Yes, but in your example, we are not finding outliers, but representatives of the population. In the same way, I think that it is unlikely that these skeletons represent outliers. They are representative of the normal population. This in no way implies that there was not a population of short people. I don't think that I eliminated that possibility in my original post. Obviously, I need to be more clear. The point is not that they were not human (though they seem more similar to Homo erectus than Homo sapiens), but that they were probably part of a distinct population, and that they are not simply midgets or dwarfs (both of which can have entirely normally sized offspring).
Define "a few generations," please. From the article, it sounds like the specimen are spread out over about 80,000 years. I doubt that any one group with any particular traditions would last that long. Hell, there are few groups of modern people that have gone without change for more than 1,000 years, let alone 80,000.
You cannot prove either of those statements, hence there is some debate in the scientific community. While you may very possibly be correct, you can't know. Don't state as proven fact things that are far more nebulous.
1) They may be Homo sapiens though they certainly seem more similar to Homo erectus. Thus, while they may be a different species from Homo sapiens, their status with regards to other members of the Homo line is uncertain at best.
2) Maybe, maybe not. I would tend to agree with you -- the number of specimen makes it seem unlikely that they are statistical outliers. However, this alone does not make them a seperate species from anything we already know. Perhaps there is some shared genetic trait in the population, like the pygmies of African and Asia. It is possible to have a population that tends to be shorter, yet is not a seperate species from the "parent" population.
Again, it is possible that they are a completely different species from anything that has been seen before. The small cranial capacity, the small stature, and the weird mix of primative and evolved traits would argue in that direction. On the other hand, they could be a seperate population that is not truely genetically distinct; a group of statistical outliers (unlikely, but possible); or another Piltdown Man.
Indeed, though the same could be said about Neanderthals (possily part of Homo sapiens, though the mtDNA evidence is increasingly to the other), other branches of the Homo line (i.e. Homo erectus, Homo habilis), or even the Australopithicenes. Who knows where this creature would have fit into the IQ distribution of the family tree? From the article, it sounds like they were more similar to Homo erectus than anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens).
You are using the wrong terms here. They are not a seperate species. They are still 100% human. The term you probably wanted to use was 'race' or 'variety', though I do not think that the pygmies are generally genetically distinct enough to warrent even that much. It would probably be best to go with 'population' -- i.e.:
There are pygmy populations in parts of Asia and Africa. Although they are Homo sapiens, they are much shorter because they do not have growth spurt...
Traditionally? Speciation occurs when the decendant* line can no longer interbreed with the ancestor* line to produce viable offspring. Sickle cell anemia could be considered an inherited genetic disorder that is possibly a response to Malaria, yet the large populations of Africans that tend to have either full or partial expression of the trait are not a genetically distinct population -- they are still capable of reproducing with other Africans, Europeans, Asians, American Indians, or any other human population.
Defining species from fossils and bones can be a bit trickier -- can you prove that this population is (a) represented by these bones, (b) genetically distinct, and (c) incapable of creating viable offspring with any other 'human' population.
I would also like to note that there are a great variety of human populations. In Africa alone, there are groups that tend to be quite short and robust, and groups that tend to be quite tall and gracile. In a fossil record, they might bee seen as distinct species, yet we know that they can have children together. Just one of the hazards of fossils, I suppose.
* ancestor and decendant, are, of course, relative
Not knowing the data that well, midgets and dwarfs seem to make up only a very small proportion of the population. If you sampled 100 people, what is the chance that you will get one diminutive person, let alone 20? The more skeletons they find that are similarly proportioned, the less likely it is that they represent statistical outliers, and the more likely it is that they represent the norm. Given the number of skeletons that have been found, I find the argument that they are statistical outliers to be unconvincing (though still possible, I suppose). A more likely explanation is that the small skeletons represent a significantly different population, whether it be an isolated group of Homo erectus, or an offshoot of the Home erectus line.
No, what I am suggesting is that for most people a flat file, like AppleWorks' or FileMaker's is fine for most people, and if you want a real database, they you probably have the acumen to bang one out in some varient of SQL, or have the money to hire someone to do it for you. Again, most of the people that I know who use any kind of database for more or less personal uses are fine with a more or less flat file such as the ones created by AppleWorks. They need limited query abilities, and want a nice looking front end so that they don't have to deal with the tables. Again, my mother owns a PC, uses MS Office for most things, but has AppleWorks installed for her recipe database because she doesn't want to deal with Access -- she tried it and couldn't make it work, whereas AppleWorks did exactly what she wanted.
