From an evolutionary standpoint, I would think such a radical mutation impossible
From a reading-that-statement standpoint, I would think you having more than minimal education in the biological sciences would be impossible.
Mutations are a contributing factor to evolution, not a sole cause of it, or caused by it. There is no "evolutionary standpoint" on a single mutation occuring.
That being said, it may be an *unlikely* mutation, but with over 7billion people, quite a few people will have rather unlikely mutations. And a single point mutation could conceivably cause a change the density of photoreceptor in the eye, how good they are at capturing photons (the human eye "sees" only about 4-5% of the photons that pass through it).
I disagree. The further it is greater than 0, the incentive there is to avoid committing the crime, the deviation from 0 should increase based on how undesirable the crime is.
As I stated, the death penalty typically applied to crimes resulting from a person not thinking at their most rational. In such cases, game theory goes out the window. In such cases, the penalty serves more to permanently keep such loose canons out of society, rather than serve as a deterrent.
The thing is, many currently-death-penalty-inducing crimes are often not done while in the clearest state of mine, often in fact, in extreme states of fear or anger/rage or desperation.
Nonetheless, the penalty should outweigh the gain of omitting a crime, by simple application of game theory.
Note: gain here is the result of total gain, minus standard expenses Normal gain: A Extra gain from crime: B Cost incurred if caught with crime: C Probability of getting caught: f
Now we can calculate the reward: Gain for not committing the crime (CLEAN): A Gain for committing the crime (DIRTY): (1-f)(A+B)+f(A+B-C) which can be rewritten as: A + B - f(A+B) + f(A+B) - f C Or simply: A + B - f C
Now, for an ideal deterrent, the cost should generally be greater than the benefit, so CLEAN > DIRTY, or CLEAN - DIRTY > 0: A - (A + B - f C) = f C - B > 0
Then again, the people making the laws don't really care about game theory or morals or math like this, but rather, who greases their palms with the green lubricant... So why did I even bother?
It'll probably be more like "I promise to bring customer abuse to a whole new level, driving masochists to us like insects to a bug zapper. We shall not only retain the masochistic elements of our customer base, but bring in the MS and Apple customer bases as well!"
Even NOT as Government contractors, you see a lot of crap. They get away with it because they have a distributed user base, and within bounds, no matter what they do, there will be enough of a client base to say that one of their competitors has done worse.
Hell. Sony. Apple. Microsoft. Oracle.
And that's just limiting it to the computer industry? Need I go on?
Dunno about federal employees, I have a state retirement plan, and I pay boatloads into that. Even with private companies, their employees often also have retirement plans, and those are paid by what you pay for their services. So you pay it either way.
Umm, Sorry, as an employee for a agency that is partially federal, partially state, I've seen way too many people/groups who know how to game the system for contract bids. What you end up with is highly substandard stuff that is worth significantly less than what you payed for, or "incomplete unless you fork over $X more).
And most of the time, once they've done enough to get blacklisted, the group folds the company, forms a new one, and sometimes shuffles the leadership a bit and starts all over again. Sometimes they do this mid-project. Unfortunately, the same anti-corruption laws that prevent cronyism also provide shelters and loopholes for these people.
Yeah, laws can be made to prevent this, but those who do it will continue to find loopholes because it's their moral obligation to get money from evil Uncle Sam and and show how greedy and corrupt the government is.
The government sure as hell can screw up, but I honestly don't see the private industry doing a lot better. And when it comes down to it, too many private sector organizations see the government as something to be abused and leeched off of, rather than another important organization in our economic infrastructure.
I was suggesting the whole box be a reader, as having the extra activity of swiping the tool through a loop may be omitted in a rush.
It would be best if no extra activity were needed to detect which tools are in the box - which means, there is either (a) no way to access the tools except through the "loop", or (b) the toolbox can do a live inventory of it's contents at any time.
Of course they do. My problem is all the suggestions that Private industry does significantly better, ESPECIALLY when funded by the government. I think that's when we see the worst of the waste, private industry on the government's payroll.
Seems overly complex. Why not just have the toolbox be able to detect what tools are contained within? Not even bother with the side loop. It could then have a nice little display of how many (and even what) tools are not inside.
Of the three, I think I've only seen Cowon and maybe iRiver list that as a product feature. I know I've only seen one or two other than COWON mention it.
I knew about cowon, that's why they are what I get. There are one or two other brands that have a couple models that support it. Outside of that, there's still easily a dozen brands, only one of which uses iTunes...
The market isn't limited to "no name" and "Apple". MS, Sony and Creative are in there, at least. Although, Sony fits your no-name description to a T. Cowon, also a fairly unknown name, also has made good players in the past. Some people get these Non-apple players, believe it or not, because they have features that the apple player lacks.
My first comment was going to be "because nobody but a major geek wants an MP3 player with a UI that looks that bad."
But I hadn't seen the UI in a few years. I looked on Google and found some screenshots. Damn it looks nice now.
Anyway, there is still the answer that "the companies want to control it". With the flexibility available from Rockbox, it would be much harder to control the user environment, which would make end user support much more difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
From an evolutionary standpoint, I would think such a radical mutation impossible
From a reading-that-statement standpoint, I would think you having more than minimal education in the biological sciences would be impossible.
Mutations are a contributing factor to evolution, not a sole cause of it, or caused by it. There is no "evolutionary standpoint" on a single mutation occuring.
That being said, it may be an *unlikely* mutation, but with over 7billion people, quite a few people will have rather unlikely mutations. And a single point mutation could conceivably cause a change the density of photoreceptor in the eye, how good they are at capturing photons (the human eye "sees" only about 4-5% of the photons that pass through it).
