'Although the Android system currently remains open source, the core technologies and technology roadmap is strictly controlled by Google.'
Isn't the core technology actually the kernel, and strictly controlled by Linus Torvalds?
No, "core" is being used in the context of the user experience. In this context Linux is not a core technology of Android. Its just the kernel underneath that very few interact with directly. It could be replaced and few apps or users would notice or care.
The core technologies being referred to are search, cloud services and storage, factory installed apps (ex maps), etc. Maybe the store, purchases.
Sure, you'd have to be brutal with them, to make sure humans maintain the alpha position...
!! NO !! Establishing and maintaining dominance does **not** require brutality. What you suggest would most likely be quite counterproductive and lead to a more erratic animal.
Also maintaining dominance is not a group thing. Each and every adult human member of the pack must establish and maintain dominance individually. Failure to do so means that individual can not control the wolf and is limited in the ways he may interact since various normal behaviors could be interpreted as a "challenge" and cause the wolf to feel the need to put this person through the submission ritual to remind them that they are lower ranking.
Wolves lack the dog's nature to look to humans for guidance. A trait that makes it comparatively easy for all human members of a dog's pack to control it, possibly even visiting strangers to control it. Again this dog trait is not simply part of submissive behavior, it may not even be an inevitable result of breeding submissive personalities. A submissive wolf may not exhibit dominant behavior, but it may also ignore human signals. The dog's attention to such signals may very well be something separate, possibly a fortuitous accident. I may be mistaken but I've not heard the experimental foxes developed such a behavioral trait.
True, but the important distinction between wolves and dogs is that except for rare wolves with inherently submissive personalities, the wolf will also want to lead the pack.
What do you think you'd get if you spent generations of killing off the less submissive captured wolves while keeping the more submissive ones, and breeding them with each other? Dogs, perhaps?
I am referring to one specific animal, an animal not the product of many generations of selective breeding guided by humans. If a particular animal was born as a wolf with some degree of a dominant personality then that will determine its adult behavior. Nature will dominate nurture in this case.
Dogs are not simply the wolves with submissive personalities, dogs developed new traits not found in wolves. Whether these new traits are the inevitable result of domestication or a fortuitous event is not clear.
No, that is when the trouble begins. "Tame" is a misnomer. "Socialized to humans" != "tame". A wolf **never** acts like a dog. Typically as it grows up it will want to determine its rank in the pack. That is when it makes threats to pack members it perceives as possibly being "lower ranking" in the pack hierarchy. There is no intention to harm its fellow pack members, just make the other member display submissiveness.
Any wolf expects to be in a pack - and will help its pack to survive.
True, but the important distinction between wolves and dogs is that except for rare wolves with inherently submissive personalities, the wolf will also want to lead the pack.
That's what I was thinking when I was reading this - by selectively killing the more aggressive wolves, they effectively domesticated dogs, not by nurture, but by "selective breeding" in a primitive sense.
Personally I would take things a little farther, "more aggressive" seems an understatement to me. Domestication would seem to require the rare wolves born with a somewhat inherently submissive personality.
People who have been silly enough to raise wolves eventually learn that nature dominates, not nurture. A wolf pup fits into a human family incredibly well because a pack is essentially an extended family. The humans (and dogs and cats and other predatory species around the house) are just part of its "pack". However if that wolf pup has a dominant personality to any degree then as the wolf matures it will attempt to assert dominance over adult human members of its pack. To a wolf there are **never** peers, another pack member is either higher ranking or lower ranking and if there is ever any ambiguity over the matter it will be resolved through threats of force or actual force. A wolf raised as a dog will still be a wolf and act accordingly. Its not impossible for a dominant personality wolf to live with humans, but all the adult humans need to actively assert dominance over the wolf on a near daily basis. I think it more likely such wolves went into the stew pot in those early days of domestication and the inherently submissive ones lived to breed.
Wolves are social and very heirarchical. It doesn't seem a very far stretch for a beta wolf to replace one alpha for another. In this regard, Wolves already seemed suited to be domesticated. No "extra adaptations" were required.
IIRC (and possibly specific to North America) the beta also has a strong dominating personality, typically the mate of the alpha. It is common for the alpha to only put pack members of the same sex through the daily submission ritual, while the beta puts the remaining members (those of the same sex as the beta) through the daily ritual. The later's submission is implied through the beta's submission to the alpha. If any wolf is socializing and being submissive towards humans it is probably the omega, the lowest ranking pack members.
Like humans there is a wide range of personalities among wolves. Some intrinsically dominate, some intrinsically submissive. The later would make better partners for humans. The former, even if raised amongst humans as a pup, would most likely end up in the stew pot as it grew older and tried to assert dominance of human members of its "pack".
The F-4 was designed without guns due to its top speed being literally "faster than a speeding bullet" apparently under the misconception that it would remain at that speed during combat but reality hit pretty quickly during Vietnam.
The reality of top speed is that you don't get home if you go there. While Mach 2.2 capable, I think two F-4 hit Mach 1.6 (or was it 1.4? Its many years since I read the relevant article) in combat. Both ran out of fuel over North Vietnam.
