If you're an ISP, and people are paying a premium for each and every IPv4 address; why in bloo&y he!! would you bother to support or push IPv6 addresses on anyone? (so I've been told)
Yeah, I have melted vinyl siding on my own house from the sliding glass door. it turns out that two panes of glass with a "vacuum" between makes a kind of curved mirror.
Of course you're right EXCEPT, that every musician worth his salt has cut his teeth on the classics; they quite likely have mixed these classics into their various seasons for many years. I certainly wish them well.
Yeah, I kind of disagree. If we hide our secrets and they hide theirs, we never appear to be the more honest open, and transparent alternative. Remember winning a war against their weapons is like child's play - the hard part is to convince the "other" that "our way" is better than "their way" We don't win the peace with secrets, and prying open the lies properly spanks the government for even thinking about trying to deceive their way to victory. These aren't nuclear know how secrets, this is diplomatic - who is double-crossing who stuff.
The job your friends are doing is justifying the Bush Presidency. fuggetaboutit.
The Arab world will continue to be a hell hole exactly as long as it want to, as long as they force their women to make more babies than 2.2, they won't be able to afford education, and they will need wars to prevent starvation. until that is unwound, you don't have a prayer.
I missed the part where Amnesty International condemned Scooter Libby for releasing information that put a CIA operative at risk. Must have been sick that day or is there not a sweet-a$$ double standard here?
Why not pardon everyone (like GW Bush did, and Ford - Both Republicans) in exchange for cooperation on cleaning the documents?
Obama, might rather say, Julian, in exchange for a Scooter-Libby grade Pardon for the informant which indeed respects the First Amendment right of the people to know what the F%&& their government is doing - especially when they are lying their way into wars (See Colin - the warmonger - Powell)
Would you might permitting us paying a third party to clean the documents?
I'll bet that would save lives and the truth in a single breath.
I agree; wikileaks occured (or is necessary) because dumb-f&&& Colin Powel marched his a$$ up to a microphone and said 15 words that started a useless war; a war which neither Colin Powel or Bush have any intention of paying for - but rather ask my children to pay.
So what if they get it wrong a time or two - Bush Cheney got it wrong every time, and where is the outcry, the "see if your government outlaws torture so we can limit Bush's travel" memo?
Right, this is the trade-off,
the flip point is that the software that looks prettiest - will often be perceived to work best by the end customer as well. Software programming is part math, and part theater.
Perhaps scalability can wait longer than the PowerPoint OS version?
Interesting research I'm sure. Dawkins makes the argument - also backed up by simulations - that altruism would most likely be exploited to extinction - but as you quite suggest - it depends largely on the specific altruistic behavior one is modeling.
I would like to add that Altruism requires the actor to possess full knowledge that the behavior is altruistic. Absent full knowledge, Apparent altruism might consist of latent or vestigial kin selection - or as in the case of Bonobos - "intentional" kin masking (bonobos engage in such promiscuity that every male can believe the resultant kin to be his own - thus avoiding the infanticide pattern of lions etc...).
I'm not sure I agree that the genes for your particular bacteria would be more successful if they were to scale back their enzymatic secretions. Cooperation is not altruism. Traits which benefit the community fairly and cannot be exploited by individual behaviors are quite likely to be reinforced. I suggest that bacteria are incapable of altruism or exploitation due to the lack of genetic and behavioral diversity within the colony. Sexual reproduction, on the other hand, introduces the opportunity for exploitation (Dawkin's point in Selfish IIRC) - as there are at least two independent evolutionary tracts - each of which can and does develop means by which to exploit or assist the other.
(It is my own theory for example, that female birds exploit males by breeding them to be "human shields" - more vibrant in color, and clumsy in flight - all the better to distract and feed the predatory classes my dear.)
trait group selection is theoretic at best no? and I must say not terribly persuasive.
