Microsoft isn't being sued for including the desktop/start menu etc. They are being sued for leveraging their monopoly on the kernel+OS+desktop into other software tools. They do have the right to include their web browser. But as a monopoly, they don't have the right to:
Forbid licensees from including other browsers or software [exclusion]
Charge more for windows without IE than with it [anticompetitive pricing]
Charge more for Windows or refuse to license because you want to add Netscape/Be/Linux onto the computer in addition to Windows [both]
In my opinion, Microsoft has broken many many laws, the most aggregious being the use of exclusive licensing agreements with manufactures to lock out alternative operating systems and products.
Heck Be (may it rest in peace) offered all PC manufacturers BeOS for free if they would include it on their shipping computers. Lots of companies were "interested". Microsoft prevented this from happening by threatening/extorting the manufacturers with their illegal "licensing agreement" and in the end only one, Hitachi, took them up. Even then, Hitachi was forced to hide the partition so you had to go through a labyrinth of steps to boot into Be.
I think if any of the PC manufacturers ever grew some balls (or got desperate enough) and sued Microsoft for predatory pricing/illegal practices, they would have the best chance of all of winning a shitload of damages. Unfortunately, Microsoft would be able to drive any big manufacturer completely out of business before they could win in court.
This kind of unscientific bullshitting by unqualified people just kills me. There are many fundamental flaws in this project. Here's a few
Power, how will these nanobots power themselves and their radio transmitters?
Underwater radio, to put it bluntly, high frequency underwater radio transmission doesn't work.
Telemetry, so how are these beasties going to figure out where they are? Or what direction their getting radio signals from?
Propulsion, the smaller you get, the harder it is to move around (especially in water). This objection can be offset by stating that the nanobots will rely on diffusion to spread. This leads to another problem.
Organization, how are they going to maintain integrity and or coherency in communication? AFAIK, no one has built/simulated large numbers (>10^6) of cooperative robotic groups. I hope I'm wrong though.
Here's an example of the kind of rigorous though that has gone into this research proposal. Here we have "David Caron, professor of biological sciences and a co-investigator on the project" stating:
ocean robots needn't be terribly complicated or powerful to be useful. A single
robot might sense only whether the water is fresh or saline and communicate by a faint radio signal only with other robots closest to it, which would then relay the information to other robots in the network linked to the Internet by still more robots.
Oh is that all it is? And who says that a robot that can do all of that isn't complicated or powerful? And pray, do you know how well radio signals travel in water? Here's a hint, the US Navy subs only use it for extremely short range communication and extremely long range communication (with frequencies in the 10's of Hz range). Oh and did you know that your antenna needs to be proportional to the wavelength you are going to transmit and recieve? Your nano-bots are going to be how big? How are you going to figure out where the signal is coming from? direction finding? GPS?
And pray tell, how are you going to power these microscopic wonders (which need to transmit radio waves mind you)? Remember volume shrinks by the cube.
This is the one that really had me rolling on the floor
The USC researchers will first build small robots that will move, sense and
communicate while tethered in a tank of water in a laboratory. They will gradually
progress to building and controlling increasingly larger numbers of increasingly
smaller freely moving robots. The end goal of the project will be to create robots
that are as small as the microorganisms that they seek to monitor.
Is that all? So, we just need to duplicate the functionality of bateria without the self-duplication but with added radio communication, telemetry (to figure out where signals are coming from), and data acquisition. Oh and social/aggregate organization. Piece o' cake. Is next Tuesday good for you?
I have a copy (which I need to boot into OX9 to run). When CaveDog was releasing updates to TA, MacSoft was pretty quick about keeping up with them, so I don't think there would be that much of a problem porting to Linux of OSX. After playing with Starcraft and Command and Conquer for a while, I'm amazed at how much deeper the whole TA gaming experience is. TA is a much better candidate for porting because of all of the plug-ins and add-ons that have been developed. Bloodthirsty AI still gives me the willies.
Let's see you upgrade your iMac to a professional level soundcard (latency precludes external solutions)...
