The sort of anti-social behavior you describe wouldn't really be "fit" because the chances of it working consistently over time are small. Evolution isn't about one generation being successful. It is about all future generations, too. If your genes drove you to be a sociopath, it might work for you once, but your sociopath kids would likely be removed from society when the exhibit the same behavior.
Where are we going with this? The book "The Selfish Gene" explains the concept pretty well.
As you may have recently realized, the theory of evolution is not taught in public schools. The basics of genetics are taught, and some sort of victorian "survival of the fittest" nonsense is taught, but evolution doesn't even grace the textbook.
Part of the reason for this is that Darwin only got it half right. He used the organism's view, not the gene's view, when explaining evolution. The schools don't have the good sense to put actual scientists in charge of the science curriculum, so this has never been fixed.
Of course the uneducated christian-taliban from the megachurches are right to point out holes in the erroneous version of evolutionary theory they learned in public schools. But the *poof* *magic* *god did it!* theory isn't even the least bit consistent with the evidence. If they actually understood what they were protesting, they would probably give up their jihad against enlightenment.
We like the stories of the disabled geniuses, but I'm not sure being disabled makes a person more likely to be a genius. It seems to me the opposite is more likely.
A society with childcare principles more similar to those of ancient Sparta could support a higher population. More people means more chances of producing a genius.
I don't mean to advocate such a policy, I'm just pointing out that it would be more "fit" for the majority of conceivable future environments (but perhaps not all). Risk analysis is tricky business, especially when dealing with scales as vast as that of evolution.
I said "write and distribute." Add "maintain" to this list, just for good measure.
Also, CS is a step down from its engineering counterpart because both disciplines typically have equal amounts of algorithm analysis and other classical CS staple, but engineering also includes things like design, project management, digital logic, computer architecture, etc. The relatively higher salaries for the products of engineering colleges speaks for itself.
You (amusingly) said I need to get a CS degree. I have one--all CS courses required for a CS degree were included in my engineering degree. I suggest you look into getting an engineering degree. It might teach you to consider the entirety of the software lifecycle, instead of merely the ability to analyze algorithms to death and declare thick-clients easier because you learned them first.
I'm surprised you have continued this thread. Is there some easy way for Anonymous Cowards to track responses to their posts?
I did say "severely disabled." Those that could neither reproduce nor help others reproduce (economic contribution) in any conceivable environment would be severely disabled. The resources used to extend their lifespans could instead support multiple non-disabled people.
Also, if different tribes of humans compete for resources, the tribe which consists entirely of fit humans has an advantage...
First, I don't know what an "evolutionist" is. Care to explain?
Second, evolution does drive us to ensure the survival of our genes. But we can do that without ever reproducing! Your DNA is almost entirely the same as that of other humans. The closer the relation, the more DNA in common (closer and closer to being an exact twin). If you make a sacrifice that saves the lives of your family members, and your brothers and sisters go on to reproduce, then MORE of your genes go on to live than if you had been selfish and they all died.
Humans aren't the only animals that sacrifice themselves for the greater good of their species. Ants, bees, other primates, and pretty much any other social animal has been observed doing the same thing. This perfectly jives with selfish-gene theory (the best model of evolution to date).
This gene's-eye-view of evolution also explains why you feel bad about killing monkeys but don't feel so bad about squashing bugs or plants.
Altruistic tendency is considered "fit" when dealing with social animals (anything with packs, herds, or tribes). Empathy helps with altruism. It means we make personal sacrifices in order to help the group as a whole (because the group shares many common genes with us).
Empathy so extreme that it hurts society, such as allocating resources away from growing our numbers to extending the lifespans of the severely disabled is NOT evolutionary altruistic.
I think the growing gap between the rich and the poor suggests that evolution continues. The rich are more fit to ensure both there genes and their memes survive and replicate.
The poor can not afford fertility treatment, cannot influence the media in a meaningful way, and would not be able to ensure their own safety in case of a disease pandemic. Having a private island in Dubai or a gigantic, gated estate would come in handy once the next black-death-type sickness strikes.
We are evolving and we know who is the most "fit;" we just haven't seen much selectivity pressure in recent history.
Inter-stellar communication would almost certainly be perceived as representing the entire planet. No attempt at doing so should be made until some sort of world government has the authority to represent the entire planet.
Did you just tell me to get a CS degree? I have a software engineering degree. CS would be a step down.
Privacy? Are you serious? Less than 1% of people care enough to use the privacy tools you use. To think that would drive development is insane.
Web app developers just don't know how write real software? Ha! I've written software in everything from VB to TK, and I promise you that web apps are quicker and easier to write and distribute by far. They are popular because they are effective and make money.
The fact that privacy is your #1 concern conclusively demonstrates that you have no sense of the marketplace for software, today.
The only semi-mature opensource disk encryption product is TrueCrypt, and that completely lacks centralized management and the ability to encrypt boot partitions.
Also, as is obvious to anyone who has been watching the news in the past year, the state of Ohio does not exactly have a stellar, top-talent IT program. It would not be a good idea for the to forge a new path with unsupported software.
