You do realise that anti-tank missiles aren't going to see that much action in WW3? After all the ABC stuff that will come down, there won't be much room for infantry. Well, not much room for humanity in general more like - there's going to be a lot of intact hardware, but almost no one left to operate it.
Developers can't make 3d-centric games because no one but an incredibly small minority of people with gaming rigs and/or consoles would be able to play them.
Customers don't buy 3d-monitors and TVs because there's no content worth watching on them.
End result, 3d is used as an afterthought or marketing gimmick. It makes no sense to spend a lot of funds developing a feature almost no one would use.
Yes, that's why we have golden parachutes for ALL workers.
Wait, no, that's just the top management that decides on policies. Rest of the workers just implement what those on top told them to, including shafting other workers. You know, just like in the army?
This, ten times over. There is a reason why mission-critical stuff isn't messed with in the airplanes and such. This isn't iphone app that can die in a number of ways with no real fallout beyond buyer posting an angry comment.
Most of military hardware and software is at least half-generation behind the corporate one. Why? Because it's done to military standard, where failure is not an option, unlike corporate where failure is a number that it costs to fix the problem caused by failure divided by likelihood of failure.
And proofing to from corporate to military standard raises both costs and time to make a working solution through the roof.
You're missing the point. Javelins do the job army needs it to do. Discharged veteran doesn't. He's useless from army's point of view. This isn't "government bureaucracy", this is corporate thinking at its finest.
Unless you're some sort of uber-solver that does nothing but puzzles for his free time and utterly zerged portal 2 with no care for plot of enjoyment, 3-4 hours for portal 2 is impossible.
Same for duke. It was fun if you relaxed, sat back and actually ENJOYED it for what it was, instead of completionist "must zerg faster" approach.
Where is the proof for this hypotesis? Again, the current theory stands that we and neanderthals had a common ancestor, through which we share some of our gene pool with that we share with no one else.
Genes surviving in gene pool doesn't mean improvement. We have a massive amount of genes in our gene pool that are utterly useless genetic ballast from evolution.
We know this because we have findings of homo sapiens remains from same time as findings of homo neandertaliensis, and homo sapiens of that time are largely the same as ones we have over 6 billion of. Again, if "hybriding", or as the terms in biology go, crossbreeding with them was a critical step, or even important step for our species' development, this would have been visible in terms of distinctive features of our species. So far, none of findings of actual remains support this, and many findings support the theory that features of neanderthals were in fact the main reason why they could not compete with us - on one hand they were too strong, requiring too much calories and protein in their diet, on other hand they did not have the brain capable of significant abstraction needed to design tools.
Again, crossbreeding implies that we would get some features from them, clearly separating whatever resulted from such crossbreeding from homo sapiens and specifically the control group that is homo sapiens from Africa. Yet we do not.
The likely issue is not that we crossbred with neanderthals, it's that we are yet to find the clearly defined common ancestor for both ourselves and neanderthals, if such species existed. Existence of such species has been supported by much evidence, and the particular evidence presented in the article is yet another piece that points to existence of such species.
Bad comparison, because canis lupus species has been selectively bred for too long. Humans have not. Also, modern dog is not a crossbreed - it's a subspecies of selectively bred canis lupus species. Humans have no subspecies, and in fact, we are the only remaining representatives of our genus - two levels up from subspecies.
If you try this comparison with an actual non-bred genus/species like humans, you'll notice that it doesn't work. When a species in wild cross-breeds with another species and produces a viable offspring that wins survival war against its host species, it's usually species that inherits successful traits from both host species.
In case of h. sapiens vs h. neanderthaliensis, we inherited none of their traits - h. sapiens as species has remained largely the same. The difference between two species is significant enough for us to have visible traits of their species, as well as significant variation from suggested control group - h. sapiens of African-descent if claims of cross-breeding were true.
Which again suggests strongly at common ancestry rather then cross-breeding.
Another thing I forgot to mention below: mitochondria is an excellent example that argues AGAINST you. It's a cellular organism that became a highly specialized cellular organ without getting any major genetic modifications across species - i.e. most if not all of its main traits persist across various mitochondria found in different species. In terms of evolution it's extremely successful as no oxygen-breathing being on the planet can survive without having one in its cells.