It does, does it? And you would know this how? You mean something like the MOTU 828? Or maybe the yamaha mlan?
...or a GeForce 4 when it comes out. Expandability don't matter, huh?
If you want to upgrade, get a PowerMac. then you *can* upgrade to a GeForce 4. Sure expandability matters. But it isn't universally available. When did you last upgrade the graphics/audio card on you laptop?
What? A total lack in hardware upgradeablility, numerous manufacturing flaws. It was just a fantastic illustration that form before function only serves a small amount of people. That's why no-one bought one.
Well, it's small, practically silent, beautiful to look at, and sufficient performance for all of my computing needs. Your analysis is a fantastic illustration of equating functionS with function and discounting form from function.
That doesnt mean its right.
Consumers will decide that.
And this is why the cube did sooo well?
No. The one and only reason it didn't do well is price
Can you imagine the cheap LCD's they are using on the new imac? Thier manufacturing reputation not stellar so I wouldn't put to much trust in that arm.
First of all, the display is end to end digital. It'll only be fuzzy through your brown colored glasses. Second, I'm going to take a look at it myself tomorrow, are you? Regarding the arm: It looked pretty solid to me, but again, time (and warranty repairs) will tell.
Say what you will, the cube was way ahead of it's time.
The display sits too high.
The arm isn't fixed dude. It can move up and down.
The display is too small - it's an iBook display.
It's the biggest it's going to get at current (and near current) prices
Expandability expandability expandability
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity, my friend.
Versatility versatility versatility
Well, it looks just as versatile as the original iMac to me:-). Give it some time, maybe it will grow on you, I thought the iMac was big ugly blob when I first saw it, but it really grew on me.
Yeah, and the Porche 911 is no different from 500 other cars out there, four wheels and a steering wheel. Some of them can go farther on one tank of gas than the 911. Some have better acceleration. Some of them have more comfortable seats. But none of them have all of the features of the 911, sleek design, great handling, and fun to drive.
If you want to show me the mp3 player that is the best looking, easiest to use, fastest to search through 5GB of songs and one that fits in your pocket, you'll need to show me the iPod. Drop by an apple store and check one out.
Firewire adds an extra $100 to the price of a HD. When paying $160 for a HD to begin with, excuse me if adding $100 to that seems a bit silly.
Well, most iMac customers aren't going to be doing a multiple HD upgrade. But, if you had G4 PowerMac, there's room for 4 hard drives.
She wanted higher refresh rates and dual moniter support. A new video card + an old monitor lying around was cheaper then a new monitor with a higher refresh rate.
Again, most home users aren't going to be doing upgrades like that, but there's no reason why you couldn't do it to a PowerMac
She is a home user. She also had to get a full tower case to shove all of her 'home user' stuff in. ^_^
And that's great. She's saved alot of money by using what is old technology (I do it too, I'm a bottom feeder: I buy the old stuff when the new stuff comes out:-). If she were wanting a Mac, I'd get her a older PowerMac. But for Apple's target audience for the iMac, they will probably never need to do any of the above (they'd be using USB and FireWire), except add swap a hard drive.
I know this doesn't apply to apple as much as intel based systems but still I've got to wonder if people have forgotten the pains of dealing with software/hardware installs on fancy schmancy compaq or HPs.
Been there, done that. Where have you been the last 3 years? What are you going to put in your iMac? Audio card? Don't need one. Video card? Don't need that either. A Digital Audio card? USB or Firewire my friend. Oh, you're going to add a HardDrive? Again, you can use Firewire or USB. Aside from RAM expansion, the FireWire/USB ports should be all the standard ports you need for 99% of home use.
Perhaps if the embargo agreement said "do not release until January 7, 2002" instead of "January 7, 2002 1100a.m. PST." Time-canada could claim that they released it January 7, 2002.
In which case, the Apple doofus who signed the agreement for Apple should get in nice and early tomorrow and start cleaning out his/her desk.
It could be that their *embargo* agreement was poorly worded. Something like: "The undersigned and the organization represented by the undersigned will not release said material until January 7, 2002." when it should have read "January 7, 2002 1100 AM Pacific Standard Time."
