It is all about adjusting to the culture and rituals of a different group. Why should they grant you membership when you so casually thumb your nose at the ritualistic habits that mark them as above the plebs?
A similar list could be made for grad students in the social sciences.
What counts as fit for a cultural schema? diffusion or more artifacts? do oppositional uses of the schema count? They can be latent for a generation or two and resurface, flash in the pan like a fad then vanish a few years later, etc. The ev-bio terms just don't fit the phenomena very well. (Though the market forces may fit better, as long as one is primed for a measure of irrationality).
Looking cool does the genes that make the peacock's tail look neat a benefit - it gets more peacock tail and gets to be transmitted to more little peacocks and so on.
Wearing your polo shirt's collar popped up does not (if it gets the wearer more tail) mean the wearer's offspring will have popped collars, because culture doesn't really work in that way. If popped collars are a larger trend and -everyone- wears them, then individual transmission is the wrong place to examine this type of replication of trends anyway.
When there is a problem the researchers can actually identify (a selection pressure, one could call it) this works great. When there isn't, it is a waste of time. With past cultures particularly, there are many examples of diffusion happening in ways that is not easily explained - the terribly slow diffusion of pottery in the Americas for example. Cooking pots were clearly a better design then hide or carved stone, but took far longer than would be expected to spread - there was likely resistance, but what and why?
reframing this issue in the terms of evolutionary biology might get a new publication or two, but doesn't actually contribute anything of note.
I am beginning to grow less and less fond of the application of terms from evolutionary biology to the study of culture.
In 99% of instances, cultural schemas do not need to be 'fit' in a darwinian sense to spread through diffusion or other processes - they can be spread due to power imbalance or just because whatever new widgets one makes once they follow the ways of whatever look cool.
I suppose that "cultural evolution" is somewhat shorter than "culture change over time", but that does not mean that when using the former term we should try and treat it like biological evolution - it just doesn't follow. Assuming that getting to the island they can't see over the horizon but know are there is an urgent crisis, then yes, they will probably have a somewhat linear progression of canoe design, keeping the innovations that worked around longer. To assume otherwise is to assume the early Polynesians were idiots. Why this becomes a problem is it is difficult if not impossible to determine what the urgent issues are for past cultures, and you'll need a few more examples to make a stronger case.
Even then, you may have an interesting theory about efficiency of design when under long-term pressure, but how the heck do you apply it to more ephemeral cultural components like religion or etiquette?
Mine! The best things in life are free Mine! I own the beach and the blazing sunset Mine! I own the waves and the fresh air Mine! I drink the milk of the stars in this beautiful moment Say to yourself ALL THESE THINGS ARE MINE!
Repeat after me! Money's not our God
Do you grovel to your master? Do you beg like a dog? First things first,repeat to yourself AHHH MONEY!
There is good evidence that humankind had a massive die-off / population thinning approximately 70,000 ya, possibly reducing us to as few as 5,000 or 10,000 individuals, and many haplotypes vanished then. That's okay though, as we continue to radiate ourselves with flatscreen TV's and microwaves - we'll make more.
IAD is a sham. The original test instruments 'developed' by young inclided items lifted right from similar instruments for gambling and substance abuse, with such gems as (paraphrase, I don't have the original measure handy) 'do you often use the internet by yourself?' and more than 10 hours a week as unhealthy. The criteria listed here http://www.psycom.net/iadcriteria.html are similarly laughable: "(e) voluntary or involuntary typing movements of the fingers".
And, perhaps the crux: "(VII) Internet use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical, family, social, occupational, or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by Internet use (e.g., sleep deprivation, marital difficulties, lateness for early morning appointments, neglect of occupational duties, or feelings of abandonment in significant others)"
I'm not saying there aren't people out there with problems, but you don't create a new disorder for every new communication/information tool. Do we have telephone addiction disorder? fax machine addiction disorder? television addiction disorder? Hey, I know, lets make a myspace addiction disorder and a friendster addiction disorder and a slash-- er wait.
sleep dep, maritial difficulties and the like are signs of other disorders, like depression. (or just a general state of distress).
The 'article' linked by the submitter is fluff, there is nothing empirical in it. It is also missing nearly 9 years of critiques of IAD. Why did this submission happen?
to not pay someone for time over 40 hours worked, save for certain special occupations (outlined in the fair labor standards act).
If you are a developer, making less than 27.43 an hour, you get 1.5x pay for overtime. if you make more than 27.43, you get straight time, but you still get pay.
if you are 'salaried' you still get paid, you are not exempt from being paid straight time in this occupation.
How about the family with 3 kids in school, one at home, and one parent taking home 16k after taxes?
I am certain we could both construct several different scenarios, but an extra $2k per year per kid is a great deal, especially to families pulling under 30k or so (isn't the median 36k right now? putting 3 kids through highschool would suck 1/6th of their pretax income!)