To demonstrate the absurdity of your claim, let's turn it around:
If homo neanderthaliensis cross-bred with homo sapiens, wiped him out, and continued to be largely homo neanderthaliensis with no visible or dominant feature of homo sapiens, how could you call homo sapiens successful?
You could not, because it would be a failed branch of evolutionary tree that got assimilated and severed by an competitor without keeping any of the traits of the genus.
Except that there is no firm evidence to suggest what you're saying. We just know that certain aspect of our genome is shared. In this regard, hte genome could have been shared by a vast array of means, from crossbreeding, which is being suggested in the OP, to the far more likely shared ancestry (which is not yet found and has been searched for for decades as of writing this).
If you claim that in spite of above, any species that shares genome that is present in any successful modern species, then by your rules, there simply are almost no failures. A vast majority of our gene pool is shared amongst mammals. A very large is shared across of all multi cellular species of the planet. This has to do with the fact that we're all amino-acid protein based life forms, and our basic cellular design is very similar across all species that utilize a burning process of O2 and glucose as primary means of energy generation.
Correct, and nothing in the OP prooves that any of neanderthal descendants are alive today. It suggests that there was interbreeding based on a single genealogical pattern. Other explanations that easily cover it would be shared parts of genome through a common ancestor.
Considering that the whole issue of "did we or did we not interbreed with neanderthals" has been debated for DECADES now, this evidence is just a small additional piece in a very large puzzle. The biggest problem being that we are likely still missing major links in our ancestry. There are MAJOR arguments against interbreeding theory, not only on the genome, but on the visible trait level.
You are wasted indeed. Evolution is a tree growing up. Ancestors rarely survive the coming of next phase of evolution. We evolved past our ancestors, then made them and other species that branched out from them extinct by being better at competing for resources.
Sometimes there are multiple branches, such as suspected homo erectus spawning several evolutionary branches, most of which ended up extinct. Homo sapiens is somewhat strange in the modern evolutionary science because there are actually no known other species of our genus. This is most likely because we were extremely efficient in competing with various other branches of homo genus for resources, making all other members of genus extinct.
Elephants have a much larger brain then humans. Thing with brain is, size isn't what is important. It's the surface of the brain gray matter and what functions it's allocated for that counts. And in these aspects, homo sapiens absolutely crushed the opposition.
Except that they're not around - they're extinct. The rules for declaring species extinct are very well honed and clear, and neanderthals are in fact extinct.
Just because we share some genes with them, doesn't mean that we are them. These genes could have gotten into the pool via many means, from interbreeding to simply having those genes as a part of shared pool. Else you could claim that we are in fact elephants, or dolphins, or even sharks because we share so much of our genome with them as well.
As far as species are concerned, neanderthals are extinct. There is absolutely no room for argument for this fact. Various types of homo sapiens are the only species of humans currently known to be in existence.
Actually, from genetic point of view, there is a clear system of superiority and inferiority. Superior ones have a bright future as they are adapting to ever changing environment successfully. Failures are dying out because of their failures to adapt, and those in between hang in there. Human action has been a very powerful factor to split those superior to those inferior - for example big mammals like wolves have been all but hunted to extinction in Europe as humans progressed. At the same time, flies, seagulls and several other species adapted to human expansion and rode on the coattails becoming very successful.
From evolutionary point of view humans are pretty well off, but far from superior. Cockroaches and flies, as well as many kinds of bacteria are clearly in a better position. We are probably best or at least among very top of mammals though.
It is you who are missing the fact - we were found to contain some of their genes - this is not the same as being them. We lack many of their distinctive features, meaning that they have in fact lost evolutionary war and are extinct. We are still here.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realise that anti-tank missiles aren't going to see that much action in WW3? After all the ABC stuff that will come down, there won't be much room for infantry. Well, not much room for humanity in general more like - there's going to be a lot of intact hardware, but almost no one left to operate it.
So, you're comparing a device to a small upgrade for the same device.
Yeah, I agree. Let's wait...