In which case, the idiot who cleared the agreement for Apple had better clean out his/her desk.
But how many are even going to go to that trouble to learn how to use these things?
You're seriously missing the point. It's no trouble at all! You don't have to learn how to use these things because it's so darn easy. Have you ever used iTunes? How about the iPod? I picked up the iPod and in under one minute figured out how to change the playlist, adjust the volume, and navigate at blinding speed. The interface is truly intuitive and easy to use. I haven't worked with iMovie or iDVD, but iTunes is pretty sweet.
The lazy masses are too lazy to go against the status quo, especially when they see Microsoft ads touting XP's video making capabilities. It doesn't matter if it's as good, XP has what they think they want (even though they never end up using it to make movies or whatever) and it's what they have used at work for the past decade. Why switch? This is the great lesson to be learned from Apple's past, and it should not be ignored.
So what should Apple do? Just give up? *Not* try to increase it's market share? Apple has opened boutique style stores where people can come in and actually see how easy it is to use iTunes, iMovie, iPod etc. Microsoft has had it easy until now because they've been able to follow Apple's tail lights to add new features. But now Apple is starting to innovate on the hardware side (FireWire, iMac, iPod...) and Microsoft isn't positioned to do the kind of Hardware+OS integration that Apple can do. Apple may be able to pull away enough to start gaining market share. Hey, the Powerbook is *still* the sleekest, coolest laptop on the market in my book.
But what if the "helpers" were somehow able to see the "helper-genes" in others, and were more inclined to help those with "helper-genes" (whenever they were in situations were they had to choose between who they should help)?
This is also called sibling altruism and consistent with selfish gene theory.
Life is complex...
Ain't it though? I'd like to point out that the relatively simple mechanism of evolution gives rise to that wonderful complexity.
Hey, who are you to decide what is better or more efficient for any species? or even what their criteria is? That is the gene's job!
Exactly. That's what I was trying to say. It wasn't well phrased however. Let me rephrase. "His small-tail genes fail to reproduce themselves and thus get eliminated from the gene stream even though they'd be better for the species as a whole".
If the environment slowly changed (new predators) so that having a shorter tail would increase a peacock's ability to survive - then it will only be the short peacocks who will be around to breed. The ladies won't have any choice, and the population will end up with shorter tails.
Sounds good to me. Then the dominant evolutionary pressure (WRT to tail length) is not being applied by the peahens but by the predators. This would make it good for short-tail genes to perpetuate as you rightly note. Read the thread. I'm trying to argue the "selfish gene" idea, not the "invisible hand on the species" idea.
Re:Most of the tagged people will be innocent.
on
The Eyes Have It
·
· Score: 2
Mr. Atta was not a starving sheep farmer from Afghanistan. He was a middle class student from Egypt, whose parents were more than able to pay for him to go to Hamburg, Germany, Europe and get an education... another 14 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not the poorest country in the world.
I didn't say economically and politically oppressed families but countries. Saudi Arabia is one of the most politically repressed countries in the world. And Egypt isn't Singapore by any stretch of anyone's imagination. In fact, Saudi Arabia actually encourages (or maybe that should be encouraged) anti-american fundamentalism to flourish because it took (some) of the heat off of the corrupt government.
you're saying that the genes for helpers won't tend to survive in the males and females because they aren't expressed. But again, that's where natural selection would come in. Herds without helpers would tend not to survive as well as herds with helpers, which would keep the genes in the gene pool.
Not exactly. I'm saying that when the genes are expressed, they will tend to not survive. In your analogy, expressed helper genes don't reproduce. Thus, even though in the short run, helper genes may help the survival of herd and of the genes themselves, in the long run, because of the selfish nature of genes, Free loaders (those who are busy reproducing instead of protecting) will reduce the number of helper genes in the pool until they disappear altogether or remain so recessive that they are only rarely expressed. The good of the pool isn't what is served but the good of the genes.