AJAX isn't about making static content more interactive. It is about replacing thick-client applications with thin-client webapps. [OK, I admit there is some of both].
You may think AJAX "breaks" the ability to link and index content, but please tell me how you were liking and indexing thick-client apps before? You weren't. Nothing breaks. It's progress.
For an AJAX project, the ability to work with javascript disabled is a moot point--thus invalidating your event handler argument.
To the CSS, div, and table contention: You seem to be completely unaware of the fact that clients pay for the way the page/app LOOKS, not for strict adherence to HTML/CSS philosophy. In the real world, aesthetic-only divs are sometimes necessary to produce the look the client wants--to win the contract. Being a CSS purist is of little value when you are unemployed.
Publishers and authors stake their reputations and their livelihood on their honesty. They have a strong incentive to be accurate. Wikipedians or other Yahoos have no incentive to be honest other than altruism.
It seems to me that your methods are highly inefficient and error-prone, and neglect any reasonable risk analysis.
You think that's pedantic? Your "real machine code" isn't. It's a set of CISC code that is interpreted to RISC. Only the RISC runs on the Si itself. The so-called binary does not.
Classifying languages primarily by one of their least important attributes, the path code takes from source to execution, makes as much sense as classifying vehicles by their color instead of their shape, size, or purpose.
For example, most would categorize vehicles as either boats, airplanes, automobiles, or trains. Categorizing languages by "scripting" or "compiled" is like grouping boats and trains into the same group if they happen to be the same color.
The language syntax and featureset matters far, far more than how it is compiled.
My point is that whether a virtual machine, bytecode interpreter, or traditional compiler are used, you are still going from human-readable-language to machine code. The path you take to get there is inconsequential compared to what really matters: the language itself.
For me, the inability to quickly search a dead-tree book makes it nearly worthless as a tool. For pure pleasure reading, paper books may have some edge over ebooks for the moment. For everything else, the searchability and cross-reference features of dead trees seem like stone tablets in comparison.
And to address your tangent--without the marvelous efficiency of the combustion engine, the nations of the world would be fighting wars over farmland instead of oil fields. Climate change is a small problem in comparison to the days when starvation limited the size of our population.
Slashdot Mirror
The sort of anti-social behavior you describe wouldn't really be "fit" because the chances of it working consistently over time are small. Evolution isn't about one generation being successful. It is about all future generations, too. If your genes drove you to be a sociopath, it might work for you once, but your sociopath kids would likely be removed from society when the exhibit the same behavior.
Where are we going with this? The book "The Selfish Gene" explains the concept pretty well.
As you may have recently realized, the theory of evolution is not taught in public schools. The basics of genetics are taught, and some sort of victorian "survival of the fittest" nonsense is taught, but evolution doesn't even grace the textbook.
Part of the reason for this is that Darwin only got it half right. He used the organism's view, not the gene's view, when explaining evolution. The schools don't have the good sense to put actual scientists in charge of the science curriculum, so this has never been fixed.
Of course the uneducated christian-taliban from the megachurches are right to point out holes in the erroneous version of evolutionary theory they learned in public schools. But the *poof* *magic* *god did it!* theory isn't even the least bit consistent with the evidence. If they actually understood what they were protesting, they would probably give up their jihad against enlightenment.
...or he is trying to draw a salary from a lonely venture capitalist who has never read sci-fi...
We like the stories of the disabled geniuses, but I'm not sure being disabled makes a person more likely to be a genius. It seems to me the opposite is more likely.
A society with childcare principles more similar to those of ancient Sparta could support a higher population. More people means more chances of producing a genius.
I don't mean to advocate such a policy, I'm just pointing out that it would be more "fit" for the majority of conceivable future environments (but perhaps not all). Risk analysis is tricky business, especially when dealing with scales as vast as that of evolution.
I said "write and distribute." Add "maintain" to this list, just for good measure.
Also, CS is a step down from its engineering counterpart because both disciplines typically have equal amounts of algorithm analysis and other classical CS staple, but engineering also includes things like design, project management, digital logic, computer architecture, etc. The relatively higher salaries for the products of engineering colleges speaks for itself.
You (amusingly) said I need to get a CS degree. I have one--all CS courses required for a CS degree were included in my engineering degree. I suggest you look into getting an engineering degree. It might teach you to consider the entirety of the software lifecycle, instead of merely the ability to analyze algorithms to death and declare thick-clients easier because you learned them first.
I'm surprised you have continued this thread. Is there some easy way for Anonymous Cowards to track responses to their posts?
I did say "severely disabled." Those that could neither reproduce nor help others reproduce (economic contribution) in any conceivable environment would be severely disabled. The resources used to extend their lifespans could instead support multiple non-disabled people.
Also, if different tribes of humans compete for resources, the tribe which consists entirely of fit humans has an advantage...
First, I don't know what an "evolutionist" is. Care to explain?
