Current hypotheses that use visually guided reaching and grasping to explain orbital convergence, visual specialization, and brain expansion in primates are open to question now that neurological evidence reveals no correlation between orbital convergence and the visual pathway in the brain that is associated with reaching and grasping. An alternative hypothesis proposed here posits that snakes were ultimately responsible for these defining primate characteristics. Snakes have a long, shared evolutionary existence with crown-group placental mammals and were likely to have been their first predators. Mammals are conservative in the structures of the brain that are involved in vigilance, fear, and learning and memory associated with fearful stimuli, e.g., predators. Some of these areas have expanded in primates and are more strongly connected to visual systems. However, primates vary in the extent of brain expansion. This variation is coincident with variation in evolutionary co-existence with the more recently evolved venomous snakes. Malagasy prosimians have never co-existed with venomous snakes, New World monkeys (platyrrhines) have had interrupted co-existence with venomous snakes, and Old World monkeys and apes (catarrhines) have had continuous co-existence with venomous snakes. The koniocellular visual pathway, arising from the retina and connecting to the lateral geniculate nucleus, the superior colliculus, and the pulvinar, has expanded along with the parvocellular pathway, a visual pathway that is involved with color and object recognition. I suggest that expansion of these pathways co-occurred, with the koniocellular pathway being crucially involved (among other tasks) in pre-attentional visual detection of fearful stimuli, including snakes, and the parvocellular pathway being involved (among other tasks) in protecting the brain from increasingly greater metabolic demands to evolve the neural capacity to detect such stimuli quickly. A diet that included fruits or nectar (though not to the exclusion of arthropods), which provided sugars as a neuroprotectant, may have been a required preadaptation for the expansion of such metabolically active brains. Taxonomic differences in evolutionary exposure to venomous snakes are associated with similar taxonomic differences in rates of evolution in cytochrome oxidase genes and in the metabolic activity of cytochrome oxidase proteins in at least some visual areas in the brains of primates. Raptors that specialize in eating snakes have larger eyes and greater binocularity than more generalized raptors, and provide non-mammalian models for snakes as a selective pressure on primate visual systems. These models, along with evidence from paleobiogeography, neuroscience, ecology, behavior, and immunology, suggest that the evolutionary arms race begun by constrictors early in mammalian evolution continued with venomous snakes. Whereas other mammals responded by evolving physiological resistance to snake venoms, anthropoids responded by enhancing their ability to detect snakes visually before the strike.
At no time in our evolutionary history did snakes actually represent a dominant predatory force...
I don't see how you can seriously make this claim. Certainly the common ancestor we share with, for example, mice, would have had to contend with predation from snakes. But we don't have to resort to such distant relatives to see examples of snakes affecting our evolutionary history. Vervet monkeys, Rhesus monkeys, and others have alarm calls that are specific to snakes. Furthermore, rubber snakes are frequently used in primate research involving the processing of fear-- perhaps you yourself should see Mineka on this topic. To the extent that we share a common ancestor with these primates does our own evolutionary history involve predation by snakes. So unless you are going to claim that color/binocular vision in primates evolved after alarm vocalizations, then it seems pretty clear that our fairly immediate ancestors faced predation and evolutionary pressure from snakes.
The Supreme Court of the United States has generally ruled that the right to privacy is protected by the 9th ammendment and that aspects of the right privacy are explicitly protected, as you noted, by the 4th and 5th ammendments.
OpenBSD supports an impressive list of 16 arches. Debian supports 11 arches. However, Debian and OpenBSD use different definitions of "support."
OpenBSD is officially supported on the following [16] platforms. Official support means that the release install media is known to work, that the architecture can self-compile itself, and that most of the basic tools exist on the architecture.
So for OpenBSD this means that they have working installer, you can compile your own kernel on your own box and most of the basic tools exist (emphasis mine.) All the ports are there in source, and they may work for you, but really, who knows? A supported arch in Debian parlance, on the other hand, means that there is a working installer, you can coompile your own kernel on your own box, and virtually every debian package can be auto-built and available in binary form.
...IEEE 1394 (firewire, amusingly, Sony's iLink was, for a long time, incompatible with IEEE 1394 in subtle ways, even though Sony proposed the standard)...
Actually, I believe IEEE 1394 was actually invented at Apple. i.Link was just Sony's broken implementation.
Hmm, he has an odd way of doing the plots. It's a daily cumulative typo function. Plotting a rate (typos per hour, typos per minute) makes more intuititive sense to me.
While I don't the whole story, it seems that Dobelle, who had been working on artificial vision since at least the 1970s, eventually got tired of the slow regulatory process which his visual prosthetics faced in the US and, since he was independently wealthy from some of his other medical device inventions, moved his base research to Portugal, where he could more easily gain access to patients.
This is true only in an extremely simplified model of vision. In any rate, it is beside the point. The summary indicates that the implant targets the optic nerve. This is simply not true. The Dobelle implant sends signals directly to visual cortex-- it bypasses the retina, optic nerve and lateral geniculate nucleus and incidentally also bypassing a great deal of visual processing.
There are researchers who are making visual prosthetics that target the optic nerve, notably Claude Veraart and coworkers at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels.