I think this is where you have to step back and look at the big picture, which is survival of the species (or survival of the genes, if you will). Every successful species has some strategy that has allowed it to survive a period of time. The strategies don't necessarily have to be totally individualistic, as long as they give an advantage to the overall herd over competing herds (i.e., natural selection).
Some of those strategies are passed on via memes and some via genes. But other than the survival of the memes and genes themselves, there is no concept of "the species" or herd survival as a driving force. For a great book on how this works, I'd like to point you to Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". I will concede the point that culture or memes as strategies will enhance the survival of a herd over competing herds. But as I mentioned before, the herds success is the result of the success of the meme in getting itself perpetuated, not the other way around. This may sound ass backwards, but trust me, it does make sense.
How about a counter example. Peacocks have enourmous decorative tails. They evolved them because somewhere along the way, tail display became a dominant factor in how peahens choose their mates. Unfortunately, through a run away feedback loop, they evolved tails which if they were any bigger, would make it be impossible for them to survive. Now, lets say that a peacock is born with a smaller tail. He can hunt better, fly better and do everything related to survival better, except no peahen will mate with him because if even one other peacock is around, the peahens will mate with the other guy. His "small-tail" genes get thrown out of the gene pool even though they would be better for the species.
How about a mechanism in addition to the differential replication of genes.
In my discussion on an offshoot of this one, I think I rediscoverd just such a mechanism. See my last post. Groups of common culture
(wolf packs if you will) are like individuals but with memes instead of genes. That is memes are to "culture groups" as genes are to individuals.
Natural selection amoung cultural groups (meme individuals) does occur. Just look at the history of human kind. Of course, in this case, the memes are in it just for themselves. That is memes do not attempt to perpetuate the survival of the species as a whole, just themselves (and the culture groups which hold them.). This, of course, assumes that we already have groups of individuals with genes which predispose them to mainting/copying/mixing memes. Know of any species like that? <grin>
So let's say we have a species that produces three types of individuals: Males, Females and "Helpers". The helpers don't
reproduce, but let's say they are super protective of the herd and fight off preditors. They're not just going to die off in
one generation, because they are produced randomly from the mating of males and females. Ah, but if we get this
mutation that causes them to not be produced. Natural selection takes over -- the herd that has the protectors is going
to be more successful than the herd without them, and thus is (on average) going to survive better. They will win the war
of resources.
But "helpers" can't be produced "randomly". There has to exist genes or combinations of genes which express themselves as "helpers". This will eventually lead to "Free loaders" or members of the species with no "helper genes" reducing the number of helper genes because they'll always leave more copies of their genes than those who need to expend energy creating "helpers" who don't reproduce.
Clearly the members of a species interact
with each other in very complex ways, and these complex ways contribute to the survival of the species as a whole. Wolf
packs, for example, have developed successful survival strategies that depend on group behavior.
You're confusing cultural information with genetic information. Just because the members of a species have evolved genes which allow them to interact with each other in very complex ways and pass down a culture of sorts (memes) doesn't imply that the successful reproduction of genes is driven by anything other than genes. The wolf pack passes down memes (hunting techniques) because it is to the benefit of their genes and memes that they do so.
do you really think there are no behaviors in nature that are intrinsic to a species that simply foster overall survival rather than simple survival of the individual?
Good point. Maybe not overall survival, but perhaps survival of the behavior itself. That would make groups of common culture (wolf packs if you will) analogous to individuals with reference to memes and genes. That is memes are to culture groups" as genes are to individuals... Hmmm.
Now that I think about it, it is possible for meme's to evolve which mutually benefit the genes which created the conditions for them. But again, the memes are in it for themselves:-). A meme which does not contribute to its (the memes) survival will not perpetuate itself. Maybe this could lead to meme reproduction and evolution which supercedes the need to maintain genes. Perhaps the creation or transference of intelligence to non-genetic vehicle would be such a leap.
Some interesting food for thought. Many thanks for an interesting insight...
Genes are simply a mechanism that provide traits to the individuals. Together,
the individuals make up a local group of a species. If the species survive, the genes were successful. If they don't, then it
wasn't. It's really that simple.