Second, evolution does drive us to ensure the survival of our genes. But we can do that without ever reproducing! Your DNA is almost entirely the same as that of other humans. The closer the relation, the more DNA in common (closer and closer to being an exact twin). If you make a sacrifice that saves the lives of your family members, and your brothers and sisters go on to reproduce, then MORE of your genes go on to live than if you had been selfish and they all died.
Humans aren't the only animals that sacrifice themselves for the greater good of their species. Ants, bees, other primates, and pretty much any other social animal has been observed doing the same thing. This perfectly jives with selfish-gene theory (the best model of evolution to date).
This gene's-eye-view of evolution also explains why you feel bad about killing monkeys but don't feel so bad about squashing bugs or plants.
Ideas evolve, too. And the rich have more power to spread their ideas.
In the event of a strong selectivity pressure, the rich would have a huge advantage over the poor.
Altruistic tendency is considered "fit" when dealing with social animals (anything with packs, herds, or tribes). Empathy helps with altruism. It means we make personal sacrifices in order to help the group as a whole (because the group shares many common genes with us).
Empathy so extreme that it hurts society, such as allocating resources away from growing our numbers to extending the lifespans of the severely disabled is NOT evolutionary altruistic.
I think the growing gap between the rich and the poor suggests that evolution continues. The rich are more fit to ensure both there genes and their memes survive and replicate.
The poor can not afford fertility treatment, cannot influence the media in a meaningful way, and would not be able to ensure their own safety in case of a disease pandemic. Having a private island in Dubai or a gigantic, gated estate would come in handy once the next black-death-type sickness strikes.
We are evolving and we know who is the most "fit;" we just haven't seen much selectivity pressure in recent history.
Inter-stellar communication would almost certainly be perceived as representing the entire planet. No attempt at doing so should be made until some sort of world government has the authority to represent the entire planet.
So you ruled out the possibility of hunting parties hitting the suckers with ten spears at once? How'd ya manage that?
Did you just tell me to get a CS degree? I have a software engineering degree. CS would be a step down.
Privacy? Are you serious? Less than 1% of people care enough to use the privacy tools you use. To think that would drive development is insane.
Web app developers just don't know how write real software? Ha! I've written software in everything from VB to TK, and I promise you that web apps are quicker and easier to write and distribute by far. They are popular because they are effective and make money.
The fact that privacy is your #1 concern conclusively demonstrates that you have no sense of the marketplace for software, today.
The only semi-mature opensource disk encryption product is TrueCrypt, and that completely lacks centralized management and the ability to encrypt boot partitions.
Also, as is obvious to anyone who has been watching the news in the past year, the state of Ohio does not exactly have a stellar, top-talent IT program. It would not be a good idea for the to forge a new path with unsupported software.
AJAX isn't about making static content more interactive. It is about replacing thick-client applications with thin-client webapps. [OK, I admit there is some of both].
You may think AJAX "breaks" the ability to link and index content, but please tell me how you were liking and indexing thick-client apps before? You weren't. Nothing breaks. It's progress.
For an AJAX project, the ability to work with javascript disabled is a moot point--thus invalidating your event handler argument.
To the CSS, div, and table contention: You seem to be completely unaware of the fact that clients pay for the way the page/app LOOKS, not for strict adherence to HTML/CSS philosophy. In the real world, aesthetic-only divs are sometimes necessary to produce the look the client wants--to win the contract. Being a CSS purist is of little value when you are unemployed.
Publishers and authors stake their reputations and their livelihood on their honesty. They have a strong incentive to be accurate. Wikipedians or other Yahoos have no incentive to be honest other than altruism.
It seems to me that your methods are highly inefficient and error-prone, and neglect any reasonable risk analysis.
rebel RNA, most likely.
That's really not all that much better, and robots never require you to hold a warm bag of feces in your hand.
You think that's pedantic? Your "real machine code" isn't. It's a set of CISC code that is interpreted to RISC. Only the RISC runs on the Si itself. The so-called binary does not.
:-)
I win the pedantry wars and my point stands
Classifying languages primarily by one of their least important attributes, the path code takes from source to execution, makes as much sense as classifying vehicles by their color instead of their shape, size, or purpose.
For example, most would categorize vehicles as either boats, airplanes, automobiles, or trains. Categorizing languages by "scripting" or "compiled" is like grouping boats and trains into the same group if they happen to be the same color.
The language syntax and featureset matters far, far more than how it is compiled.
My point is that whether a virtual machine, bytecode interpreter, or traditional compiler are used, you are still going from human-readable-language to machine code. The path you take to get there is inconsequential compared to what really matters: the language itself.
For me, the inability to quickly search a dead-tree book makes it nearly worthless as a tool. For pure pleasure reading, paper books may have some edge over ebooks for the moment. For everything else, the searchability and cross-reference features of dead trees seem like stone tablets in comparison.
And to address your tangent--without the marvelous efficiency of the combustion engine, the nations of the world would be fighting wars over farmland instead of oil fields. Climate change is a small problem in comparison to the days when starvation limited the size of our population.