I have been using macs since the plus, (back when i was an impressionable 8, in 85) and our first home machine after the atari 800 was a dual-floppy mac SE, which we later carded to a ghetto SE/30.
it was 'fun and interesting' but maddening the way the OS worked at times. I experimented with basic, and even smalltalk, but never could get the hang of dealing with windowing (My most hated part of win32 programming, at least until i found c++ Builder).
This was sad to me, because now instead of writing clever sound producing programs and shooters, i was making 'art' and so on. I wasn't much of a zealot, and gladly played doom and quake on the 'other' machines when i had the opportunity.
At some point, i came into possession of a couple intel boxes, and haven't seriously looked back since. I'd been using linux since 96, and various flavors of SVr4 since 94, so naturally linux went on one box, and all of bungie's latest games on the other.
After a -very- short time, i came to think of the machines as appliances, and aquired more of them. Macs, on the other hand, seem more like very expensive toys. I still enjoy using macOS, and plan on snagging the old man's dual G4 500 when i get the chance, but a mac isn't the do-all end-all of computing. I wouldn't use one for my firewall (until i could aquire one for less than $50 that i could replace components in, like ethernet cards). Nor would i use one as a 240GB raid fileserver, as that would just cost too damn much, and my Audiotron wouldn't like it much.
Macs are wonderful, Macs are great, Its just Steve Jobs I don't appreciate.
Slashdot Mirror
I sure wish I had mod points.
There are lots of issues with both lumping and splitting in the DSM - (Borderline Personality Disorder, anyone?)
But anyone using ADD and ADHD as an example of excessive splitting should read up on them first. The H isn't there for "hella cool".
It is all about adjusting to the culture and rituals of a different group. Why should they grant you membership when you so casually thumb your nose at the ritualistic habits that mark them as above the plebs?
A similar list could be made for grad students in the social sciences.
What counts as fit for a cultural schema? diffusion or more artifacts? do oppositional uses of the schema count? They can be latent for a generation or two and resurface, flash in the pan like a fad then vanish a few years later, etc. The ev-bio terms just don't fit the phenomena very well. (Though the market forces may fit better, as long as one is primed for a measure of irrationality).
Looking cool does the genes that make the peacock's tail look neat a benefit - it gets more peacock tail and gets to be transmitted to more little peacocks and so on.
Wearing your polo shirt's collar popped up does not (if it gets the wearer more tail) mean the wearer's offspring will have popped collars, because culture doesn't really work in that way. If popped collars are a larger trend and -everyone- wears them, then individual transmission is the wrong place to examine this type of replication of trends anyway.
When there is a problem the researchers can actually identify (a selection pressure, one could call it) this works great. When there isn't, it is a waste of time. With past cultures particularly, there are many examples of diffusion happening in ways that is not easily explained - the terribly slow diffusion of pottery in the Americas for example. Cooking pots were clearly a better design then hide or carved stone, but took far longer than would be expected to spread - there was likely resistance, but what and why?
reframing this issue in the terms of evolutionary biology might get a new publication or two, but doesn't actually contribute anything of note.
I am beginning to grow less and less fond of the application of terms from evolutionary biology to the study of culture.
In 99% of instances, cultural schemas do not need to be 'fit' in a darwinian sense to spread through diffusion or other processes - they can be spread due to power imbalance or just because whatever new widgets one makes once they follow the ways of whatever look cool.
I suppose that "cultural evolution" is somewhat shorter than "culture change over time", but that does not mean that when using the former term we should try and treat it like biological evolution - it just doesn't follow. Assuming that getting to the island they can't see over the horizon but know are there is an urgent crisis, then yes, they will probably have a somewhat linear progression of canoe design, keeping the innovations that worked around longer. To assume otherwise is to assume the early Polynesians were idiots. Why this becomes a problem is it is difficult if not impossible to determine what the urgent issues are for past cultures, and you'll need a few more examples to make a stronger case.
Even then, you may have an interesting theory about efficiency of design when under long-term pressure, but how the heck do you apply it to more ephemeral cultural components like religion or etiquette?
Mine!
The best things in life are free
Mine!
I own the beach and the blazing sunset
Mine!
I own the waves and the fresh air
Mine!
I drink the milk of the stars in this beautiful moment
Say to yourself
ALL THESE THINGS ARE MINE!
Repeat after me!
Money's not our God
Do you grovel to your master?
Do you beg like a dog?
First things first,repeat to yourself
AHHH MONEY!
It has become common usage. Unfortunately for sticklers, that is how language works.
No, existing partitions will still function. The boot camp assistant will cease, though.
otherwise I might have to answer a real question.
There is good evidence that humankind had a massive die-off / population thinning approximately 70,000 ya, possibly reducing us to as few as 5,000 or 10,000 individuals, and many haplotypes vanished then. That's okay though, as we continue to radiate ourselves with flatscreen TV's and microwaves - we'll make more.
