Evolution is not linear and does not mean "improving". Evolution merely means a general change in gene frequencies over time. In terms of biology there is no such thing as "devolution". The increase in frequency of a trait that one might perceive as "negative" is still "evolution".
The answer is yes. A lot of negative genes that would have resulted in a person not reaching reproductive age are being propagated whereas they might have died out if we were less advanced. Negative mutations in our genomes are not being removed like they once were.
It is theoretically possible that 200,000 years from now, humans would be completely genetically unviable without technology. (although technology will probably remove the bad mutations long before then in the real world).
Part of what the Nazi's were doing when they executed handicapped people was trying to maintain the purity of the genes and keep the "race strong" removing genetic impurities. Nasty stuff. Obviously a route we don't want to take, one can assume they wouldn't have been too happy about the number of Caesarians these days.
If people stopped drinking milk many breeds of cow would go extinct. They have no natural habitat. It's a good job some people aren't vegan to help prevent the extinction of the poor domestic cow.
No it isn't because it isn't hereditary. If your children were to live on the same diet and have same health care as a Roman, they probably wouldn't reach 5ft tall. It's like if I cut off my thumb, my children wouldn't inherit that trait, they wouldn't be born without thumbs.
If people get taller because of better health and diet that is environmental change not evolutionary change.
Now, we can confuse this with epigenetics, it appears some genes that we already can be turned on and off and that can be passed from generation to generation. Someone who lived through a famine is more likely to have a child who has a propensity to be obese. No genetic change, but the genes she already had that makes her body horde fat is turned on because of the environmental conditions her mother lived in. Height doesn't appear to be linked to epigenetics (that we know of).
Height change is definitely linked more to diet than evolution.
There is a well known example of evolution in humans though; the ability to digest lactose as an adult. Industrialisation and access to food has slowed the evolutionary change as there is less pressure for it now, but starting 12,000 years ago, the ability to drink the milk of animals as an adult was a strong evolutionary advantage- and spreading out of the middle east, it quickly spread into most parts of Europe and western Asia.
Nowadays with food surplus in most parts of the world, and milk alternatives we've stopped evolving towards being able to drink milk as adults, but in some parts of the world it is close to 100% of the population who can drink milk.
Even today, studies have shown that hip to waist ratio is the number one factor in men apprising a woman of being attractive. (no I won't provide sources, people welcome to google it).
When showed a variety of women and asked to rank them, men would consistently rank women higher who had a larger hip to waist ratio. It turned out to be a larger factor than things like breast size preference, butt size, height preference, race, weight... for skinny girls and chubby girls the statistic that matters most for most men is hip to waist factor. Even if most don't even realize they look at such a thing. We subconsciously associate it with femininity.
I'm not saying he will. I'm saying the summary suggests he will.
It would probably be in his best interest to not automate it. You know how many scandals they've had about censoring certain photos. They don't want to import other people's scandals if the wrong thing gets censored. (especially since as they are the bigger more socially visible of the platforms they would take the most heat).
When there is an abundance of information clamoring for attention, something has to give. That something is attention span. As more and more infromation demands our attention, each bit of information receives a smaller amount of our attention
.
We've become like hummingbirds, flitting from one information source to the next.
No longer do we take the time to digest the information we gather.
Stop it with the debt crap! And stop comparing the spending of money against the GDP instead of our overall total value!
Let's say you own property worth $1,000,000, you have $200,000 in total debt, and you make $180,000 a year. Would you worry about spending an extra $20,000 this year?
Uh, absolutely! Especially if I had $200,000k in debt. That's a huge amount of debt to repay already. Spending an extra $20k a year would be an outlandishly stupid thing to do.
I think that's true for people who spend multiple hours a day watching TV. I can't see how watching one show before bed is decrementing my life. It adds a little colour.
I'm not sure how niche it really is. There are a lot of people selling download music which means there must be a decent sized market. There again, cost to market is pretty low and low overhead for selling download music so who knows.