More persuasive to me is that what so often appears to be altruism (mother Theresa) is at its root - self-serving if for no other reason that people tend to treat the apparent altruist with higher social deference than the brutally honest. (Al Gore for example appears to give a damn about the environment - while his house is less energy efficient than GWB. Sorry for the personification. I am persuaded that other organisms for the most part are self-serving, and that what appears to be altruism is at best a bid for reciprocity, and at worse a fraud.
This of course is a much-debated subject (also called a [moot point] - a miserably misunderstood term).
If you add the word "Apparent" to altruism, then you can describe and define it as you have done; but altruism in its plain sense indicates behaviors which benefits others at a cost to the actor; in an evolutionary time-frame, such patterns of behavior cannot be reinforced - provided we understand the principal unit of evolution to be the gene rather than the temporal organism.
They cannot be reinforced, because wherever habitual altruism arises, it will increase the frequency of genes for exploiting the altruism until the altruist genes are suppressed.
For example, puppies and pseudo-babies exploit the human instinct to care for their young: the more human and infantile the face and animal sounds, the more likely the animal is to be cared for by its adoptive parents - this can progress to a point, but there is a limit on the exploitation of nurturing instincts - and this is the essence of apparent altruism. An organism which is deceived into believing it is caring for its own young does not fit the truest definition of altruism; though it may satisfy apparent altruism.
(most of this from Dawkins recent works: greatest show, god delusion, and less recently, selfish gene.)
Tit for tat reciprocity is not Altruism; indeed Gould describes a computer model in which altruistic bird scratchers are rendered obsolete by the rise of facial id in birds. (he goes on to argue this as explaining the over-importance of facial finding - leading to faces in the moon, toast, etc...)
Wrong, Altruism doesn't exists - or at least it doesn't survive. Appearances of Altruism, and sometime vestiges of cooperation or nurturing exists.
More precisely (Gould' Selfish Gene) Organisms may indulge in Altruism only to the degree (probability) that they share genes with the target of their altruism - because genes compete for survival - organisms are only the packaging. If you share half your genes with your sibling, you may spend up to half of your life energy helping your sibling (or something like that) - any one second more, and your genes are toast.
I suggest this is less altruist and more a choice to avoid the conflicts which attend a more aggressive track. This down-stress choice is common for many social mammals (males usually) who hang around on the fringes - respecting the dominant male, and quietly hoping he will fail - ever ready to be commandeered into "service" but accepting his inferiority meanwhile without bloodshed.
When the World Trade center fell, there was dancing in the streets. Correspondingly, there would be celebrations on the other side, were the perpetrators of anti-US attacks ever brought to a genetic dead-end. I'm pretty confident that for every person on earth, there is some competitor whose end would bring involuntary joy and relief.
More interestingly - Why do humans pretense at empathy?
It is because animals developed the ability to detect and reward empathy - and correspondingly the ability to exploit the perception of empathy without being empathetic - (fake a war medal here, a tour of duty there) - and recursively to detect fraudulent empathy.
I suspect that the recursion is becoming stronger, and the genuine article is becoming weaker. There is no actual reward for empathy - only for the appearance of empathy, indeed if one were to empathize in an empty forest - would it make a sound?
Additionally, we are becoming increasingly aware of the totality of mankind, and the degree to which empathy is an endless hole - we cannot lift mankind with the generosity of strangers - we can only indulge in a massive wealth transfer from the fit to the least fit - resulting in the degradation of the species.
in short fuck empathy - it's bad for humanity. - but do it nicely so people will think you give a damn.
Some mice have two buttons - others (apple - often have only one), I was suggesting this is a similar difference. As you further add, the mouse wheel is yet another mouse dimension - further creating diversity on the PC. I agree that apple creates a strength by expanding the user input and making it core - I disagree that such is likely to overcome the explosive growth potential of an open platform.
I haven't used a mouse in years. All of computers are laptops, and they all have some unique "touch" related software - exactly the substance of the RTFA. The pop-up keyboard is presumably core - so common among apps - even keyboard phones offer a touch keyboard feature. This is all about multi-touch, and it's ironic that Apple was addicted to single-touch mice for years, and now the freer OS are playing catchup.