Also I think that "Pentagon expert" perspective you are describing where aircraft stay near top speed was mostly thinking about Soviet bombers coming south over the north pole. These "experts" had more of an "interceptor" mindset than a "fighter" mindset.
Why the hell should something that breaks the lock of a terminally closing incoming anti-air missile, thus saving the unit, be consider "obsolete"? That's like saying that dodging a mugger's knife is obsolete these days. Sure, if you want to end up dead...?
The whole point of drones is that you're not putting your own soldiers at risk, so you don't care if it gets shot down. That only costs money, and the military has as much of that as it wants.
Having a drone shot down may lead to a failed mission. Losing a drone is one less available for the next mission, increasing the likelihood of that mission failing. Modern weapon systems tend to be slow to manufacture. We are unlikely to see a major industrial ramp up like in WW2, more likely what we have on day 1 is all that we will have for the duration.
When all your planes are unmanned, losing one or two isn't nearly as important.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
FWIW, it was Vietnam where U.S. pilots had become "overdependent" on missiles. Of course it was not their fault, some of their aircraft did not have guns (F-4). It did not help that earlier versions of their missiles were terribly unreliable (sparrow more than sidewinder). Rules of engagement also reduced the effectiveness of missiles. The later improvements in the kill/loss ratio is not merely more dogfight training and more flights equipped with guns (F4-E or external pods for other models), its also due to getting some of the bugs out of the missiles.
None of the above should be interpreted to suggest that guns are obsolete, they are essential gear.
Both Han Solo and Indie are action heroes though, and I mean let's face it, not too many people in their 70s make for an inspiring action hero. They can play almost any other role but there's a physical element to the two fisted pulp role.
Obviously Sean Connery is the exception to that rule.
Alec Guinness pulled it off as old Ben Kenobi in Episode 4. They are after all swinging light sabers not steel broadswords.:-)
Just wanted to also add that if the task is only going to take a few minutes, it seems really hard justifying the $60 pricetag for something you are only going to use for "just a few minutes." And if you had lots and lots of tasks that each only take "just a few minutes" then wouldn't you be better off using "the real deal" (i.e. an actual computer with the full application suite)?
Sometimes I prefer to travel light. Lets say a 5 hour flight. If I am only going to work on documentation and not do any coding I may prefer an iPad plus Bluetooth keyboard over a laptop. Lets say its just a lunch time meeting where I had only planed on presenting info but the other party would like to make a small change (or I had noticed a small error), I may prefer only the iPad and just use the onscreen keyboard. It all depends on the job at hand, different tools for different jobs.
A clause in the George Lucas / Disney deal prohibits Han from ever shooting first. Lucas insisted. Disney had no objection, characters destined to ride floats down Main St during Disneyland parades are not allowed to shoot first.
If the task is going to take a few minutes or less then an iPad seems to work just fine. If the task is going to take longer than that then an external bluetooth keyboard makes it quite practical to use an iPad for lightweight word processing and spreadsheet needs. As your normal day-to-day work environment, no, but when you are out and about I think it can be quite practical for some. This opinion is based on use of Apple's Pages and Numbers apps for Mac and iOS.
No, there should be no media changing hands. Media and code binaries are just vector for viri. For programming related things you email your source code (text files) to the designated class account and get an autoreply for confirmation. We were doing this in the 90s. There is no need to send data files. The data files (perhaps mere text files redirected to std in) to develop and test against were provided by the professor/TA.
I've used one these classroom management systems in the late 00s when I went back to school. It was a clusterf**k and added little to nothing more than a web UI for some ftp-like functionality plus a class specific chat. No real functionality beyond what CS programs had in the 80s.
As for professors wanting printouts. That is the easiest way to grade. You can scribble notes as you read through it. You do not have to be at your computer or be online. Just park you butt someplace convenient and grab a pen. Beach chair, pool chair, bar stool, I've seen all of these used. Plus the more conventional kitchen chair, lazy boy recliner and office chair. Sure a tablet might work for the reading part in many of these venues but makings notes would be far more difficult than paper and pen.
So why do you have to print it out? So it comes off of your quotas rather than the professor's.
What you *claim* the church believes differs from what the church *actually writes* as its official statement on the matter. You seem to be reading in things that are not there. The "Humani Genesis" only says that they reject polygenism, they reject Adam as a composite of multiple individuals, and that "Adam" is the "first parent" of the "true men". It does not define "true men".
What the "Humani Genesis" statement refers to as the unreconcilable opinions are polygenism and a composite "Adam", nothing more. Science rejects polygenism too. As for a composite "Adam", science does not seem to reject such a possibility. All that is necessary is for "Mitochondrial Eve" to have had a single mate.
Now has every Catholic been so precise in their wording as the "Humani Genesis" statement, of course not, especially so with children. However this statement seems to be the formal position of the church. I think we have to use such statements to determine what the church believes rather than ad hoc comments from an individual.