Again, I did not suggest that one should replace FileMaker with MySQL, but that Access falls in a not too useful niche between things like the SQLs and AppleWorks. It is a bit dense for home use, but not quite good enough for really complicated, big, secure databases.
I've used OpenOffice, but not NeoOffice. For the record, I have AppleWorks, OpenOffice, and AbiWord installed. I find the interface of AppleWorks to be much cleaner, in general, than that of OpenOffice. It is a problem that it does not support.doc at all (at least not easily), but I find that saving as.rtf is generally just as well (I save as.rtf when working with Word, too, because I never know what version I will be using from one day to another -- I work at a school that has computers Mac OS 7, 8 and 9; and Windows 95, 98, and XP. Moving from one computer to another I have to deal with eight or nine different versions of Word, and none of them read each others files very well. Thus, I am unconvinced by that argument. Better support would be nice, but it is a poor test of overall quality. Anyway, if TextEdit gets the job done for you, what do you need a more featured word processor for, anyway?
Again, I agree that the spreadsheets are not hugely useful, and that MS has Apple well beat on that front. On the plus side, at least AppleWorks doesn't think it knows what you are doing better than Excel. I would also like to point out that I managed to get through several semesters of statistics and mathematical modeling using AppleWorks spreadsheets when much of the rest of the class was using Excel. There are a few features that are not there, but there is nothing misssing that is crippling in an educational or personal environment. I have nothing to say about a business environment, as I don't work there.
As to databases, yes, the AppleWorks database is crap, but I feel much the same way about Access. Why not just use something that was created for the purpose, like some varient of SQL, or FileMaker? Furthermore, I know several people who use databases in home use, but don't need much more than a glorified spreadsheet. My mother uses to store recipies -- a spreadsheet is kind of limiting in that it cannot do anything with layouts. Many of the teachers that I work with have created their own FileMaker databases to track students' grades, but could get by with something that is not much more than a glorified spreadsheet.
And, again, I will mention the capabilities that AppleWorks has to deal with graphics. Photoshop it ain't, but at least you edit images without buying a second piece of multi-hundred dollar software. I find it quite useful for quickly touching up photographs, or exporting images to different file types. It is not perfect, but it is functional.
I take it you don't really like AppleWorks, either? The word processor portion, while not as feature rich as Word, is more than adequate for most home users; the spreadsheet is workable, though (again) not quite as good as Excel; but the paint and draw sub-programs are excellent, and the 'database' bit is enough for any home user (really, for something large I would use something like SQL, for something small AppleWorks is fine, or even FileMaker -- I seen no reason to ever use Access). So, what is your qualm with AppleWorks, other than (perhaps) the fact that you have never heard of it / used it?
I would agree that I was a bit dizzy in one or two places, but they were places where it was appropriate to be dizzy. For instance, as Serenity was hurtling through the atmosphere, doing her best to imitate an areobatic biplane performing a Lomcovak. Having done a fair number of loops, rolls, and spins, I would expect to be dizzy after such a performance. That it can be done with a camera impressed me.
I have been paid to sing a choir for several years now, and my sight reading abilities are crap. I sing Baritone/Bass, and generally either (a) pick up my notes from the chord or (b) take it home and have my gf help me bang it out on a keyboard (she has more talent than I do). Fortunately for me, I can generally learn a piece of music after hearing it only once or twice. I have worked with several people over the years, attempting to learn to sight read. I have had little to know luck. I figure out rythms and time values fairly well, but going up a third or down an octave is damn near impossible for me without hearing it. Those intervals are just not internalized, and nothing I do seems to get them there. So, I see no reason why one should have to read music if one can find another method to learn the music. The point is performance, not methodology.
I was not responding to Google's case, only his statement that you could not copy portions of a friend's book for fair use reasons. His logic was that you could own and copy a book, or borrow a book and not make copies (again, for fair use reasons, which Google's may or may not be). I simply stated that if you were making copies for fair use reasons, it doesn't matter if it is your book or someone else's. Again, I don't think this has any bearing on Google's case.