Developers can't make 3d-centric games because no one but an incredibly small minority of people with gaming rigs and/or consoles would be able to play them.
Customers don't buy 3d-monitors and TVs because there's no content worth watching on them.
End result, 3d is used as an afterthought or marketing gimmick. It makes no sense to spend a lot of funds developing a feature almost no one would use.
Yes, that's why we have golden parachutes for ALL workers.
Wait, no, that's just the top management that decides on policies. Rest of the workers just implement what those on top told them to, including shafting other workers. You know, just like in the army?
There is only one country ignorant (stupid?) enough to saddle itself with TSA. That country isn't Finland.
This, ten times over. There is a reason why mission-critical stuff isn't messed with in the airplanes and such. This isn't iphone app that can die in a number of ways with no real fallout beyond buyer posting an angry comment.
Most of military hardware and software is at least half-generation behind the corporate one. Why? Because it's done to military standard, where failure is not an option, unlike corporate where failure is a number that it costs to fix the problem caused by failure divided by likelihood of failure.
And proofing to from corporate to military standard raises both costs and time to make a working solution through the roof.
You're missing the point. Javelins do the job army needs it to do. Discharged veteran doesn't. He's useless from army's point of view. This isn't "government bureaucracy", this is corporate thinking at its finest.
Unless you're some sort of uber-solver that does nothing but puzzles for his free time and utterly zerged portal 2 with no care for plot of enjoyment, 3-4 hours for portal 2 is impossible.
Same for duke. It was fun if you relaxed, sat back and actually ENJOYED it for what it was, instead of completionist "must zerg faster" approach.
Where is the proof for this hypotesis? Again, the current theory stands that we and neanderthals had a common ancestor, through which we share some of our gene pool with that we share with no one else.
Genes surviving in gene pool doesn't mean improvement. We have a massive amount of genes in our gene pool that are utterly useless genetic ballast from evolution.
We know this because we have findings of homo sapiens remains from same time as findings of homo neandertaliensis, and homo sapiens of that time are largely the same as ones we have over 6 billion of. Again, if "hybriding", or as the terms in biology go, crossbreeding with them was a critical step, or even important step for our species' development, this would have been visible in terms of distinctive features of our species. So far, none of findings of actual remains support this, and many findings support the theory that features of neanderthals were in fact the main reason why they could not compete with us - on one hand they were too strong, requiring too much calories and protein in their diet, on other hand they did not have the brain capable of significant abstraction needed to design tools.
Again, crossbreeding implies that we would get some features from them, clearly separating whatever resulted from such crossbreeding from homo sapiens and specifically the control group that is homo sapiens from Africa. Yet we do not.
Wikipedia in fact has a pretty good, if very simplified evolutionary tree of homo genus here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Humanevolutionchart.jpg
The likely issue is not that we crossbred with neanderthals, it's that we are yet to find the clearly defined common ancestor for both ourselves and neanderthals, if such species existed. Existence of such species has been supported by much evidence, and the particular evidence presented in the article is yet another piece that points to existence of such species.
Bad comparison, because canis lupus species has been selectively bred for too long. Humans have not. Also, modern dog is not a crossbreed - it's a subspecies of selectively bred canis lupus species. Humans have no subspecies, and in fact, we are the only remaining representatives of our genus - two levels up from subspecies.
If you try this comparison with an actual non-bred genus/species like humans, you'll notice that it doesn't work. When a species in wild cross-breeds with another species and produces a viable offspring that wins survival war against its host species, it's usually species that inherits successful traits from both host species.
In case of h. sapiens vs h. neanderthaliensis, we inherited none of their traits - h. sapiens as species has remained largely the same. The difference between two species is significant enough for us to have visible traits of their species, as well as significant variation from suggested control group - h. sapiens of African-descent if claims of cross-breeding were true.
Which again suggests strongly at common ancestry rather then cross-breeding.
Another thing I forgot to mention below: mitochondria is an excellent example that argues AGAINST you. It's a cellular organism that became a highly specialized cellular organ without getting any major genetic modifications across species - i.e. most if not all of its main traits persist across various mitochondria found in different species. In terms of evolution it's extremely successful as no oxygen-breathing being on the planet can survive without having one in its cells.