I don't think you quite understand the y-chromosome and mitochondrial Adam and Eve. The Y-chromosome is only passed by the male and the mitochondrial DNA by the female... It's a mathematical fact that there will always be a single male from who all other males have a direct male line descent... and a single female who has a direct female line to all current women.
I get that. That is why I used the terms "common matrilineal ancestor" and "common patrilineal ancestor".
Unlike the biblical story they were not contemporaries,...
Actually the biblical story does not say these genetic ancestors were contemporaries. The biblical Noah would be the common male ancestor not the biblical Adam according to the figurative narrative.
... You know who else contributed the Y-chromosome that every living man has? Adam's father, paternal grandfather, and paternal grand^(lots)father who is some sort of mouse-like creature...
You know who has no problem with that? The churches that I am referring to. These churches do not take genesis to be literal, they take it figuratively. These churches accept the biological evolution of the human body from single cell organisms.
... Also they were nowhere near to the most recent common ancestor who only lived about 5000-15000 years ago.
Those churches that I mentioned as being OK with evolution, they don't think the world is 5,000-15,0000 years old either. Matter of fact, it was a priest from one of these churches who proposed the current scientific theory for the origin of the universe, the big bang theory. This church also does serious cosmological research in concert with various universities. A universe tens of billions of years old and an earth billions of years old is not a problem.
... More so there appears to have been interbreeding with Neanderthals around 60,000 years ago. We separate from Neanderthals ~1.2 million years ago, so long after the "adam" and "eve" we were interbreeding with a separate species of humanity...
The Vatican reference from another poster does use a qualified phrase, "true men". Such a qualification does suggest that there were other types of "men". Again, I think what the church considers special about biblical "Adam" and "Eve" is that this is where the "soul" was introduced.
...We have no way of knowing if "Adam", "Eve", or the last common ancestor had multiple mates, they're just mathematical estimates in time, not identified individuals. But the handful of things it is possible to know, Adam and Eve being millenia apart, hybridizing with Neanderthals almost 100,000 years after Adam and Eve, all directly contradict the story in the bible.
Actually these contradictions only exist for those churches who believe in a literal genesis. For those churches who believe in a figurative genesis, you are mistaken, there seems to be no contradiction.
Again, I am not saying that the figurative narrative is true. Just that it is not that far off, that science and these non-literalist churches mainly differ over the "soul" not biology.
Huh? Your citations seem to be consistent with what I have said regarding church beliefs. All seem to be saying that the church accepts the evolution of the physical body; believes that what truly distinguishes "humanity" from previous life is the introduction of the "soul"; believes that humanity is descended from "Adam" and "Eve", the first two with souls.
OK, you can stop right the hell there. You see that bit that you wrote that I bolded? Ignore everything else, because that is what I've been talking about this whole damned time. That bit, that everyone in the human race is descended from two people, is Catholic dogma. It is held as an infallibly correct part of Catholic theology. And it. Is. Wrong. That was my whole point, right there.
I am not saying that the figurative narrative is true, just that it is not far off from the scientific theory of a common matrilineal ancestor and a common patrilineal ancestor. The church's central point seems to be that all living humans have "souls" because of descent from "Adam", and science says that all living humans share something through a matrilineal line and through a patrilineal line. A "soul" could pass down these lines just as mitochondrial dna and a y chromosome do.
How have you spent days talking without acknowledging that?
Have you spent days arguing against a literal interpretation when no one has offered one? Your various citations all seem to refer back to the "Humani Genesis" statement:
"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents."
This statement rejects polygenism, as does science. The various human races did not evolve separately. Homo sapiens sapiens share a common African ancestry.
This statement rejects "Adam" as a composite of multiple individuals. Science says that we share a common matrilineal ancestor. The church may call this person "Eve". It is plausible that she had a single mate, the church may call this mate "Adam". At some point in human history all women could trace their ancestry to "Eve". Their children, both male and female, would then trace their ancestry to "Eve". If "Eve" had a single mate then these children would also be tracing their ancestry to "Adam". For science to contradict the church's statement "Eve" would have needed mates other than "Adam". Science does not answer this question so there is no contradiction, a single mate is plausible.
The statement refers to "Adam" and "Eve" as "first parents". Given that the church accepts biological evolution it is obvious that they are not "first parents" in the biological sense. What other sense is there? Presumably the possession of a "soul"? Science does not address the topic of a "soul" so there is no contradiction.
Given that the church accepts evolution from single cell organisms your primordial parent interpretation seems flawed.
Evolution as a whole does not undermine the narrative, does it? It does undermine a very specific belief, that Adam was the father of all humankind. That is a crucial point...
That is an unsubstantiated point. The church seems to say that "Adam" differed only with respect to the "soul". Not necessarily in any biological sense, that he may very well have evolved from earlier life. Your latest citation below says this.
As another poster pointed out "Y-chromosome Adam" would not be biblical Adam, rather it would be biblical Noah. According to biblical accounts Noah and his sons were the only male survivors of the "flood".
Then why are you bringing it up in a discussion about the belief in a biblical Adam?
