75,000 years old. That is an awefully short time period for binocular vision to evolve, and doesn't explain binocular vision in other primates. Sorry, you are just flaming, and you don't seem to understand what you are talking about, especially when you project some kind of fairy tale about "Thog" onto a comment that had nothing to do with anyone named "Thog."
As far as the archaeological record is concerned, thrown weapons came a long time after the first stone tools, which, in turn, came quite a bit after bipedalism. Your model does not fit the empirical evidence. Also, humans are not the only animals to use tools (which is what you are implying (6)). Chimpanzees are taught to use tools by their communities (thus, different groups of chimps may use different tools), and many other animals, from birds to sea otters, use tools for different things.
Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the Christian idea of the Rapture? The chosen people, hand selected by God (or the machines, or whatever) will be elevated to sublime consciouness, while the rest of us die out by fighting wars &c. Yipee!
As was stated above, they are comparing the features that the different browsers have. Betas are supposed to be feature complete, thus the comparison is fair. As long as they are not comparing render speed, memory usage, &c., there is no reason to cry foul.