I wasn't arguing for the death penalty, I was just arguing for stricter penalties in general for some of these crimes.
I disagree. The further it is greater than 0, the incentive there is to avoid committing the crime, the deviation from 0 should increase based on how undesirable the crime is.
As I stated, the death penalty typically applied to crimes resulting from a person not thinking at their most rational. In such cases, game theory goes out the window. In such cases, the penalty serves more to permanently keep such loose canons out of society, rather than serve as a deterrent.
The thing is, many currently-death-penalty-inducing crimes are often not done while in the clearest state of mine, often in fact, in extreme states of fear or anger/rage or desperation.
Nonetheless, the penalty should outweigh the gain of omitting a crime, by simple application of game theory.
Note: gain here is the result of total gain, minus standard expenses
Normal gain: A
Extra gain from crime: B
Cost incurred if caught with crime: C
Probability of getting caught: f
Now we can calculate the reward:
Gain for not committing the crime (CLEAN): A
Gain for committing the crime (DIRTY): (1-f)(A+B)+f(A+B-C)
which can be rewritten as: A + B - f(A+B) + f(A+B) - f C
Or simply: A + B - f C
Now, for an ideal deterrent, the cost should generally be greater than the benefit, so
CLEAN > DIRTY, or CLEAN - DIRTY > 0:
A - (A + B - f C) = f C - B > 0
Then again, the people making the laws don't really care about game theory or morals or math like this, but rather, who greases their palms with the green lubricant... So why did I even bother?
Well, it makes sense given their business model, which goes something like:
1) Abuse customers
2) ???
3) PROFIT
Guessing #2 is PR Lies, but not sure.
It'll probably be more like "I promise to bring customer abuse to a whole new level, driving masochists to us like insects to a bug zapper. We shall not only retain the masochistic elements of our customer base, but bring in the MS and Apple customer bases as well!"
Even NOT as Government contractors, you see a lot of crap. They get away with it because they have a distributed user base, and within bounds, no matter what they do, there will be enough of a client base to say that one of their competitors has done worse.
Hell. Sony. Apple. Microsoft. Oracle.
And that's just limiting it to the computer industry? Need I go on?
Dunno about federal employees, I have a state retirement plan, and I pay boatloads into that. Even with private companies, their employees often also have retirement plans, and those are paid by what you pay for their services. So you pay it either way.
Cthulhu
Umm, Sorry, as an employee for a agency that is partially federal, partially state, I've seen way too many people/groups who know how to game the system for contract bids. What you end up with is highly substandard stuff that is worth significantly less than what you payed for, or "incomplete unless you fork over $X more).
And most of the time, once they've done enough to get blacklisted, the group folds the company, forms a new one, and sometimes shuffles the leadership a bit and starts all over again. Sometimes they do this mid-project. Unfortunately, the same anti-corruption laws that prevent cronyism also provide shelters and loopholes for these people.
Yeah, laws can be made to prevent this, but those who do it will continue to find loopholes because it's their moral obligation to get money from evil Uncle Sam and and show how greedy and corrupt the government is.
The government sure as hell can screw up, but I honestly don't see the private industry doing a lot better. And when it comes down to it, too many private sector organizations see the government as something to be abused and leeched off of, rather than another important organization in our economic infrastructure.
Heh, the same concept here in capitalist countries.
Oh, come on, didn't you listen to River Tam?
I was suggesting the whole box be a reader, as having the extra activity of swiping the tool through a loop may be omitted in a rush.
It would be best if no extra activity were needed to detect which tools are in the box - which means, there is either (a) no way to access the tools except through the "loop", or (b) the toolbox can do a live inventory of it's contents at any time.
Put the consumables in a separate box.
However, the issue of WHAT is missing, as mentioned in the other thread, might be critical.
Also, grease will get on/off tools, and I think that could make enough of a difference if there are any particularly light tools.
Of course they do. My problem is all the suggestions that Private industry does significantly better, ESPECIALLY when funded by the government. I think that's when we see the worst of the waste, private industry on the government's payroll.
Seems overly complex. Why not just have the toolbox be able to detect what tools are contained within? Not even bother with the side loop. It could then have a nice little display of how many (and even what) tools are not inside.
you forgot "And suggest private industry could do better"
Of the three, I think I've only seen Cowon and maybe iRiver list that as a product feature. I know I've only seen one or two other than COWON mention it.
I knew about cowon, that's why they are what I get. There are one or two other brands that have a couple models that support it. Outside of that, there's still easily a dozen brands, only one of which uses iTunes...
So, yeah, MOST.
The market isn't limited to "no name" and "Apple". MS, Sony and Creative are in there, at least. Although, Sony fits your no-name description to a T. Cowon, also a fairly unknown name, also has made good players in the past. Some people get these Non-apple players, believe it or not, because they have features that the apple player lacks.
Perhaps your eyes have been amputated? I've seen 64GB players at least 5 years ago. I've seen 128GB players as well. Seriously, I'd go see a doctor.
Compared to MP3 players with 64GB, 128GB or more...
It is lacking.
Actually, most MP3 players don't support flac without rockbox :-(
My first comment was going to be "because nobody but a major geek wants an MP3 player with a UI that looks that bad."
But I hadn't seen the UI in a few years. I looked on Google and found some screenshots. Damn it looks nice now.
Anyway, there is still the answer that "the companies want to control it". With the flexibility available from Rockbox, it would be much harder to control the user environment, which would make end user support much more difficult.
Yep, even with SDCards, I don't think there are phones out there that can compete with some MP3 players in terms of storage.
And, as the other poster said, you have issues of battery life as well.
I Usually used Tycho, but yeah, they are all the same. I was just sticking to what the parent post had said.