You seemed to be suggesting that the figurative language of genesis was contradicted if Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam were not contemporaries. Scientists like figurative and poetic language too, "Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Noah" just doesn't work as well.
And do I need to point out that the Flood myth is also a scientifically invalid idea that has been refuted?
Did you miss the quotes around "flood"? Did you miss my frequent use of phrases like the "figurative language of genesis"?
What I find funny is that I have to explain basic Catholic theology to someone who is at some level defending it.
Huh? Your citations seem to be consistent with what I have said regarding church beliefs. All seem to be saying that the church accepts the evolution of the physical body; believes that what truly distinguishes "humanity" from previous life is the introduction of the "soul"; believes that humanity is descended from "Adam" and "Eve", the first two with souls.
My personal comments are simply it seems that the "soul" is where science and the figurative language of genesis truly diverge. "Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Noah" are remarkably parallel to the figurative.
Adam is the primordial parent, not one of many parents.
Given that the church accepts evolution from single cell organisms your primordial parent interpretation seems flawed. Just as scientists may pick a point in a process where a new species comes into existence the church seems to be picking a point in a process where "true men" come into existence. I don't know how the church's "true men" relates to the homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) species. I'd expect "true men" defines where the "soul" was introduced into home sapiens sapiens.
No. The discrepancy merely tells us that they were not contemporaries.
Bingo. So this couldn't be a scientific reference to an actual Adam and Eve.
As another poster pointed out "Y-chromosome Adam" would not be biblical Adam, rather it would be biblical Noah. According to biblical accounts Noah and his sons were the only male survivors of the "flood".
The concept of ME has absolutely nothing to do with the religious concept of Eve. The same goes for YCA.
No one is proposing a literal match between biblical Eve and mitochondrial Eve, not even the church. Again, the church clearly states that genesis contains figurative language. Again, my original statement was that I think genetic science and the figurative language of genesis are not far off from each other.
Once the creation story is admitted to be a myth...
That is a quite gratuitous interpretations of "figurative language".
If you refuse to believe the Vatican...
What I seem to mostly disagreeing with is your interpretation of the vatican statements. You seem to be reading in things that are not there at times.
The existence of Y-chromosome Adam(or Mitochondrial Eve, for that matter) does not imply that there was a single individual who was the parent of all of humanity.
The vatican reference you offered previously was clearly referring to humanity as all living persons. Note that the focus of the passage is all living persons inheriting "original sin" through their descent from "Adam". The focus is not on the origin of the human species.
This should be obvious simply from the time discrepency(20,000 years apart)...
No. The discrepancy merely tells us that they were not contemporaries.
... and the fact that these people existed in the last 150,000 years.
The scientific theory is based on the idea that humanity nearly went extinct at some point. And that the few who survived were part of a population descended solely from Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam.
Our species is much older than that. And when these people lived, they were not alone. They were part of a population, not primordial parents.
Given how the churches I refer to believe in evolution from single cell organisms I don't see how this is a problem with respect to the figurative language of genesis.
The slight flaw in your argument is that "Adam" and "Eve" lived 20,000 years apart and there is no evidence that either was created from dust by God.
What flaw? The churches I am referring to state that genesis uses figurative language. That the figurative language and the scientific theory both suggest a single male ancestor and a single female ancestor is close enough to suggest no major disagreement between these churches and science.
The scientific method was established in the west by medieval bishops.
It will come as a surprise to Archimedes that he didn't observe, create models, make predictions that could falsify their model, and test them.
Note my use of the word "established", not something like "created". These Bishops were in fact referring to the work of Archimedes and others. Work that was largely being ignored, work that was not being put into practice. These bishops successfully put such methods into practice and saw them take hold among the learned of their day.
... things that prove that they were never divinely inspired, as they were just plain wrong.
Your argument seems to be based on the idea that a "divinely inspired" work can not be misunderstood by men, can not be misrepresented by men. Clearly this is not the case, and independent of whether the work is truly "divinely inspired" or not. Add the fact that the work uses figurative language and the opportunity for misunderstanding or misrepresentation increases.
Your quote does not seem to say what you suggest. This quote merely says there is a single male source, merely that Adam was not a composite of multiple individuals. I do not see how this quote conflicts with the scientific theory regarding a Y-Chromosome Adam.
I noticed that you glossed over the part of that wiki article which refers to exactly the concept that I was referring to: and the reality of a single human ancestor (commonly called monogenism) for all of mankind. Yes, the Catholic church accepts theistic evolution. No, the very specific doctrine of Christian monogenism(not the scientific idea of monogenism) is not supported by science.
I think genetic science and the figurative language of genesis are not far off from each other.
"Two pieces of the human genome are quite useful in deciphering human history: mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome. These are the only two parts of the genome that are not shuffled about by the evolutionary mechanisms that generate diversity with each generation: instead, these elements are passed down intact. According to the hypothesis, all people alive today have inherited the same mitochondria from a woman who lived in Africa about 160,000 years ago. She has been named Mitochondrial Eve. All men living today have inherited their Y chromosomes from a man who lived 140,000 years ago, probably in Africa. He has been named Y-chromosomal Adam." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#Genetic_reconstruction
Slashdot Mirror
'Although the Android system currently remains open source, the core technologies and technology roadmap is strictly controlled by Google.'