IAD is a sham. The original test instruments 'developed' by young inclided items lifted right from similar instruments for gambling and substance abuse, with such gems as (paraphrase, I don't have the original measure handy) 'do you often use the internet by yourself?' and more than 10 hours a week as unhealthy. The criteria listed here http://www.psycom.net/iadcriteria.html are similarly laughable: "(e) voluntary or involuntary typing movements of the fingers".
And, perhaps the crux: "(VII) Internet use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical, family, social, occupational, or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by Internet use (e.g., sleep deprivation, marital difficulties, lateness for early morning appointments, neglect of occupational duties, or feelings of abandonment in significant others)"
I'm not saying there aren't people out there with problems, but you don't create a new disorder for every new communication/information tool. Do we have telephone addiction disorder? fax machine addiction disorder? television addiction disorder? Hey, I know, lets make a myspace addiction disorder and a friendster addiction disorder and a slash-- er wait.
sleep dep, maritial difficulties and the like are signs of other disorders, like depression. (or just a general state of distress).
The 'article' linked by the submitter is fluff, there is nothing empirical in it. It is also missing nearly 9 years of critiques of IAD. Why did this submission happen?
Nothing. It doesn't exist. You never heard of any stargate program or the SGC.
Move along.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=britney+spears&btnG=Google+Search
None. Thank you, drive through.
to not pay someone for time over 40 hours worked, save for certain special occupations (outlined in the fair labor standards act).
If you are a developer, making less than 27.43 an hour, you get 1.5x pay for overtime. if you make more than 27.43, you get straight time, but you still get pay.
if you are 'salaried' you still get paid, you are not exempt from being paid straight time in this occupation.
Because Klipsch is merely a loudspeaker company, but Logitech is all about bringing value to the consumer!
Klipsch actually has 2 5.1 systems (with decoders) Their new system is only $299. see it here.
The kicker? you can add up to 16 sub modules. pow!
I don't work for them, yadda yadda.
How about the family with 3 kids in school, one at home, and one parent taking home 16k after taxes?
I am certain we could both construct several different scenarios, but an extra $2k per year per kid is a great deal, especially to families pulling under 30k or so (isn't the median 36k right now? putting 3 kids through highschool would suck 1/6th of their pretax income!)
.
my p2 400 displays pr0n with the greatest of ease.
>>> "I was going to clean up my apartement, but instead..."
I bet that didn't work and your girlfriend -still- made you clean up.
.
suikoden
suikoden
suikoden
suikoden
suikoden
(www.konami.com)
They fought. twice. Batman won both times.
Super powers mean little when Bruce outsmarts Clark.
.
you answered yourself. non overlapping. Now, if she has all the AP's on the same channel/network everything is fine.
if not, well, who cares about Catherine Bell anyway?
would have been a bit on how to make a console not look like complete crap on a digital tv.
(you have to play with the brightness and contrast to make it look less ugly, and hope you've got at least s-video)
>>LOTR was in my opinion pretty good but it didnt do the books justice.
What in the hell are you smoking? Does a movie rendition of LOTR have to follow the book word for word? (Harry Potter did, and look how bad that was).
Besides, you've only seen one third of LOTR, can't you wait to bash it until after you've seen all three?
read the damn TITLE.
"JVC Announces Technology To Prevent Software Copying" software, kids, not music.
I have been using macs since the plus, (back when i was an impressionable 8, in 85) and our first home machine after the atari 800 was a dual-floppy mac SE, which we later carded to a ghetto SE/30.
it was 'fun and interesting' but maddening the way the OS worked at times. I experimented with basic, and even smalltalk, but never could get the hang of dealing with windowing (My most hated part of win32 programming, at least until i found c++ Builder).
This was sad to me, because now instead of writing clever sound producing programs and shooters, i was making 'art' and so on. I wasn't much of a zealot, and gladly played doom and quake on the 'other' machines when i had the opportunity.
At some point, i came into possession of a couple intel boxes, and haven't seriously looked back since. I'd been using linux since 96, and various flavors of SVr4 since 94, so naturally linux went on one box, and all of bungie's latest games on the other.
After a -very- short time, i came to think of the machines as appliances, and aquired more of them. Macs, on the other hand, seem more like very expensive toys. I still enjoy using macOS, and plan on snagging the old man's dual G4 500 when i get the chance, but a mac isn't the do-all end-all of computing. I wouldn't use one for my firewall (until i could aquire one for less than $50 that i could replace components in, like ethernet cards). Nor would i use one as a 240GB raid fileserver, as that would just cost too damn much, and my Audiotron wouldn't like it much.
Macs are wonderful, Macs are great, Its just Steve Jobs I don't appreciate.
that is absurd. assuming that everyone that uses steganography is a terrorist is akin to assuming everyone who uses ssh is a cracker.