I cannot quite tell if you are being serious or not with your md5 signed sig, but i have not been able to verify it. Are you including html formatting?
But yet you've bothered to compile the latest 2.4.x release?! Do you see still running 2.4 as some kind of inverted status symbol?:)
I'm not the parent poster, but that strategy (sticking with 2.4) seems prudent to me-- especially for a console machine. All my new linux installs get 2.6.x but anything that currently has 2.4 on it will stay with 2.4.x until that box reaches end-of-life (which with any luck could be years from now.) And, yes, that involves periodically compiling and rebooting into the latest 2.4 kernel. Running 'make oldconfig' on a very mature kernel tree is really any work at all.
Stock options are still a popular tool to lure and maintain valued employees within the tech industry. How many of Google's key people will look for greener pastures without proper incentive to stay?
While your point is well made, and valid for most of the industry, I'm not sure that it (yet) applies to Google. My anecdotal evidence is that people go to work for Google with the knowledge that they are going to make less than they could get at a typical tech company in SF and the surrounding area, yet they still do it.
This is true, but the only requirements of the GP were that it use "SIP or h.323... be installed and used easily, [and cope]... with NAT routers transparency (sic)"
Gizmo is not open source, but it uses open standards (you can use it with asterisk!) and it is a heck of a lot better than skype.
All that is required for a simple VoIP system is an older machine ( preferrably 300mhz+ ), a NIC, and a sound card. This simple setup can get you up and running making phone calls from one softphone... to another.
Please pardon my igonrance, but for pure VoIP, do you even need a sound card in the Asterisk box?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how you can seriously make this claim. Certainly the common ancestor we share with, for example, mice, would have had to contend with predation from snakes. But we don't have to resort to such distant relatives to see examples of snakes affecting our evolutionary history. Vervet monkeys, Rhesus monkeys, and others have alarm calls that are specific to snakes. Furthermore, rubber snakes are frequently used in primate research involving the processing of fear-- perhaps you yourself should see Mineka on this topic. To the extent that we share a common ancestor with these primates does our own evolutionary history involve predation by snakes. So unless you are going to claim that color/binocular vision in primates evolved after alarm vocalizations, then it seems pretty clear that our fairly immediate ancestors faced predation and evolutionary pressure from snakes.
Arrrrrrrrrrgh!!!
As the old saying goes, email newsletters are just a (poor) reimplementation of USENET.
Er, amendment. That'll learn me not to hit preview. :(
See: Loving v. Virginia , Griswald v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird , among others.
OpenBSD supports an impressive list of 16 arches. Debian supports 11 arches. However, Debian and OpenBSD use different definitions of "support."
So for OpenBSD this means that they have working installer, you can compile your own kernel on your own box and most of the basic tools exist (emphasis mine.) All the ports are there in source, and they may work for you, but really, who knows? A supported arch in Debian parlance, on the other hand, means that there is a working installer, you can coompile your own kernel on your own box, and virtually every debian package can be auto-built and available in binary form.
Big difference, IMHO.
Actually, I believe IEEE 1394 was actually invented at Apple. i.Link was just Sony's broken implementation.
Hmm, he has an odd way of doing the plots. It's a daily cumulative typo function. Plotting a rate (typos per hour, typos per minute) makes more intuititive sense to me.
While I don't the whole story, it seems that Dobelle, who had been working on artificial vision since at least the 1970s, eventually got tired of the slow regulatory process which his visual prosthetics faced in the US and, since he was independently wealthy from some of his other medical device inventions, moved his base research to Portugal, where he could more easily gain access to patients.
This is true only in an extremely simplified model of vision. In any rate, it is beside the point. The summary indicates that the implant targets the optic nerve. This is simply not true. The Dobelle implant sends signals directly to visual cortex-- it bypasses the retina, optic nerve and lateral geniculate nucleus and incidentally also bypassing a great deal of visual processing.
There are researchers who are making visual prosthetics that target the optic nerve, notably Claude Veraart and coworkers at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels.
For the moment...
I cannot quite tell if you are being serious or not with your md5 signed sig, but i have not been able to verify it. Are you including html formatting?
HTH
I'm not the parent poster, but that strategy (sticking with 2.4) seems prudent to me-- especially for a console machine. All my new linux installs get 2.6.x but anything that currently has 2.4 on it will stay with 2.4.x until that box reaches end-of-life (which with any luck could be years from now.) And, yes, that involves periodically compiling and rebooting into the latest 2.4 kernel. Running 'make oldconfig' on a very mature kernel tree is really any work at all.
While your point is well made, and valid for most of the industry, I'm not sure that it (yet) applies to Google. My anecdotal evidence is that people go to work for Google with the knowledge that they are going to make less than they could get at a typical tech company in SF and the surrounding area, yet they still do it.
I call bullshit.
See: meebo
This is true, but the only requirements of the GP were that it use "SIP or h.323 ... be installed and used easily, [and cope] ... with NAT routers transparency (sic)"
Gizmo is not open source, but it uses open standards (you can use it with asterisk!) and it is a heck of a lot better than skype.
HTH.
If it doesn't compile, how do you know it is real? Do you trust them?
Please pardon my igonrance, but for pure VoIP, do you even need a sound card in the Asterisk box?