Isn't the core technology actually the kernel, and strictly controlled by Linus Torvalds?
No, "core" is being used in the context of the user experience. In this context Linux is not a core technology of Android. Its just the kernel underneath that very few interact with directly. It could be replaced and few apps or users would notice or care.
The core technologies being referred to are search, cloud services and storage, factory installed apps (ex maps), etc. Maybe the store, purchases.
Sure, you'd have to be brutal with them, to make sure humans maintain the alpha position ...
!! NO !! Establishing and maintaining dominance does **not** require brutality. What you suggest would most likely be quite counterproductive and lead to a more erratic animal.
Also maintaining dominance is not a group thing. Each and every adult human member of the pack must establish and maintain dominance individually. Failure to do so means that individual can not control the wolf and is limited in the ways he may interact since various normal behaviors could be interpreted as a "challenge" and cause the wolf to feel the need to put this person through the submission ritual to remind them that they are lower ranking.
Wolves lack the dog's nature to look to humans for guidance. A trait that makes it comparatively easy for all human members of a dog's pack to control it, possibly even visiting strangers to control it. Again this dog trait is not simply part of submissive behavior, it may not even be an inevitable result of breeding submissive personalities. A submissive wolf may not exhibit dominant behavior, but it may also ignore human signals. The dog's attention to such signals may very well be something separate, possibly a fortuitous accident. I may be mistaken but I've not heard the experimental foxes developed such a behavioral trait.
True, but the important distinction between wolves and dogs is that except for rare wolves with inherently submissive personalities, the wolf will also want to lead the pack.
What do you think you'd get if you spent generations of killing off the less submissive captured wolves while keeping the more submissive ones, and breeding them with each other? Dogs, perhaps?
I am referring to one specific animal, an animal not the product of many generations of selective breeding guided by humans. If a particular animal was born as a wolf with some degree of a dominant personality then that will determine its adult behavior. Nature will dominate nurture in this case.
Dogs are not simply the wolves with submissive personalities, dogs developed new traits not found in wolves. Whether these new traits are the inevitable result of domestication or a fortuitous event is not clear.
A tame wolf is valuable as soon as it grows up ...
No, that is when the trouble begins. "Tame" is a misnomer. "Socialized to humans" != "tame". A wolf **never** acts like a dog. Typically as it grows up it will want to determine its rank in the pack. That is when it makes threats to pack members it perceives as possibly being "lower ranking" in the pack hierarchy. There is no intention to harm its fellow pack members, just make the other member display submissiveness.
Any wolf expects to be in a pack - and will help its pack to survive.
True, but the important distinction between wolves and dogs is that except for rare wolves with inherently submissive personalities, the wolf will also want to lead the pack.
That's what I was thinking when I was reading this - by selectively killing the more aggressive wolves, they effectively domesticated dogs, not by nurture, but by "selective breeding" in a primitive sense.
Personally I would take things a little farther, "more aggressive" seems an understatement to me. Domestication would seem to require the rare wolves born with a somewhat inherently submissive personality.
People who have been silly enough to raise wolves eventually learn that nature dominates, not nurture. A wolf pup fits into a human family incredibly well because a pack is essentially an extended family. The humans (and dogs and cats and other predatory species around the house) are just part of its "pack". However if that wolf pup has a dominant personality to any degree then as the wolf matures it will attempt to assert dominance over adult human members of its pack. To a wolf there are **never** peers, another pack member is either higher ranking or lower ranking and if there is ever any ambiguity over the matter it will be resolved through threats of force or actual force. A wolf raised as a dog will still be a wolf and act accordingly. Its not impossible for a dominant personality wolf to live with humans, but all the adult humans need to actively assert dominance over the wolf on a near daily basis. I think it more likely such wolves went into the stew pot in those early days of domestication and the inherently submissive ones lived to breed.
Wolves are social and very heirarchical. It doesn't seem a very far stretch for a beta wolf to replace one alpha for another. In this regard, Wolves already seemed suited to be domesticated. No "extra adaptations" were required.
IIRC (and possibly specific to North America) the beta also has a strong dominating personality, typically the mate of the alpha. It is common for the alpha to only put pack members of the same sex through the daily submission ritual, while the beta puts the remaining members (those of the same sex as the beta) through the daily ritual. The later's submission is implied through the beta's submission to the alpha. If any wolf is socializing and being submissive towards humans it is probably the omega, the lowest ranking pack members.
Like humans there is a wide range of personalities among wolves. Some intrinsically dominate, some intrinsically submissive. The later would make better partners for humans. The former, even if raised amongst humans as a pup, would most likely end up in the stew pot as it grew older and tried to assert dominance of human members of its "pack".
The F-4 was designed without guns due to its top speed being literally "faster than a speeding bullet" apparently under the misconception that it would remain at that speed during combat but reality hit pretty quickly during Vietnam.