Aha! How does that explain all of the "junk code" in our DNA? It's been shown that a large amount of our genetic code does *nothing*, but happens to be very good at making copies of itself. Why do we keep it around? I'm saying that when it comes to evolution, there is no "together", no "species" motivation. The genes are in it for themselves and themselves only.
If gene's are a species' mechanism for providing traits to an individual then how about a gene that would benefit the species but make the individual unable to reproduce? That gene (if it ever happened to mutate) would be gone in the next generation despite the obvious benefit to the species as a whole.
To state my case more clearly: Species are conceptual fictions. They don't exist except as large (and sometimes small) pools of individuals who in turn are simply gene copying/duplicating machines.
Ah, the impotent bee/ant/termite workers. To quote from another post of mine:
From a reproductive point of view, an ant colony is a single organism (which
stores genetic material in the queen's unfertelized eggs and the sperm that she stores). All of the worker ants have copies of
the colony's genes. Successful continuation of the colony means success for the genes. Your ant argument is a straw man. s/ant/bee/g please.
and I don't think you understand it as well as you think.
But a non-mating individual can help to ensure that other
individuals of the species pass their genetic material. Sheesh, trivial example: Ants. Very few ants in a hive directly
reproduce, but the hive wouldn't last long without the non-breeding workers. Or how about lions: Not many male
members end up reproducing, but the ones that don't are the ones who lose the fight with the other lions. The
non-breeders help to prune the weak lions out of the pack, and improve the genetic lines.
That is precisely what doesn't happen in evolution. From a reproductive point of view, an ant colony is a single organism (which stores genetic material in the queen's unfertelized eggs and the sperm that she stores). All of the worker ants have copies of the colony's genes. Successful continuation of the colony means success for the genes. Your ant argument is a straw man.
How about lions? The ones that don't reproduce got pruned. So their genes didn't get passed on. So their copies of their genes were eliminated from the pool. That's the end of the story. There is no "improve the genetic lines" motivation for the "species". If there were such a motivation, how does speciation occur? Species are meta-concepts (like Jung's archetypes) not actual entities. You're confusing cause and effect. Species don't try and survive. Genes get copied or deleted on a continual basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Just couldn't let this one go by:
Microsoft isn't being sued for including the desktop/start menu etc. They are being sued for leveraging their monopoly on the kernel+OS+desktop into other software tools. They do have the right to include their web browser. But as a monopoly, they don't have the right to:
In my opinion, Microsoft has broken many many laws, the most aggregious being the use of exclusive licensing agreements with manufactures to lock out alternative operating systems and products.
Heck Be (may it rest in peace) offered all PC manufacturers BeOS for free if they would include it on their shipping computers. Lots of companies were "interested". Microsoft prevented this from happening by threatening/extorting the manufacturers with their illegal "licensing agreement" and in the end only one, Hitachi, took them up. Even then, Hitachi was forced to hide the partition so you had to go through a labyrinth of steps to boot into Be.
I think if any of the PC manufacturers ever grew some balls (or got desperate enough) and sued Microsoft for predatory pricing/illegal practices, they would have the best chance of all of winning a shitload of damages. Unfortunately, Microsoft would be able to drive any big manufacturer completely out of business before they could win in court.
This kind of unscientific bullshitting by unqualified people just kills me. There are many fundamental flaws in this project. Here's a few
Here's an example of the kind of rigorous though that has gone into this research proposal. Here we have "David Caron, professor of biological sciences and a co-investigator on the project" stating:
Oh is that all it is? And who says that a robot that can do all of that isn't complicated or powerful? And pray, do you know how well radio signals travel in water? Here's a hint, the US Navy subs only use it for extremely short range communication and extremely long range communication (with frequencies in the 10's of Hz range). Oh and did you know that your antenna needs to be proportional to the wavelength you are going to transmit and recieve? Your nano-bots are going to be how big? How are you going to figure out where the signal is coming from? direction finding? GPS?
And pray tell, how are you going to power these microscopic wonders (which need to transmit radio waves mind you)? Remember volume shrinks by the cube.
