there is just too much incentive, genetically, to spread your seed as wide as possible, no matter what
Unless, perhaps, there is not. You make many assumptions based on this core idea that polygamy is some kind of natural tendency, and you have some interesting hypotheses to back it up, but the data doesn't seem to back you.
Shouldn't evolution sided with either monogamy or polygamy? I mean even if there is only a one percent difference between the successor rates should that have not been reflected by now?
If monogamy or the lack thereof were genetic and there were an evolutionary advantage to either strategy, then you're right: that should have been reflected in the general population.
Since it doesn't seem to be, that would seem to indicate that perhaps there is no evolutionary advantage to either side. With no advantage, there is no pressure for humanity to tend in one direction or the other. That could yield a pattern closer to what we are seeing now.
For all that the Mozilla team isn't worried, they've got a long history of developers rejecting Gecko for other engines: first AOL rejected it in preference for IE (and then again on the Mac in preference for WebKit), then Apple (again for WebKit), and now Google (once again for WebKit). In the mobile space it isn't doing all that much better, with developers rejecting it in favor of Opera. In quite a few cases, including AOL and Google, we've even seen this rejection when the company previously had a history of active support for, and even paying developers to work on, the Gecko engine.
I use many browsers, though Firefox is currently my preferred one. But I can't help but pause at things like this. One after another, we've seen companies looking to developing their own browsers, but rejecting Gecko in favor of other engines, sometimes open-source and sometimes not, even when there was every reason to go with Gecko.
Why is this? I'm honestly curious. And what might Mozilla be able to do to counter whatever reasons there are for developers to often not just reject Gecko, but dump it flat after years of strong relationships? Why does Mozilla continue on as though nothing is wrong when the developers are voting with their products that something clearly is?
Strictly speaking, addiction requires some form of chemical agent, which video games lack.
However, many behaviors have shown themselves to be particularly suited to addiction-like compulsions over the years. For example, "addiction" to gambling and stealing are so commonly documented in our history that we've even got names for them now, and treat them as distinct conditions from some nebulous definition of "addictive behavior."
Is it really any surprise, then, that other things -possibly including gaming- might also lend themselves to such compulsions? Is it so unbelievable when there probably isn't a single person on these boards who doesn't exhibit such behavior toward gaming, or at least know someone who does?
I keep my Firefox updated, and I've noticed some CPU and memory reduction. I appreciate this. But when you're starting out at what FF2 had, you can have significant -even major- reduction while still being a bloated pig, and even with the improvements FF3 still has yet to completely escape from that trap.
Because everyone already knows that Firefox is a bloated pig, and that Opera is much leaner. Showing that IE is more bloated that Opera isn't saying all that much; most things are more bloated than Opera. To claim that IE is more bloated than even Firefox, however, really takes the cake. When you're not rolling your own runtime envionment and yet you still consume more than Firefox does, that's when you know you've really screwed up.
Run Apache (or whatever else you intend to use), set it up to listen only on localhost, and you're good to go. Admittedly, distros could make this particular setup a little easier, but it's been possible for years.
(This post is a violation of your bank's terms of service. Please choose another post instead.)
Re:"oblivious..."
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And what exactly do you believe they deserve?
Honest question. I can see powerful arguments for pretty much any point on the spectrum, from a slap on the wrist and a month of therapy all the way up to the death penalty. Where do you place yourself?
Accepting some amount of risk and "tolerating death" are not the same thing, despite what some risk-averse folk will tell you. Quite the contrary: a life with no risk is not worth living, and so sometimes risks need to be accepted in the name of simple, basic freedom.
Isn't this what they said, though? It sounds to me as though they claimed that free will can only exist in a nondeterministic environment, without necessarily making a finding on whether or not the environment actually is deterministic or not.
So they say this thing has a "pointer mode," but I don't see any external reference (akin to the Wii Remote's sensor bar). How does this thing determine its position in space if it doesn't have a point of reference?
Seriously; what's wrong with graphics that don't get in the way? Bloom-ridden gray-and-brown gets in the way of gameplay, and comparison shots like these show it better than just about anything else: it becomes too difficult to tell things apart. A little color makes games more fun.
Hate to break it to you, but no he isn't. You haven't in any way taken a physical item from them, or prevented them from making more.
The physicality of the item, or the lack thereof, is not important. Consider the classic bank-account scam, told and retold ever since the advent of electronic banking, where pennies or even mills could be shaved off of people's bank accounts a little bit at a time. No physical objects ever changed hands -and in the case of mills, the loss would likely never even be noticed- yet this is clearly theft.
Likewise, when you pirate software, you have deprived the copyright holder of something which belongs to them: the copy you made. The fact that they can produce more is completely irrelevant.