The reality of top speed is that you don't get home if you go there. While Mach 2.2 capable, I think two F-4 hit Mach 1.6 (or was it 1.4? Its many years since I read the relevant article) in combat. Both ran out of fuel over North Vietnam.
Also I think that "Pentagon expert" perspective you are describing where aircraft stay near top speed was mostly thinking about Soviet bombers coming south over the north pole. These "experts" had more of an "interceptor" mindset than a "fighter" mindset.
Why the hell should something that breaks the lock of a terminally closing incoming anti-air missile, thus saving the unit, be consider "obsolete"? That's like saying that dodging a mugger's knife is obsolete these days. Sure, if you want to end up dead...?
The whole point of drones is that you're not putting your own soldiers at risk, so you don't care if it gets shot down. That only costs money, and the military has as much of that as it wants.
Having a drone shot down may lead to a failed mission. Losing a drone is one less available for the next mission, increasing the likelihood of that mission failing. Modern weapon systems tend to be slow to manufacture. We are unlikely to see a major industrial ramp up like in WW2, more likely what we have on day 1 is all that we will have for the duration.
When all your planes are unmanned, losing one or two isn't nearly as important.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
FWIW, it was Vietnam where U.S. pilots had become "overdependent" on missiles. Of course it was not their fault, some of their aircraft did not have guns (F-4). It did not help that earlier versions of their missiles were terribly unreliable (sparrow more than sidewinder). Rules of engagement also reduced the effectiveness of missiles. The later improvements in the kill/loss ratio is not merely more dogfight training and more flights equipped with guns (F4-E or external pods for other models), its also due to getting some of the bugs out of the missiles.
None of the above should be interpreted to suggest that guns are obsolete, they are essential gear.
Both Han Solo and Indie are action heroes though, and I mean let's face it, not too many people in their 70s make for an inspiring action hero. They can play almost any other role but there's a physical element to the two fisted pulp role.
Obviously Sean Connery is the exception to that rule.
Alec Guinness pulled it off as old Ben Kenobi in Episode 4. They are after all swinging light sabers not steel broadswords. :-)
Just wanted to also add that if the task is only going to take a few minutes, it seems really hard justifying the $60 pricetag for something you are only going to use for "just a few minutes." And if you had lots and lots of tasks that each only take "just a few minutes" then wouldn't you be better off using "the real deal" (i.e. an actual computer with the full application suite)?
Sometimes I prefer to travel light. Lets say a 5 hour flight. If I am only going to work on documentation and not do any coding I may prefer an iPad plus Bluetooth keyboard over a laptop. Lets say its just a lunch time meeting where I had only planed on presenting info but the other party would like to make a small change (or I had noticed a small error), I may prefer only the iPad and just use the onscreen keyboard. It all depends on the job at hand, different tools for different jobs.
But Han shot him first. In the face. Repeatedly.
A clause in the George Lucas / Disney deal prohibits Han from ever shooting first. Lucas insisted. Disney had no objection, characters destined to ride floats down Main St during Disneyland parades are not allowed to shoot first.
If the task is going to take a few minutes or less then an iPad seems to work just fine. If the task is going to take longer than that then an external bluetooth keyboard makes it quite practical to use an iPad for lightweight word processing and spreadsheet needs. As your normal day-to-day work environment, no, but when you are out and about I think it can be quite practical for some. This opinion is based on use of Apple's Pages and Numbers apps for Mac and iOS.
No, there should be no media changing hands. Media and code binaries are just vector for viri. For programming related things you email your source code (text files) to the designated class account and get an autoreply for confirmation. We were doing this in the 90s. There is no need to send data files. The data files (perhaps mere text files redirected to std in) to develop and test against were provided by the professor/TA.
I've used one these classroom management systems in the late 00s when I went back to school. It was a clusterf**k and added little to nothing more than a web UI for some ftp-like functionality plus a class specific chat. No real functionality beyond what CS programs had in the 80s.
As for professors wanting printouts. That is the easiest way to grade. You can scribble notes as you read through it. You do not have to be at your computer or be online. Just park you butt someplace convenient and grab a pen. Beach chair, pool chair, bar stool, I've seen all of these used. Plus the more conventional kitchen chair, lazy boy recliner and office chair. Sure a tablet might work for the reading part in many of these venues but makings notes would be far more difficult than paper and pen.
So why do you have to print it out? So it comes off of your quotas rather than the professor's.
What you *claim* the church believes differs from what the church *actually writes* as its official statement on the matter. You seem to be reading in things that are not there. The "Humani Genesis" only says that they reject polygenism, they reject Adam as a composite of multiple individuals, and that "Adam" is the "first parent" of the "true men". It does not define "true men".
What the "Humani Genesis" statement refers to as the unreconcilable opinions are polygenism and a composite "Adam", nothing more. Science rejects polygenism too. As for a composite "Adam", science does not seem to reject such a possibility. All that is necessary is for "Mitochondrial Eve" to have had a single mate.
