Evolution is defined (by biologists) as "a change in the gene pool of a population over time" (*)
According to this, the only way one can state with certainty that evolution "stopped" is when the population drops to zero, i.e., the species becomes extinct.
The most one can say is that there is less selection pressure now than there was a few centuries ago. This can (and most probably will) change. When that happens, you can bet that we'll continue to evolve! (or go extinct)
John Walker (of AutoDesk, not the terrorist!) describes the exact model in his online book "The AutoDesk File". From http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_106. html
(note that this was written in 1993!)
Comparing software programs to TV programs: "I believe that soon we're not going to buy computer programs either, we're going to subscribe to them. Programs are programs."
Redmond, Washington, March 20, 1992. Transcript (from memory) of meeting of John Walker and John Forbes of Autodesk and Bill Gates and Todd Needham of Microsoft.
Walker: So let me see if I understand where you're going with this, Bill. What you'd really like is if in, say, five years, everybody with a computer gets a Microsoft bill every month, just like a telephone bill, for each product they use.
Gates: Precisely.
"Quite simply, to derive enough revenue from a subscription strategy to make the business run, you have to have the lion's share of the market, not a small slice. To get people to subscribe, you have to have demonstrated technological leadership that convinces them they'll get more value by paying you regularly than buying from somebody else outright, then replacing the product later on. And of course the central development engine needs to be big enough to keep generating the value that gives subscribers value for their money, year in and year out."
"By 2003, I believe that [...] the software industry will have restructured itself from a costly and unpredictable bookstore/appliance dealer sale-oriented model to a cable TV-like subscription model. The companies who emerge from the turbulence of this transition will be the colossi of the industry, no more and no less inherently risky than television networks, book publishers, or regional telephone companies. Their revenues, measured in the billions to tens of billions will fund ongoing product development aimed and increasing their subscription base."
Or what if the terrorist would have been smart enough to ignite his shoes in the lavoratory? Sure the smoke detector would have gone off, but by the time someone would have forced the door open, too late...
I'm sure you could scan through a lot of the book over an over-priced cup of coffee at one of those bookstores, but I think you'll quickly find it's a book you'd be stupid not to buy.
Huh?
Going by the (nicely written) review, it seems that this book might be of interest to newly-unemployed MBAs and PHBs, trying to understand what the **** hit them.
Not much in there that would be of interest to the typical/.-er, going by the review.
Perhaps if the book would have been written by Ed Yourdon...
Goto BounteyQuest.com and sign up. This is a site that's set up to help kill patents with existing prior art, and is a sensible, practical, and legal way to help restore some sanity to the patent process.
(It may be argued that the patent issuing process is broken beyond repair, but even if so, a viable alternative has yet to emerge.)
Disclaimer: I have no interest in the above site other than a registered user.
Another area where MS still has an advantage is support of more foreign languages.
StarOffice has taken a great step forward with Asian language support, but the small-medium markets (such as Hebrew, Portugese, Finnish, etc.) will still belong to MS until {Star,Open}Office supports these as well...
It's not clear what kind of "research" paper this is, but with "compelling applications" in the abstract, it's a bit too marketish to take seriously. Peer-reviewed it ain't.
Noticeably lacking in the references is mention of Linda/Jini, which implements much of what they describe.
Having read so often how Microsoft is not technologically innovative, it's amusing to see it first hand...
As a programmer who cut his teeth on Unix, and now manages (sorry) programmers that are only familiar with "visual" environments, I'm amazed by the lack of understanding of the basics of the compilation-link-load-execute model.
Such things as: declaration vs definition, preprocessing, the "#ifndef foo_h #define foo_h #endif" cliche, library search path vs include search path, etc.
It looks like the visual environment hides the details, which is fine when everything compiles, and when you're building a framework along the lines that the tool builders envisioned (simple forms, etc.). But the minute you try to do something different, or if you misunderstand the designer's paradigm - good luck! In these cases, understanding the mechanics of program building helps, while those who don't start hitting the mailing lists...
It's not so much "losing his mental edge" as speaking outside his expertise:
- How does "increasing the complexity" of DNA "improve" humans? What does he mean by "complexity" in this context? The number of chromosomes? If so, then this will not be human, by definition. The meaning of "improve" is even more problematic: Taller, blonder, bluer eyes?
- Perfomance != intellect. Not even the most tenous correlation.
- Direct connections between brain & computer is nice, but of course, has nothing to do with genetic engineering.
It's a bit annoying when a celebrity scientist uses his stature to lend weight to things which he knows no more about than the average man.
For learning principles that really work in prgramming _large_ projects, Eiffel is excellent: Strong cohesion, loose coupling, invariants, assertions, programming by contract - all important principles that can be applied in Java or C++ (even C, but more painfully).
As others have pointed out, the language itself is less important than the principles taught. In fact, I vaguely recall a freely available prepocessor that supported pre/post conditions in Java.
The Tcl/Tk code is a great example of code that's designed to be looked at, since extensibility is a basic design goal of the project. The latest code snapshot is currently
here
There's also a very well-written style guide that explains the logic behind the style.
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution is defined (by biologists) as "a change in the gene pool of a population over time" (*)
According to this, the only way one can state with certainty that evolution "stopped" is when the population drops to zero, i.e., the species becomes extinct.
The most one can say is that there is less selection pressure now than there was a few centuries ago. This can (and most probably will) change. When that happens, you can bet that we'll continue to evolve! (or go extinct)
(*) See the talk.origins FAQ for a fine introduction to evolutionary biology.
John Walker (of AutoDesk, not the terrorist!) describes the exact model in his online book "The AutoDesk File". From http://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/www/chapter2_106. html
(note that this was written in 1993!)