Uh, Evolution has had plenty of experience with hexapods (spiders) and a plethra of arrangements, some less than symmetrical (crabs). Very often, extra limbs are more valuable for manipulating food, than for motivation and become "arms", "claws", etc...
I'll bet they could have offered a prize of 1/10th that amount and got 10 better designs.
Gawd - good catch. The number of dyslexic patent attorneys still in possession of a fax machine has probably dwindled to extinction. You can and should file electronically. If you're still using an Underwood machine to prepare patents, you might not be on the cutting edge of innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're an ISP, and people are paying a premium for each and every IPv4 address; why in bloo&y he!! would you bother to support or push IPv6 addresses on anyone?
(so I've been told)
Yeah, I have melted vinyl siding on my own house from the sliding glass door.
it turns out that two panes of glass with a "vacuum" between makes a kind of curved mirror.
Architects should know this stuff.
Of course you're right EXCEPT,
that every musician worth his salt has cut his teeth on the classics; they quite likely have mixed these classics into their various seasons for many years. I certainly wish them well.
Yeah, I kind of disagree.
If we hide our secrets and they hide theirs, we never appear to be the more honest open, and transparent alternative.
Remember winning a war against their weapons is like child's play - the hard part is to convince the "other" that "our way" is better than "their way"
We don't win the peace with secrets, and prying open the lies properly spanks the government for even thinking about trying to deceive their way to victory.
These aren't nuclear know how secrets, this is diplomatic - who is double-crossing who stuff.
The job your friends are doing is justifying the Bush Presidency. fuggetaboutit.
The Arab world will continue to be a hell hole exactly as long as it want to, as long as they force their women to make more babies than 2.2, they won't be able to afford education, and they will need wars to prevent starvation. until that is unwound, you don't have a prayer.
I missed the part where Amnesty International condemned Scooter Libby for releasing information that put a CIA operative at risk. Must have been sick that day or is there not a sweet-a$$ double standard here?
Why not pardon everyone (like GW Bush did, and Ford - Both Republicans) in exchange for cooperation on cleaning the documents?
Obama, might rather say,
Julian, in exchange for a Scooter-Libby grade Pardon for the informant which indeed respects the First Amendment right of the people to know what the F%&& their government is doing - especially when they are lying their way into wars (See Colin - the warmonger - Powell)
Would you might permitting us paying a third party to clean the documents?
I'll bet that would save lives and the truth in a single breath.
I agree; wikileaks occured (or is necessary) because dumb-f&&& Colin Powel marched his a$$ up to a microphone and said 15 words that started a useless war; a war which neither Colin Powel or Bush have any intention of paying for - but rather ask my children to pay.
So what if they get it wrong a time or two - Bush Cheney got it wrong every time, and where is the outcry, the "see if your government outlaws torture so we can limit Bush's travel" memo?
Right,
this is the trade-off,
the flip point is that the software that looks prettiest - will often be perceived to work best by the end customer as well. Software programming is part math, and part theater.
Perhaps scalability can wait longer than the PowerPoint OS version?
In Ukraine - honest taxation is in excess of 100%.
Quite clearly absolutely no one would think of paying more than 100% in taxes - so they don't.
However accurate or not this may be technically, it is how the people there view the tax laws - I have that first hand.
Leave the country - if they can...
otherwise.
Interesting research I'm sure.
Dawkins makes the argument - also backed up by simulations - that altruism would most likely be exploited to extinction - but as you quite suggest - it depends largely on the specific altruistic behavior one is modeling.
I would like to add that Altruism requires the actor to possess full knowledge that the behavior is altruistic. Absent full knowledge, Apparent altruism might consist of latent or vestigial kin selection - or as in the case of Bonobos - "intentional" kin masking (bonobos engage in such promiscuity that every male can believe the resultant kin to be his own - thus avoiding the infanticide pattern of lions etc...).