This is the one that really had me rolling on the floor
Is that all? So, we just need to duplicate the functionality of bateria without the self-duplication but with added radio communication, telemetry (to figure out where signals are coming from), and data acquisition. Oh and social/aggregate organization. Piece o' cake. Is next Tuesday good for you?
I have a copy (which I need to boot into OX9 to run). When CaveDog was releasing updates to TA, MacSoft was pretty quick about keeping up with them, so I don't think there would be that much of a problem porting to Linux of OSX. After playing with Starcraft and Command and Conquer for a while, I'm amazed at how much deeper the whole TA gaming experience is. TA is a much better candidate for porting because of all of the plug-ins and add-ons that have been developed. Bloodthirsty AI still gives me the willies.
If you want to upgrade, get a PowerMac. then you *can* upgrade to a GeForce 4. Sure expandability matters. But it isn't universally available. When did you last upgrade the graphics/audio card on you laptop?
Well, it's small, practically silent, beautiful to look at, and sufficient performance for all of my computing needs. Your analysis is a fantastic illustration of equating functionS with function and discounting form from function.
Consumers will decide that.
No. The one and only reason it didn't do well is price
First of all, the display is end to end digital. It'll only be fuzzy through your brown colored glasses. Second, I'm going to take a look at it myself tomorrow, are you? Regarding the arm: It looked pretty solid to me, but again, time (and warranty repairs) will tell.
Say what you will, the cube was way ahead of it's time.
The arm isn't fixed dude. It can move up and down.
It's the biggest it's going to get at current (and near current) prices
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity, my friend.
Well, it looks just as versatile as the original iMac to me :-). Give it some time, maybe it will grow on you, I thought the iMac was big ugly blob when I first saw it, but it really grew on me.
You snooze, you lose.
Or all of the PowerMacs will be dual/quad processor boxes... Now where did I put my checkbook?
Yeah, and the Porche 911 is no different from 500 other cars out there, four wheels and a steering wheel. Some of them can go farther on one tank of gas than the 911. Some have better acceleration. Some of them have more comfortable seats. But none of them have all of the features of the 911, sleek design, great handling, and fun to drive.
If you want to show me the mp3 player that is the best looking, easiest to use, fastest to search through 5GB of songs and one that fits in your pocket, you'll need to show me the iPod. Drop by an apple store and check one out.
here. But probably not for long...
here. At least you can as of 01/06/2002 2342 PST.
http://www.timecanada.com now redirects to http://www.time.com/time. I guess it was a goof and not a stunt. And I guess the doofus at timecanada just got his pink slip.
Well, most iMac customers aren't going to be doing a multiple HD upgrade. But, if you had G4 PowerMac, there's room for 4 hard drives.
Again, most home users aren't going to be doing upgrades like that, but there's no reason why you couldn't do it to a PowerMac
And that's great. She's saved alot of money by using what is old technology (I do it too, I'm a bottom feeder: I buy the old stuff when the new stuff comes out :-). If she were wanting a Mac, I'd get her a older PowerMac. But for Apple's target audience for the iMac, they will probably never need to do any of the above (they'd be using USB and FireWire), except add swap a hard drive.
Been there, done that. Where have you been the last 3 years? What are you going to put in your iMac? Audio card? Don't need one. Video card? Don't need that either. A Digital Audio card? USB or Firewire my friend. Oh, you're going to add a HardDrive? Again, you can use Firewire or USB. Aside from RAM expansion, the FireWire/USB ports should be all the standard ports you need for 99% of home use.
Perhaps if the embargo agreement said "do not release until January 7, 2002" instead of "January 7, 2002 1100a.m. PST." Time-canada could claim that they released it January 7, 2002.
In which case, the Apple doofus who signed the agreement for Apple should get in nice and early tomorrow and start cleaning out his/her desk.
It could be that their *embargo* agreement was poorly worded. Something like: "The undersigned and the organization represented by the undersigned will not release said material until January 7, 2002." when it should have read "January 7, 2002 1100 AM Pacific Standard Time."
In which case, the idiot who cleared the agreement for Apple had better clean out his/her desk.