I've always though it poor fiscal decision to stream and pay for music over and over again rather than pay for music one time. There again, I have a large collection of music, in part, courtesy of BMG in the 90's, and I probably only download one or two albums a year. So why pay $10 a month, when I normally pay $10 every 6 months for downloading.
Maybe these phone companies know something we don't. The US or the EU is going to enact a headphone jack tax to replace income tax. Your taxes hereon out are based on how many headphone jacks your devices have.
Apple and Samsung might be trying to save us money.
Indeed. At one point, Samsung was "the smart" equivalent to Apple. It had comparable hardware for much less money. They gained market share and good word of mouth and they raised their price to match. Samsung buyers became like Apple buyers- they stuck with the product rather than shopped around for a better deal.
Now Samsung has comparable hardware and comparable costs. Samsung has lost it's edge. Apple may indeed be the better deal than Samsung now.
Thank goodness there are other players in the market who don't follow the lead of those two quite so closely in regard to pricing.
Seems cyclical, the leading manufacturer eventually gets complacent and arrogant and starts to think they know what the consumer wants more than the consumer does.
I'd rather a headphone jack than my phone to be slightly thinner.
Phones have been thin enough since 2010. Having a thinner phone is exactly dead last on my list of priorities... about two or three spots below having a headphone jack.
Slashdot Mirror
Some breeds of dogs, bulldogs maybe?, HAVE to be born via C-section. The puppies can no longer fit the natural way.
And now some women have to have children born via C-Section. I think this is proof that bestiality is on the rise.
Evolution is not linear and does not mean "improving". Evolution merely means a general change in gene frequencies over time. In terms of biology there is no such thing as "devolution". The increase in frequency of a trait that one might perceive as "negative" is still "evolution".
The answer is yes. A lot of negative genes that would have resulted in a person not reaching reproductive age are being propagated whereas they might have died out if we were less advanced. Negative mutations in our genomes are not being removed like they once were.
It is theoretically possible that 200,000 years from now, humans would be completely genetically unviable without technology. (although technology will probably remove the bad mutations long before then in the real world).
Part of what the Nazi's were doing when they executed handicapped people was trying to maintain the purity of the genes and keep the "race strong" removing genetic impurities. Nasty stuff. Obviously a route we don't want to take, one can assume they wouldn't have been too happy about the number of Caesarians these days.
That's why approve of corporal punishment for newborns born outside business hours.
If people stopped drinking milk many breeds of cow would go extinct. They have no natural habitat. It's a good job some people aren't vegan to help prevent the extinction of the poor domestic cow.
/ I'm being semi-facetious
No it isn't because it isn't hereditary. If your children were to live on the same diet and have same health care as a Roman, they probably wouldn't reach 5ft tall. It's like if I cut off my thumb, my children wouldn't inherit that trait, they wouldn't be born without thumbs.
If people get taller because of better health and diet that is environmental change not evolutionary change.
Now, we can confuse this with epigenetics, it appears some genes that we already can be turned on and off and that can be passed from generation to generation. Someone who lived through a famine is more likely to have a child who has a propensity to be obese. No genetic change, but the genes she already had that makes her body horde fat is turned on because of the environmental conditions her mother lived in. Height doesn't appear to be linked to epigenetics (that we know of).
Height change is definitely linked more to diet than evolution.
There is a well known example of evolution in humans though; the ability to digest lactose as an adult. Industrialisation and access to food has slowed the evolutionary change as there is less pressure for it now, but starting 12,000 years ago, the ability to drink the milk of animals as an adult was a strong evolutionary advantage- and spreading out of the middle east, it quickly spread into most parts of Europe and western Asia.
Nowadays with food surplus in most parts of the world, and milk alternatives we've stopped evolving towards being able to drink milk as adults, but in some parts of the world it is close to 100% of the population who can drink milk.