Comparing software programs to TV programs: "I believe that soon we're not going to buy computer programs either, we're going to subscribe to them. Programs are programs."
Redmond, Washington, March 20, 1992. Transcript (from memory) of meeting of John Walker and John Forbes of Autodesk and Bill Gates and Todd Needham of Microsoft.
Walker: So let me see if I understand where you're going with this, Bill. What you'd really like is if in, say, five years, everybody with a computer gets a Microsoft bill every month, just like a telephone bill, for each product they use.
Gates: Precisely.
"Quite simply, to derive enough revenue from a subscription strategy to make the business run, you have to have the lion's share of the market, not a small slice. To get people to subscribe, you have to have demonstrated technological leadership that convinces them they'll get more value by paying you regularly than buying from somebody else outright, then replacing the product later on. And of course the central development engine needs to be big enough to keep generating the value that gives subscribers value for their money, year in and year out."
"By 2003, I believe that [...] the software industry will have restructured itself from a costly and unpredictable bookstore/appliance dealer sale-oriented model to a cable TV-like subscription model. The companies who emerge from the turbulence of this transition will be the colossi of the industry, no more and no less inherently risky than television networks, book publishers, or regional telephone companies. Their revenues, measured in the billions to tens of billions will fund ongoing product development aimed and increasing their subscription base."
Or what if the terrorist would have been smart enough to ignite his shoes in the lavoratory? Sure the smoke detector would have gone off, but by the time someone would have forced the door open, too late...
Er, if it isn't difficult to shield against, than the same shielding will work for anthrax, no? Back to square one...
I wonder if Linux would have been the phenomena it is today if Linus had been brought up in evolution-bashing Kansas...
Huh?
Going by the (nicely written) review, it seems that this book might be of interest to newly-unemployed MBAs and PHBs, trying to understand what the **** hit them.
Not much in there that would be of interest to the typical
Perhaps if the book would have been written by Ed Yourdon...
"Thank goodness we got our Nobel already cooking," he said.
Am I the only one who finds this distasteful? I that what's really important here???
Goto BounteyQuest.com and sign up. This is a site that's set up to help kill patents with existing prior art, and is a sensible, practical, and legal way to help restore some sanity to the patent process.
(It may be argued that the patent issuing process is broken beyond repair, but even if so, a viable alternative has yet to emerge.)
Disclaimer: I have no interest in the above site other than a registered user.
Another area where MS still has an advantage is support of more foreign languages.
StarOffice has taken a great step forward with Asian language support, but the small-medium markets (such as Hebrew, Portugese, Finnish, etc.) will still belong to MS until {Star,Open}Office supports these as well...
Assume for a minute that strong crypto applications, such as PGP, are made illegal.
Would you then consider developing an easy-to-use steganography program?
Would you consider adding steganography capabilities to PGP in addition to cryptography?
(Has any of the suggested anti-crypto legislator mentioned steganography?)
"As expected, there were lots of surprises."
(Donald Yeomans, a comet expert at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
So if there wouldn't have been any surprises, would that have been a surprise?
Indeed.
It's not clear what kind of "research" paper this is, but with "compelling applications" in the abstract, it's a bit too marketish to take seriously. Peer-reviewed it ain't.
Noticeably lacking in the references is mention of Linda/Jini, which implements much of what they describe.
Having read so often how Microsoft is not technologically innovative, it's amusing to see it first hand...
Yes, but a _country_ is not responsible here, apparently. How do you use nukes against a loose, dispersed organization?
Probably correct, in essence, if not in detail.
_This_ is the long term damage that terror brings to the fabric of society.
The short term is painfully obvious today.
As a programmer who cut his teeth on Unix, and now manages (sorry) programmers that are only familiar with "visual" environments, I'm amazed by the lack of understanding of the basics of the compilation-link-load-execute model.
Such things as: declaration vs definition, preprocessing, the "#ifndef foo_h #define foo_h #endif" cliche, library search path vs include search path, etc.
It looks like the visual environment hides the details, which is fine when everything compiles, and when you're building a framework along the lines that the tool builders envisioned (simple forms, etc.). But the minute you try to do something different, or if you misunderstand the designer's paradigm - good luck! In these cases, understanding the mechanics of program building helps, while those who don't start hitting the mailing lists...
It's not so much "losing his mental edge" as speaking outside his expertise:
- How does "increasing the complexity" of DNA "improve" humans? What does he mean by "complexity" in this context? The number of chromosomes? If so, then this will not be human, by definition. The meaning of "improve" is even more problematic: Taller, blonder, bluer eyes?
- Perfomance != intellect. Not even the most tenous correlation.
- Direct connections between brain & computer is nice, but of course, has nothing to do with genetic engineering.
It's a bit annoying when a celebrity scientist uses his stature to lend weight to things which he knows no more about than the average man.
Nothing in the article acknowledges the existence of Internet sites and users outside the US.
I wonder how, say, the percentage of AOL hits would be affected by counting IP addresses from the RoW.
Not that the writer's point is necessarily invalid, but his perspective is a bit too narrow.
For learning principles that really work in prgramming _large_ projects, Eiffel is excellent: Strong cohesion, loose coupling, invariants, assertions, programming by contract - all important principles that can be applied in Java or C++ (even C, but more painfully).
As others have pointed out, the language itself is less important than the principles taught. In fact, I vaguely recall a freely available prepocessor that supported pre/post conditions in Java.
There's also a very well-written style guide that explains the logic behind the style.
The problem I have with this sort of rant is that it offers no alternatives.
Sure science has its blind spots and shortcomings (like democracy), but it's still the best proven method for increasing human knowledge.
As another poster pointed out, the lack of reapeatability and controlled conditions make any explanation mostly untestable, and therefore useless.