You're seriously missing the point. It's no trouble at all! You don't have to learn how to use these things because it's so darn easy. Have you ever used iTunes? How about the iPod? I picked up the iPod and in under one minute figured out how to change the playlist, adjust the volume, and navigate at blinding speed. The interface is truly intuitive and easy to use. I haven't worked with iMovie or iDVD, but iTunes is pretty sweet.
So what should Apple do? Just give up? *Not* try to increase it's market share? Apple has opened boutique style stores where people can come in and actually see how easy it is to use iTunes, iMovie, iPod etc. Microsoft has had it easy until now because they've been able to follow Apple's tail lights to add new features. But now Apple is starting to innovate on the hardware side (FireWire, iMac, iPod...) and Microsoft isn't positioned to do the kind of Hardware+OS integration that Apple can do. Apple may be able to pull away enough to start gaining market share. Hey, the Powerbook is *still* the sleekest, coolest laptop on the market in my book.
This is also called sibling altruism and consistent with selfish gene theory.
Life is complex...
Ain't it though? I'd like to point out that the relatively simple mechanism of evolution gives rise to that wonderful complexity.
Exactly. That's what I was trying to say. It wasn't well phrased however. Let me rephrase. "His small-tail genes fail to reproduce themselves and thus get eliminated from the gene stream even though they'd be better for the species as a whole".
Sounds good to me. Then the dominant evolutionary pressure (WRT to tail length) is not being applied by the peahens but by the predators. This would make it good for short-tail genes to perpetuate as you rightly note. Read the thread. I'm trying to argue the "selfish gene" idea, not the "invisible hand on the species" idea.
I didn't say economically and politically oppressed families but countries. Saudi Arabia is one of the most politically repressed countries in the world. And Egypt isn't Singapore by any stretch of anyone's imagination. In fact, Saudi Arabia actually encourages (or maybe that should be encouraged) anti-american fundamentalism to flourish because it took (some) of the heat off of the corrupt government.
I stand by my statment.
Not exactly. I'm saying that when the genes are expressed, they will tend to not survive. In your analogy, expressed helper genes don't reproduce. Thus, even though in the short run, helper genes may help the survival of herd and of the genes themselves, in the long run, because of the selfish nature of genes, Free loaders (those who are busy reproducing instead of protecting) will reduce the number of helper genes in the pool until they disappear altogether or remain so recessive that they are only rarely expressed. The good of the pool isn't what is served but the good of the genes.
I think this is where you have to step back and look at the big picture, which is survival of the species (or survival of the genes, if you will). Every successful species has some strategy that has allowed it to survive a period of time. The strategies don't necessarily have to be totally individualistic, as long as they give an advantage to the overall herd over competing herds (i.e., natural selection).
Some of those strategies are passed on via memes and some via genes. But other than the survival of the memes and genes themselves, there is no concept of "the species" or herd survival as a driving force. For a great book on how this works, I'd like to point you to Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene". I will concede the point that culture or memes as strategies will enhance the survival of a herd over competing herds. But as I mentioned before, the herds success is the result of the success of the meme in getting itself perpetuated, not the other way around. This may sound ass backwards, but trust me, it does make sense.
How about a counter example. Peacocks have enourmous decorative tails. They evolved them because somewhere along the way, tail display became a dominant factor in how peahens choose their mates. Unfortunately, through a run away feedback loop, they evolved tails which if they were any bigger, would make it be impossible for them to survive. Now, lets say that a peacock is born with a smaller tail. He can hunt better, fly better and do everything related to survival better, except no peahen will mate with him because if even one other peacock is around, the peahens will mate with the other guy. His "small-tail" genes get thrown out of the gene pool even though they would be better for the species.
How about a mechanism in addition to the differential replication of genes.
In my discussion on an offshoot of this one, I think I rediscoverd just such a mechanism. See my last post. Groups of common culture (wolf packs if you will) are like individuals but with memes instead of genes. That is memes are to "culture groups" as genes are to individuals.