First off, while it is used as such in casual speech, 'copyright' is not a verb in the legal sense. You cannot copyright something. Copyright is a noun. It is something you own. Like physical objects, copyrights can be bought and sold.
Second, you do not have to do anything to own copyright on something you create. From the moment you create an original work, you own the copyright for that work. If you do not register your copyright, it might be harder to defend it, but you still own that copyright. So, publishers do not agree to provide copies for fair use -- they are forced to do so in much the same way that you are forced to pay taxes or not kill your neighbor.
On the last point, however, we have a common understanding. If it is ruled that Google's use is fair (which is the crux of the issue), then Google is under no obligation to allow for opt-outs. It would be done as a courtesy to keep the peace, but they wouldn't have to do it. On the other hand, it may help their case -- I am not quite sure how copyright works, but in the case of trademarks, you lose your trademark if you do not actively defend it. By providing a simple way to protect one's copyright, Google may be creating something of an escape clause for themselves.
Yes, you are wrong. Think about doing research at a large university library. You borrow the books from the library (your friend), and make copies for fair use reasons. You then return the book. You are under no obligation to destroy your copies.
Pieces of eight were pieces of coins -- if you did not have exact change for something, you would cut the coin into as many as eight pieces, each weighing about the same. On coin would have been about one dollar, thus 5 pieces of such a coin would come out to be about 63 cents.
When you produce a work, you own the copyright on that work. You have a right to sell that copyright if you wish. So, no, selling a copyright is not questionable... it is well established legal fact.
Heh... I finally got a PS2 last month. Two controllers, two first party memory cards, a pack of games -- all for less than $150. Of course, I didn't get a PSX until well after the PS2 came out, and I didn't get a Genesis until the Saturn, 3D0, and Playstation were out. So, I tend to lag behind a bit...:)
Apple may have waited until version ten to get a decent OS out (a point that may be debated, by the way), but MS didn't have anything close until version 95... nearly an order of magnitude:)
Slashdot Mirror
Yup. :)
Yes, but in your example, we are not finding outliers, but representatives of the population. In the same way, I think that it is unlikely that these skeletons represent outliers. They are representative of the normal population. This in no way implies that there was not a population of short people. I don't think that I eliminated that possibility in my original post. Obviously, I need to be more clear. The point is not that they were not human (though they seem more similar to Homo erectus than Homo sapiens), but that they were probably part of a distinct population, and that they are not simply midgets or dwarfs (both of which can have entirely normally sized offspring).
Define "a few generations," please. From the article, it sounds like the specimen are spread out over about 80,000 years. I doubt that any one group with any particular traditions would last that long. Hell, there are few groups of modern people that have gone without change for more than 1,000 years, let alone 80,000.
You cannot prove either of those statements, hence there is some debate in the scientific community. While you may very possibly be correct, you can't know. Don't state as proven fact things that are far more nebulous.
1) They may be Homo sapiens though they certainly seem more similar to Homo erectus. Thus, while they may be a different species from Homo sapiens, their status with regards to other members of the Homo line is uncertain at best.
2) Maybe, maybe not. I would tend to agree with you -- the number of specimen makes it seem unlikely that they are statistical outliers. However, this alone does not make them a seperate species from anything we already know. Perhaps there is some shared genetic trait in the population, like the pygmies of African and Asia. It is possible to have a population that tends to be shorter, yet is not a seperate species from the "parent" population.
Again, it is possible that they are a completely different species from anything that has been seen before. The small cranial capacity, the small stature, and the weird mix of primative and evolved traits would argue in that direction. On the other hand, they could be a seperate population that is not truely genetically distinct; a group of statistical outliers (unlikely, but possible); or another Piltdown Man.
A small bit of advice:
<a href=http://foobar.com>Barfoo</a>
The <URL:> tag does not seem to work properly.
Yup. :P
No problem. I live to correct the insignificant mistakes of others. :)
Indeed, though the same could be said about Neanderthals (possily part of Homo sapiens, though the mtDNA evidence is increasingly to the other), other branches of the Homo line (i.e. Homo erectus, Homo habilis), or even the Australopithicenes. Who knows where this creature would have fit into the IQ distribution of the family tree? From the article, it sounds like they were more similar to Homo erectus than anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens).