Even today, studies have shown that hip to waist ratio is the number one factor in men apprising a woman of being attractive. (no I won't provide sources, people welcome to google it).
When showed a variety of women and asked to rank them, men would consistently rank women higher who had a larger hip to waist ratio. It turned out to be a larger factor than things like breast size preference, butt size, height preference, race, weight... for skinny girls and chubby girls the statistic that matters most for most men is hip to waist factor. Even if most don't even realize they look at such a thing. We subconsciously associate it with femininity.
Caesars carry risks.
Especially if you're a Gaul, or believe in Rome remaining a republic.
A lot of women also don't want to go through all that scary 'labor'' business or get their prize-winning vagina all stretched out.
Heroism is alive and well.
I'm not saying he will. I'm saying the summary suggests he will.
It would probably be in his best interest to not automate it. You know how many scandals they've had about censoring certain photos. They don't want to import other people's scandals if the wrong thing gets censored. (especially since as they are the bigger more socially visible of the platforms they would take the most heat).
I'd take that deal...
Also, define "lifetime" and what is the absolute daily maximum for rum consumption.
Depends on how strong your liver is.
When there is an abundance of information clamoring for attention, something has to give. That something is attention span. As more and more infromation demands our attention, each bit of information receives a smaller amount of our attention
.
We've become like hummingbirds, flitting from one information source to the next.
No longer do we take the time to digest the information we gather.
Too Long. Didn't Read.
Actually, I've heard that he settled. Instead of $17k, they're giving him $15k, a parrot, and a lifetime supply of rum for compensation.
Stop it with the debt crap! And stop comparing the spending of money against the GDP instead of our overall total value!
Let's say you own property worth $1,000,000, you have $200,000 in total debt, and you make $180,000 a year. Would you worry about spending an extra $20,000 this year?
Uh, absolutely! Especially if I had $200,000k in debt. That's a huge amount of debt to repay already. Spending an extra $20k a year would be an outlandishly stupid thing to do.
The year of the Linux Game Console is coming.
I think that's true for people who spend multiple hours a day watching TV. I can't see how watching one show before bed is decrementing my life. It adds a little colour.
I'm not sure how niche it really is. There are a lot of people selling download music which means there must be a decent sized market. There again, cost to market is pretty low and low overhead for selling download music so who knows.
I've always though it poor fiscal decision to stream and pay for music over and over again rather than pay for music one time. There again, I have a large collection of music, in part, courtesy of BMG in the 90's, and I probably only download one or two albums a year. So why pay $10 a month, when I normally pay $10 every 6 months for downloading.
Maybe these phone companies know something we don't. The US or the EU is going to enact a headphone jack tax to replace income tax. Your taxes hereon out are based on how many headphone jacks your devices have.
Apple and Samsung might be trying to save us money.
Obviously it's people with small hands!
/ I didn't say any names...
Yeah! People, stop fat-shaming my one year old phone! It's not how thin your phone is, wide phones can be beautiful too.
It's the hardware inside that counts.
Indeed. At one point, Samsung was "the smart" equivalent to Apple. It had comparable hardware for much less money. They gained market share and good word of mouth and they raised their price to match. Samsung buyers became like Apple buyers- they stuck with the product rather than shopped around for a better deal.
Now Samsung has comparable hardware and comparable costs. Samsung has lost it's edge. Apple may indeed be the better deal than Samsung now.
Thank goodness there are other players in the market who don't follow the lead of those two quite so closely in regard to pricing.
Yeah, and get lower quality audio... but it's an option. I'd rather get a different phone.
Seems cyclical, the leading manufacturer eventually gets complacent and arrogant and starts to think they know what the consumer wants more than the consumer does.
I'd rather a headphone jack than my phone to be slightly thinner.
Phones have been thin enough since 2010. Having a thinner phone is exactly dead last on my list of priorities... about two or three spots below having a headphone jack.