Now has every Catholic been so precise in their wording as the "Humani Genesis" statement, of course not, especially so with children. However this statement seems to be the formal position of the church. I think we have to use such statements to determine what the church believes rather than ad hoc comments from an individual.
I don't think you quite understand the y-chromosome and mitochondrial Adam and Eve. The Y-chromosome is only passed by the male and the mitochondrial DNA by the female ... It's a mathematical fact that there will always be a single male from who all other males have a direct male line descent ... and a single female who has a direct female line to all current women.
I get that. That is why I used the terms "common matrilineal ancestor" and "common patrilineal ancestor".
Unlike the biblical story they were not contemporaries, ...
Actually the biblical story does not say these genetic ancestors were contemporaries. The biblical Noah would be the common male ancestor not the biblical Adam according to the figurative narrative.
... You know who else contributed the Y-chromosome that every living man has? Adam's father, paternal grandfather, and paternal grand^(lots)father who is some sort of mouse-like creature ...
You know who has no problem with that? The churches that I am referring to. These churches do not take genesis to be literal, they take it figuratively. These churches accept the biological evolution of the human body from single cell organisms.
Those churches that I mentioned as being OK with evolution, they don't think the world is 5,000-15,0000 years old either. Matter of fact, it was a priest from one of these churches who proposed the current scientific theory for the origin of the universe, the big bang theory. This church also does serious cosmological research in concert with various universities. A universe tens of billions of years old and an earth billions of years old is not a problem.
... More so there appears to have been interbreeding with Neanderthals around 60,000 years ago. We separate from Neanderthals ~1.2 million years ago, so long after the "adam" and "eve" we were interbreeding with a separate species of humanity ...
The Vatican reference from another poster does use a qualified phrase, "true men". Such a qualification does suggest that there were other types of "men". Again, I think what the church considers special about biblical "Adam" and "Eve" is that this is where the "soul" was introduced.
Actually these contradictions only exist for those churches who believe in a literal genesis. For those churches who believe in a figurative genesis, you are mistaken, there seems to be no contradiction.
Again, I am not saying that the figurative narrative is true. Just that it is not that far off, that science and these non-literalist churches mainly differ over the "soul" not biology.
Huh? Your citations seem to be consistent with what I have said regarding church beliefs. All seem to be saying that the church accepts the evolution of the physical body; believes that what truly distinguishes "humanity" from previous life is the introduction of the "soul"; believes that humanity is descended from "Adam" and "Eve", the first two with souls.
OK, you can stop right the hell there. You see that bit that you wrote that I bolded? Ignore everything else, because that is what I've been talking about this whole damned time. That bit, that everyone in the human race is descended from two people, is Catholic dogma. It is held as an infallibly correct part of Catholic theology. And it. Is. Wrong. That was my whole point, right there.
I am not saying that the figurative narrative is true, just that it is not far off from the scientific theory of a common matrilineal ancestor and a common patrilineal ancestor. The church's central point seems to be that all living humans have "souls" because of descent from "Adam", and science says that all living humans share something through a matrilineal line and through a patrilineal line. A "soul" could pass down these lines just as mitochondrial dna and a y chromosome do.
How have you spent days talking without acknowledging that?
Have you spent days arguing against a literal interpretation when no one has offered one? Your various citations all seem to refer back to the "Humani Genesis" statement:
"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents."
This statement rejects polygenism, as does science. The various human races did not evolve separately. Homo sapiens sapiens share a common African ancestry.
This statement rejects "Adam" as a composite of multiple individuals. Science says that we share a common matrilineal ancestor. The church may call this person "Eve". It is plausible that she had a single mate, the church may call this mate "Adam". At some point in human history all women could trace their ancestry to "Eve". Their children, both male and female, would then trace their ancestry to "Eve". If "Eve" had a single mate then these children would also be tracing their ancestry to "Adam". For science to contradict the church's statement "Eve" would have needed mates other than "Adam". Science does not answer this question so there is no contradiction, a single mate is plausible.
The statement refers to "Adam" and "Eve" as "first parents". Given that the church accepts biological evolution it is obvious that they are not "first parents" in the biological sense. What other sense is there? Presumably the possession of a "soul"? Science does not address the topic of a "soul" so there is no contradiction.
Given that the church accepts evolution from single cell organisms your primordial parent interpretation seems flawed.
Evolution as a whole does not undermine the narrative, does it? It does undermine a very specific belief, that Adam was the father of all humankind. That is a crucial point ...
That is an unsubstantiated point. The church seems to say that "Adam" differed only with respect to the "soul". Not necessarily in any biological sense, that he may very well have evolved from earlier life. Your latest citation below says this.
As another poster pointed out "Y-chromosome Adam" would not be biblical Adam, rather it would be biblical Noah. According to biblical accounts Noah and his sons were the only male survivors of the "flood".
Then why are you bringing it up in a discussion about the belief in a biblical Adam?
You seemed to be suggesting that the figurative language of genesis was contradicted if Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam were not contemporaries. Scientists like figurative and poetic language too, "Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Noah" just doesn't work as well.