It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything.
Actually, it does.
When you pirate a work, you must by definition make a new copy. That copy can only be legally produced by the copyright holder. It would make no sense to simply destroy it, and so ownership of it reverts to the one legally able to produce it in the first place. Most of the time illegally-produced copies get destroyed anyway, but that need not be the case.
In any case, you now have a copy of the software that belongs to the copyright holder. By not returning the copy to them or buying it outright, you are in fact depriving them of something: a copy to sell or otherwise do with as they will.
And so, piracy equals theft.
Copyright is an artificial monopoly provided by the government as an incentive to create and release creative works.
Yes. So what?
Am I stealing from you if I choose not to buy from you, but from someone else?
If that "someone else" has obtained its copies by lawful means, then no, you are not.
Yet I am depriving you of revenue, isn't that stealing? No? Then depriving you of revenue by copying your product isn't stealing either.
Actually, no, because the copy wasn't obtained by lawful means. You are depriving its rightful owner of a product it could sell or otherwise dispose of as it saw fit.
I prefer the term "stealing games" myself. It fits well, does away with the positive connotations that the term "piracy" has gained in some circles, and -perhaps most important- it really makes the pirates mad.
Here I'd had hopes for Obama. Real hopes, too. But if he'd betray his country on a vote like this, then I just lost a great deal of respect for the man.
I don't want to sound like I'm defending murder here, but not I nor you nor anyone else know what Nina did to make him kill her.
Nothing whatsoever. He chose to kill her. He could have chosen otherwise. The only even remotely possible way she could have "made him kill her" would be if it had been a matter of self-defense: his life or hers. No one -not even Reiser himself- has ever claimed that, so we are left at stone cold free will.
Slashdot Mirror
there is just too much incentive, genetically, to spread your seed as wide as possible, no matter what
Unless, perhaps, there is not. You make many assumptions based on this core idea that polygamy is some kind of natural tendency, and you have some interesting hypotheses to back it up, but the data doesn't seem to back you.
Shouldn't evolution sided with either monogamy or polygamy? I mean even if there is only a one percent difference between the successor rates should that have not been reflected by now?
If monogamy or the lack thereof were genetic and there were an evolutionary advantage to either strategy, then you're right: that should have been reflected in the general population.
Since it doesn't seem to be, that would seem to indicate that perhaps there is no evolutionary advantage to either side. With no advantage, there is no pressure for humanity to tend in one direction or the other. That could yield a pattern closer to what we are seeing now.
For all that the Mozilla team isn't worried, they've got a long history of developers rejecting Gecko for other engines: first AOL rejected it in preference for IE (and then again on the Mac in preference for WebKit), then Apple (again for WebKit), and now Google (once again for WebKit). In the mobile space it isn't doing all that much better, with developers rejecting it in favor of Opera. In quite a few cases, including AOL and Google, we've even seen this rejection when the company previously had a history of active support for, and even paying developers to work on, the Gecko engine.
I use many browsers, though Firefox is currently my preferred one. But I can't help but pause at things like this. One after another, we've seen companies looking to developing their own browsers, but rejecting Gecko in favor of other engines, sometimes open-source and sometimes not, even when there was every reason to go with Gecko.
Why is this? I'm honestly curious. And what might Mozilla be able to do to counter whatever reasons there are for developers to often not just reject Gecko, but dump it flat after years of strong relationships? Why does Mozilla continue on as though nothing is wrong when the developers are voting with their products that something clearly is?
Strictly speaking, addiction requires some form of chemical agent, which video games lack.
However, many behaviors have shown themselves to be particularly suited to addiction-like compulsions over the years. For example, "addiction" to gambling and stealing are so commonly documented in our history that we've even got names for them now, and treat them as distinct conditions from some nebulous definition of "addictive behavior."
Is it really any surprise, then, that other things -possibly including gaming- might also lend themselves to such compulsions? Is it so unbelievable when there probably isn't a single person on these boards who doesn't exhibit such behavior toward gaming, or at least know someone who does?
I keep my Firefox updated, and I've noticed some CPU and memory reduction. I appreciate this. But when you're starting out at what FF2 had, you can have significant -even major- reduction while still being a bloated pig, and even with the improvements FF3 still has yet to completely escape from that trap.
Because everyone already knows that Firefox is a bloated pig, and that Opera is much leaner. Showing that IE is more bloated that Opera isn't saying all that much; most things are more bloated than Opera. To claim that IE is more bloated than even Firefox, however, really takes the cake. When you're not rolling your own runtime envionment and yet you still consume more than Firefox does, that's when you know you've really screwed up.
Note that I say this as a Firefox user.