To demonstrate the absurdity of your claim, let's turn it around:
If homo neanderthaliensis cross-bred with homo sapiens, wiped him out, and continued to be largely homo neanderthaliensis with no visible or dominant feature of homo sapiens, how could you call homo sapiens successful?
You could not, because it would be a failed branch of evolutionary tree that got assimilated and severed by an competitor without keeping any of the traits of the genus.
Except that there is no firm evidence to suggest what you're saying. We just know that certain aspect of our genome is shared. In this regard, hte genome could have been shared by a vast array of means, from crossbreeding, which is being suggested in the OP, to the far more likely shared ancestry (which is not yet found and has been searched for for decades as of writing this).
If you claim that in spite of above, any species that shares genome that is present in any successful modern species, then by your rules, there simply are almost no failures. A vast majority of our gene pool is shared amongst mammals. A very large is shared across of all multi cellular species of the planet. This has to do with the fact that we're all amino-acid protein based life forms, and our basic cellular design is very similar across all species that utilize a burning process of O2 and glucose as primary means of energy generation.
Then you are a shark, as you share a whole lot of genes with one. Get a laser pointer and be awesome.
Correct, and nothing in the OP prooves that any of neanderthal descendants are alive today. It suggests that there was interbreeding based on a single genealogical pattern. Other explanations that easily cover it would be shared parts of genome through a common ancestor.
Considering that the whole issue of "did we or did we not interbreed with neanderthals" has been debated for DECADES now, this evidence is just a small additional piece in a very large puzzle. The biggest problem being that we are likely still missing major links in our ancestry. There are MAJOR arguments against interbreeding theory, not only on the genome, but on the visible trait level.
I don't know what criteria you want to use, but nature uses SURVIVAL as the only criteria.
You are wasted indeed. Evolution is a tree growing up. Ancestors rarely survive the coming of next phase of evolution. We evolved past our ancestors, then made them and other species that branched out from them extinct by being better at competing for resources.
Sometimes there are multiple branches, such as suspected homo erectus spawning several evolutionary branches, most of which ended up extinct. Homo sapiens is somewhat strange in the modern evolutionary science because there are actually no known other species of our genus. This is most likely because we were extremely efficient in competing with various other branches of homo genus for resources, making all other members of genus extinct.
Except that we are homo sapiens? What are you talking about?
Elephants have a much larger brain then humans. Thing with brain is, size isn't what is important. It's the surface of the brain gray matter and what functions it's allocated for that counts. And in these aspects, homo sapiens absolutely crushed the opposition.
Except that they're not around - they're extinct. The rules for declaring species extinct are very well honed and clear, and neanderthals are in fact extinct.
Just because we share some genes with them, doesn't mean that we are them. These genes could have gotten into the pool via many means, from interbreeding to simply having those genes as a part of shared pool. Else you could claim that we are in fact elephants, or dolphins, or even sharks because we share so much of our genome with them as well.
As far as species are concerned, neanderthals are extinct. There is absolutely no room for argument for this fact. Various types of homo sapiens are the only species of humans currently known to be in existence.
Actually, from genetic point of view, there is a clear system of superiority and inferiority. Superior ones have a bright future as they are adapting to ever changing environment successfully. Failures are dying out because of their failures to adapt, and those in between hang in there. Human action has been a very powerful factor to split those superior to those inferior - for example big mammals like wolves have been all but hunted to extinction in Europe as humans progressed. At the same time, flies, seagulls and several other species adapted to human expansion and rode on the coattails becoming very successful.
From evolutionary point of view humans are pretty well off, but far from superior. Cockroaches and flies, as well as many kinds of bacteria are clearly in a better position. We are probably best or at least among very top of mammals though.
It is you who are missing the fact - we were found to contain some of their genes - this is not the same as being them. We lack many of their distinctive features, meaning that they have in fact lost evolutionary war and are extinct. We are still here.
Get out of the states and you'll find that they either give a shit, or get shut down by fines exceeding their revenues.