You are using the wrong terms here. They are not a seperate species. They are still 100% human. The term you probably wanted to use was 'race' or 'variety', though I do not think that the pygmies are generally genetically distinct enough to warrent even that much. It would probably be best to go with 'population' -- i.e.:
There are pygmy populations in parts of Asia and Africa. Although they are Homo sapiens, they are much shorter because they do not have growth spurt...
Traditionally? Speciation occurs when the decendant* line can no longer interbreed with the ancestor* line to produce viable offspring. Sickle cell anemia could be considered an inherited genetic disorder that is possibly a response to Malaria, yet the large populations of Africans that tend to have either full or partial expression of the trait are not a genetically distinct population -- they are still capable of reproducing with other Africans, Europeans, Asians, American Indians, or any other human population.
Defining species from fossils and bones can be a bit trickier -- can you prove that this population is (a) represented by these bones, (b) genetically distinct, and (c) incapable of creating viable offspring with any other 'human' population.
I would also like to note that there are a great variety of human populations. In Africa alone, there are groups that tend to be quite short and robust, and groups that tend to be quite tall and gracile. In a fossil record, they might bee seen as distinct species, yet we know that they can have children together. Just one of the hazards of fossils, I suppose.
* ancestor and decendant, are, of course, relative
Not knowing the data that well, midgets and dwarfs seem to make up only a very small proportion of the population. If you sampled 100 people, what is the chance that you will get one diminutive person, let alone 20? The more skeletons they find that are similarly proportioned, the less likely it is that they represent statistical outliers, and the more likely it is that they represent the norm. Given the number of skeletons that have been found, I find the argument that they are statistical outliers to be unconvincing (though still possible, I suppose). A more likely explanation is that the small skeletons represent a significantly different population, whether it be an isolated group of Homo erectus, or an offshoot of the Home erectus line.
Indeed. A great book was written on the topic years ago.
No, what I am suggesting is that for most people a flat file, like AppleWorks' or FileMaker's is fine for most people, and if you want a real database, they you probably have the acumen to bang one out in some varient of SQL, or have the money to hire someone to do it for you. Again, most of the people that I know who use any kind of database for more or less personal uses are fine with a more or less flat file such as the ones created by AppleWorks. They need limited query abilities, and want a nice looking front end so that they don't have to deal with the tables. Again, my mother owns a PC, uses MS Office for most things, but has AppleWorks installed for her recipe database because she doesn't want to deal with Access -- she tried it and couldn't make it work, whereas AppleWorks did exactly what she wanted.
Again, I did not suggest that one should replace FileMaker with MySQL, but that Access falls in a not too useful niche between things like the SQLs and AppleWorks. It is a bit dense for home use, but not quite good enough for really complicated, big, secure databases.
I've used OpenOffice, but not NeoOffice. For the record, I have AppleWorks, OpenOffice, and AbiWord installed. I find the interface of AppleWorks to be much cleaner, in general, than that of OpenOffice. It is a problem that it does not support .doc at all (at least not easily), but I find that saving as .rtf is generally just as well (I save as .rtf when working with Word, too, because I never know what version I will be using from one day to another -- I work at a school that has computers Mac OS 7, 8 and 9; and Windows 95, 98, and XP. Moving from one computer to another I have to deal with eight or nine different versions of Word, and none of them read each others files very well. Thus, I am unconvinced by that argument. Better support would be nice, but it is a poor test of overall quality. Anyway, if TextEdit gets the job done for you, what do you need a more featured word processor for, anyway?
Again, I agree that the spreadsheets are not hugely useful, and that MS has Apple well beat on that front. On the plus side, at least AppleWorks doesn't think it knows what you are doing better than Excel. I would also like to point out that I managed to get through several semesters of statistics and mathematical modeling using AppleWorks spreadsheets when much of the rest of the class was using Excel. There are a few features that are not there, but there is nothing misssing that is crippling in an educational or personal environment. I have nothing to say about a business environment, as I don't work there.
As to databases, yes, the AppleWorks database is crap, but I feel much the same way about Access. Why not just use something that was created for the purpose, like some varient of SQL, or FileMaker? Furthermore, I know several people who use databases in home use, but don't need much more than a glorified spreadsheet. My mother uses to store recipies -- a spreadsheet is kind of limiting in that it cannot do anything with layouts. Many of the teachers that I work with have created their own FileMaker databases to track students' grades, but could get by with something that is not much more than a glorified spreadsheet.