Run Apache (or whatever else you intend to use), set it up to listen only on localhost, and you're good to go. Admittedly, distros could make this particular setup a little easier, but it's been possible for years.
Linux is better
(This post is a violation of your bank's terms of service. Please choose another post instead.)
And what exactly do you believe they deserve?
Honest question. I can see powerful arguments for pretty much any point on the spectrum, from a slap on the wrist and a month of therapy all the way up to the death penalty. Where do you place yourself?
Accepting some amount of risk and "tolerating death" are not the same thing, despite what some risk-averse folk will tell you. Quite the contrary: a life with no risk is not worth living, and so sometimes risks need to be accepted in the name of simple, basic freedom.
Um... aren't you referring to gravity here?
Just think: if Nintendo replaced the DS with this, you could choose to play with your Wii or your Wiz.
Now do the same thing in DOM. Can Javascript tell which text is selected? No.
Actually, it can.
Isn't this what they said, though? It sounds to me as though they claimed that free will can only exist in a nondeterministic environment, without necessarily making a finding on whether or not the environment actually is deterministic or not.
I think so, but Kingdom Hearts is the one that'll really get the BAWWWWWers going because it's all ZOMGKIDDY and EWWWDISNEY and all that BS.
Not bad, but using Kingdom Hearts as your example would resonate better with the BAWWWWWers.
So they say this thing has a "pointer mode," but I don't see any external reference (akin to the Wii Remote's sensor bar). How does this thing determine its position in space if it doesn't have a point of reference?
Awww, is Mr. Winkie feeling a little small?
Seriously; what's wrong with graphics that don't get in the way? Bloom-ridden gray-and-brown gets in the way of gameplay, and comparison shots like these show it better than just about anything else: it becomes too difficult to tell things apart. A little color makes games more fun.
Shouldn't a bottom quark and an anti-bottom quark annihilate one another? How do they manage to avoid doing so in this 'bottomonium' state?
There are a number of other variations on the above. Simple possession of another person's rightful property does not necessarily constitute theft.
When using overcomplicated and internally inconsistent legal language, yes. In reality, no.
Hate to break it to you, but no he isn't. You haven't in any way taken a physical item from them, or prevented them from making more.
The physicality of the item, or the lack thereof, is not important. Consider the classic bank-account scam, told and retold ever since the advent of electronic banking, where pennies or even mills could be shaved off of people's bank accounts a little bit at a time. No physical objects ever changed hands -and in the case of mills, the loss would likely never even be noticed- yet this is clearly theft.
Likewise, when you pirate software, you have deprived the copyright holder of something which belongs to them: the copy you made. The fact that they can produce more is completely irrelevant.
Your logic sucks.
No, actually, it's quite sound.
It's not stealing as copying does not deprive the original owner of anything.
Actually, it does.
When you pirate a work, you must by definition make a new copy. That copy can only be legally produced by the copyright holder. It would make no sense to simply destroy it, and so ownership of it reverts to the one legally able to produce it in the first place. Most of the time illegally-produced copies get destroyed anyway, but that need not be the case.
In any case, you now have a copy of the software that belongs to the copyright holder. By not returning the copy to them or buying it outright, you are in fact depriving them of something: a copy to sell or otherwise do with as they will.
And so, piracy equals theft.
Copyright is an artificial monopoly provided by the government as an incentive to create and release creative works.
Yes. So what?
Am I stealing from you if I choose not to buy from you, but from someone else?
If that "someone else" has obtained its copies by lawful means, then no, you are not.
Yet I am depriving you of revenue, isn't that stealing? No? Then depriving you of revenue by copying your product isn't stealing either.
Actually, no, because the copy wasn't obtained by lawful means. You are depriving its rightful owner of a product it could sell or otherwise dispose of as it saw fit.
I prefer the term "stealing games" myself. It fits well, does away with the positive connotations that the term "piracy" has gained in some circles, and -perhaps most important- it really makes the pirates mad.
Here I'd had hopes for Obama. Real hopes, too. But if he'd betray his country on a vote like this, then I just lost a great deal of respect for the man.
Proof that lawyers aren't interested in "the truth" at all.
Well, no. They're interested in putting forth the best possible argument for their side. That's their job. Truth is for the judge and jury to decide.
They are just soul-less scumbags.
I don't know about that, but more than once I've wondered what that kind of job must do to a person in the long term.
I don't want to sound like I'm defending murder here, but not I nor you nor anyone else know what Nina did to make him kill her.
Nothing whatsoever. He chose to kill her. He could have chosen otherwise. The only even remotely possible way she could have "made him kill her" would be if it had been a matter of self-defense: his life or hers. No one -not even Reiser himself- has ever claimed that, so we are left at stone cold free will.