Natural selection amoung cultural groups (meme individuals) does occur. Just look at the history of human kind. Of course, in this case, the memes are in it just for themselves. That is memes do not attempt to perpetuate the survival of the species as a whole, just themselves (and the culture groups which hold them.). This, of course, assumes that we already have groups of individuals with genes which predispose them to mainting/copying/mixing memes. Know of any species like that? <grin>
I guess you DO learn something new everyday.
But "helpers" can't be produced "randomly". There has to exist genes or combinations of genes which express themselves as "helpers". This will eventually lead to "Free loaders" or members of the species with no "helper genes" reducing the number of helper genes because they'll always leave more copies of their genes than those who need to expend energy creating "helpers" who don't reproduce.
Clearly the members of a species interact with each other in very complex ways, and these complex ways contribute to the survival of the species as a whole. Wolf packs, for example, have developed successful survival strategies that depend on group behavior.
You're confusing cultural information with genetic information. Just because the members of a species have evolved genes which allow them to interact with each other in very complex ways and pass down a culture of sorts (memes) doesn't imply that the successful reproduction of genes is driven by anything other than genes. The wolf pack passes down memes (hunting techniques) because it is to the benefit of their genes and memes that they do so. do you really think there are no behaviors in nature that are intrinsic to a species that simply foster overall survival rather than simple survival of the individual?
Good point. Maybe not overall survival, but perhaps survival of the behavior itself. That would make groups of common culture (wolf packs if you will) analogous to individuals with reference to memes and genes. That is memes are to culture groups" as genes are to individuals... Hmmm.
Now that I think about it, it is possible for meme's to evolve which mutually benefit the genes which created the conditions for them. But again, the memes are in it for themselves :-). A meme which does not contribute to its (the memes) survival will not perpetuate itself. Maybe this could lead to meme reproduction and evolution which supercedes the need to maintain genes. Perhaps the creation or transference of intelligence to non-genetic vehicle would be such a leap.
Some interesting food for thought. Many thanks for an interesting insight...
Aha! How does that explain all of the "junk code" in our DNA? It's been shown that a large amount of our genetic code does *nothing*, but happens to be very good at making copies of itself. Why do we keep it around? I'm saying that when it comes to evolution, there is no "together", no "species" motivation. The genes are in it for themselves and themselves only.
If gene's are a species' mechanism for providing traits to an individual then how about a gene that would benefit the species but make the individual unable to reproduce? That gene (if it ever happened to mutate) would be gone in the next generation despite the obvious benefit to the species as a whole.
To state my case more clearly: Species are conceptual fictions. They don't exist except as large (and sometimes small) pools of individuals who in turn are simply gene copying/duplicating machines.
Ah, the impotent bee/ant/termite workers. To quote from another post of mine: From a reproductive point of view, an ant colony is a single organism (which stores genetic material in the queen's unfertelized eggs and the sperm that she stores). All of the worker ants have copies of the colony's genes. Successful continuation of the colony means success for the genes. Your ant argument is a straw man. s/ant/bee/g please.
and I don't think you understand it as well as you think. But a non-mating individual can help to ensure that other individuals of the species pass their genetic material. Sheesh, trivial example: Ants. Very few ants in a hive directly reproduce, but the hive wouldn't last long without the non-breeding workers. Or how about lions: Not many male members end up reproducing, but the ones that don't are the ones who lose the fight with the other lions. The non-breeders help to prune the weak lions out of the pack, and improve the genetic lines.
That is precisely what doesn't happen in evolution. From a reproductive point of view, an ant colony is a single organism (which stores genetic material in the queen's unfertelized eggs and the sperm that she stores). All of the worker ants have copies of the colony's genes. Successful continuation of the colony means success for the genes. Your ant argument is a straw man.
How about lions? The ones that don't reproduce got pruned. So their genes didn't get passed on. So their copies of their genes were eliminated from the pool. That's the end of the story. There is no "improve the genetic lines" motivation for the "species". If there were such a motivation, how does speciation occur? Species are meta-concepts (like Jung's archetypes) not actual entities. You're confusing cause and effect. Species don't try and survive. Genes get copied or deleted on a continual basis.
You have to look at the picture more clearly.