And, again, I will mention the capabilities that AppleWorks has to deal with graphics. Photoshop it ain't, but at least you edit images without buying a second piece of multi-hundred dollar software. I find it quite useful for quickly touching up photographs, or exporting images to different file types. It is not perfect, but it is functional.
I take it you don't really like AppleWorks, either? The word processor portion, while not as feature rich as Word, is more than adequate for most home users; the spreadsheet is workable, though (again) not quite as good as Excel; but the paint and draw sub-programs are excellent, and the 'database' bit is enough for any home user (really, for something large I would use something like SQL, for something small AppleWorks is fine, or even FileMaker -- I seen no reason to ever use Access). So, what is your qualm with AppleWorks, other than (perhaps) the fact that you have never heard of it / used it?
I would agree that I was a bit dizzy in one or two places, but they were places where it was appropriate to be dizzy. For instance, as Serenity was hurtling through the atmosphere, doing her best to imitate an areobatic biplane performing a Lomcovak. Having done a fair number of loops, rolls, and spins, I would expect to be dizzy after such a performance. That it can be done with a camera impressed me.
I have been paid to sing a choir for several years now, and my sight reading abilities are crap. I sing Baritone/Bass, and generally either (a) pick up my notes from the chord or (b) take it home and have my gf help me bang it out on a keyboard (she has more talent than I do). Fortunately for me, I can generally learn a piece of music after hearing it only once or twice. I have worked with several people over the years, attempting to learn to sight read. I have had little to know luck. I figure out rythms and time values fairly well, but going up a third or down an octave is damn near impossible for me without hearing it. Those intervals are just not internalized, and nothing I do seems to get them there. So, I see no reason why one should have to read music if one can find another method to learn the music. The point is performance, not methodology.
I was not responding to Google's case, only his statement that you could not copy portions of a friend's book for fair use reasons. His logic was that you could own and copy a book, or borrow a book and not make copies (again, for fair use reasons, which Google's may or may not be). I simply stated that if you were making copies for fair use reasons, it doesn't matter if it is your book or someone else's. Again, I don't think this has any bearing on Google's case.
First off, while it is used as such in casual speech, 'copyright' is not a verb in the legal sense. You cannot copyright something. Copyright is a noun. It is something you own. Like physical objects, copyrights can be bought and sold.
Second, you do not have to do anything to own copyright on something you create. From the moment you create an original work, you own the copyright for that work. If you do not register your copyright, it might be harder to defend it, but you still own that copyright. So, publishers do not agree to provide copies for fair use -- they are forced to do so in much the same way that you are forced to pay taxes or not kill your neighbor.
On the last point, however, we have a common understanding. If it is ruled that Google's use is fair (which is the crux of the issue), then Google is under no obligation to allow for opt-outs. It would be done as a courtesy to keep the peace, but they wouldn't have to do it. On the other hand, it may help their case -- I am not quite sure how copyright works, but in the case of trademarks, you lose your trademark if you do not actively defend it. By providing a simple way to protect one's copyright, Google may be creating something of an escape clause for themselves.
Yes, you are wrong. Think about doing research at a large university library. You borrow the books from the library (your friend), and make copies for fair use reasons. You then return the book. You are under no obligation to destroy your copies.
5 pieces of eight == 62.5 cents
Pieces of eight were pieces of coins -- if you did not have exact change for something, you would cut the coin into as many as eight pieces, each weighing about the same. On coin would have been about one dollar, thus 5 pieces of such a coin would come out to be about 63 cents.
When you produce a work, you own the copyright on that work. You have a right to sell that copyright if you wish. So, no, selling a copyright is not questionable... it is well established legal fact.
Hear hear!
Heh... I finally got a PS2 last month. Two controllers, two first party memory cards, a pack of games -- all for less than $150. Of course, I didn't get a PSX until well after the PS2 came out, and I didn't get a Genesis until the Saturn, 3D0, and Playstation were out. So, I tend to lag behind a bit... :)
Apple may have waited until version ten to get a decent OS out (a point that may be debated, by the way), but MS didn't have anything close until version 95... nearly an order of magnitude :)