And do I need to point out that the Flood myth is also a scientifically invalid idea that has been refuted?
Did you miss the quotes around "flood"? Did you miss my frequent use of phrases like the "figurative language of genesis"?
What I find funny is that I have to explain basic Catholic theology to someone who is at some level defending it.
Huh? Your citations seem to be consistent with what I have said regarding church beliefs. All seem to be saying that the church accepts the evolution of the physical body; believes that what truly distinguishes "humanity" from previous life is the introduction of the "soul"; believes that humanity is descended from "Adam" and "Eve", the first two with souls.
My personal comments are simply it seems that the "soul" is where science and the figurative language of genesis truly diverge. "Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Noah" are remarkably parallel to the figurative.
Adam is the primordial parent, not one of many parents.
Given that the church accepts evolution from single cell organisms your primordial parent interpretation seems flawed. Just as scientists may pick a point in a process where a new species comes into existence the church seems to be picking a point in a process where "true men" come into existence. I don't know how the church's "true men" relates to the homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) species. I'd expect "true men" defines where the "soul" was introduced into home sapiens sapiens.
No. The discrepancy merely tells us that they were not contemporaries.
Bingo. So this couldn't be a scientific reference to an actual Adam and Eve.
As another poster pointed out "Y-chromosome Adam" would not be biblical Adam, rather it would be biblical Noah. According to biblical accounts Noah and his sons were the only male survivors of the "flood".
The concept of ME has absolutely nothing to do with the religious concept of Eve. The same goes for YCA.
No one is proposing a literal match between biblical Eve and mitochondrial Eve, not even the church. Again, the church clearly states that genesis contains figurative language. Again, my original statement was that I think genetic science and the figurative language of genesis are not far off from each other.
Once the creation story is admitted to be a myth ...
That is a quite gratuitous interpretations of "figurative language".
If you refuse to believe the Vatican ...
What I seem to mostly disagreeing with is your interpretation of the vatican statements. You seem to be reading in things that are not there at times.
The existence of Y-chromosome Adam(or Mitochondrial Eve, for that matter) does not imply that there was a single individual who was the parent of all of humanity.
The vatican reference you offered previously was clearly referring to humanity as all living persons. Note that the focus of the passage is all living persons inheriting "original sin" through their descent from "Adam". The focus is not on the origin of the human species.
This should be obvious simply from the time discrepency(20,000 years apart) ...
No. The discrepancy merely tells us that they were not contemporaries.
... and the fact that these people existed in the last 150,000 years.
The scientific theory is based on the idea that humanity nearly went extinct at some point. And that the few who survived were part of a population descended solely from Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam.
Our species is much older than that. And when these people lived, they were not alone. They were part of a population, not primordial parents.
Given how the churches I refer to believe in evolution from single cell organisms I don't see how this is a problem with respect to the figurative language of genesis.
The slight flaw in your argument is that "Adam" and "Eve" lived 20,000 years apart and there is no evidence that either was created from dust by God.
What flaw? The churches I am referring to state that genesis uses figurative language. That the figurative language and the scientific theory both suggest a single male ancestor and a single female ancestor is close enough to suggest no major disagreement between these churches and science.
The scientific method was established in the west by medieval bishops.
It will come as a surprise to Archimedes that he didn't observe, create models, make predictions that could falsify their model, and test them.
Note my use of the word "established", not something like "created". These Bishops were in fact referring to the work of Archimedes and others. Work that was largely being ignored, work that was not being put into practice. These bishops successfully put such methods into practice and saw them take hold among the learned of their day.
... things that prove that they were never divinely inspired, as they were just plain wrong.
Your argument seems to be based on the idea that a "divinely inspired" work can not be misunderstood by men, can not be misrepresented by men. Clearly this is not the case, and independent of whether the work is truly "divinely inspired" or not. Add the fact that the work uses figurative language and the opportunity for misunderstanding or misrepresentation increases.
Your quote does not seem to say what you suggest. This quote merely says there is a single male source, merely that Adam was not a composite of multiple individuals. I do not see how this quote conflicts with the scientific theory regarding a Y-Chromosome Adam.
I noticed that you glossed over the part of that wiki article which refers to exactly the concept that I was referring to: and the reality of a single human ancestor (commonly called monogenism) for all of mankind. Yes, the Catholic church accepts theistic evolution. No, the very specific doctrine of Christian monogenism(not the scientific idea of monogenism) is not supported by science.
I think genetic science and the figurative language of genesis are not far off from each other.
"Two pieces of the human genome are quite useful in deciphering human history: mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome. These are the only two parts of the genome that are not shuffled about by the evolutionary mechanisms that generate diversity with each generation: instead, these elements are passed down intact. According to the hypothesis, all people alive today have inherited the same mitochondria from a woman who lived in Africa about 160,000 years ago. She has been named Mitochondrial Eve. All men living today have inherited their Y chromosomes from a man who lived 140,000 years ago, probably in Africa. He has been named Y-chromosomal Adam."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#Genetic_reconstruction