I'm not sure I agree that the genes for your particular bacteria would be more successful if they were to scale back their enzymatic secretions. Cooperation is not altruism. Traits which benefit the community fairly and cannot be exploited by individual behaviors are quite likely to be reinforced. I suggest that bacteria are incapable of altruism or exploitation due to the lack of genetic and behavioral diversity within the colony. Sexual reproduction, on the other hand, introduces the opportunity for exploitation (Dawkin's point in Selfish IIRC) - as there are at least two independent evolutionary tracts - each of which can and does develop means by which to exploit or assist the other.
(It is my own theory for example, that female birds exploit males by breeding them to be "human shields" - more vibrant in color, and clumsy in flight - all the better to distract and feed the predatory classes my dear.)
trait group selection is theoretic at best no? and I must say not terribly persuasive.
More persuasive to me is that what so often appears to be altruism (mother Theresa) is at its root - self-serving if for no other reason that people tend to treat the apparent altruist with higher social deference than the brutally honest. (Al Gore for example appears to give a damn about the environment - while his house is less energy efficient than GWB.
Sorry for the personification. I am persuaded that other organisms for the most part are self-serving, and that what appears to be altruism is at best a bid for reciprocity, and at worse a fraud.
This of course is a much-debated subject (also called a [moot point] - a miserably misunderstood term).
If you add the word "Apparent" to altruism, then you can describe and define it as you have done; but altruism in its plain sense indicates behaviors which benefits others at a cost to the actor; in an evolutionary time-frame, such patterns of behavior cannot be reinforced - provided we understand the principal unit of evolution to be the gene rather than the temporal organism.
They cannot be reinforced, because wherever habitual altruism arises, it will increase the frequency of genes for exploiting the altruism until the altruist genes are suppressed.
For example, puppies and pseudo-babies exploit the human instinct to care for their young: the more human and infantile the face and animal sounds, the more likely the animal is to be cared for by its adoptive parents - this can progress to a point, but there is a limit on the exploitation of nurturing instincts - and this is the essence of apparent altruism. An organism which is deceived into believing it is caring for its own young does not fit the truest definition of altruism; though it may satisfy apparent altruism.
(most of this from Dawkins recent works: greatest show, god delusion, and less recently, selfish gene.)
Tit for tat reciprocity is not Altruism; indeed Gould describes a computer model in which altruistic bird scratchers are rendered obsolete by the rise of facial id in birds. (he goes on to argue this as explaining the over-importance of facial finding - leading to faces in the moon, toast, etc...)
Wrong, Altruism doesn't exists - or at least it doesn't survive. Appearances of Altruism, and sometime vestiges of cooperation or nurturing exists.
More precisely (Gould' Selfish Gene) Organisms may indulge in Altruism only to the degree (probability) that they share genes with the target of their altruism - because genes compete for survival - organisms are only the packaging. If you share half your genes with your sibling, you may spend up to half of your life energy helping your sibling (or something like that) - any one second more, and your genes are toast.
I suggest this is less altruist and more a choice to avoid the conflicts which attend a more aggressive track. This down-stress choice is common for many social mammals (males usually) who hang around on the fringes - respecting the dominant male, and quietly hoping he will fail - ever ready to be commandeered into "service" but accepting his inferiority meanwhile without bloodshed.
When the World Trade center fell, there was dancing in the streets. Correspondingly, there would be celebrations on the other side, were the perpetrators of anti-US attacks ever brought to a genetic dead-end. I'm pretty confident that for every person on earth, there is some competitor whose end would bring involuntary joy and relief.
More interestingly - Why do humans pretense at empathy?
It is because animals developed the ability to detect and reward empathy - and correspondingly the ability to exploit the perception of empathy without being empathetic - (fake a war medal here, a tour of duty there) - and recursively to detect fraudulent empathy.
I suspect that the recursion is becoming stronger, and the genuine article is becoming weaker. There is no actual reward for empathy - only for the appearance of empathy, indeed if one were to empathize in an empty forest - would it make a sound?
Additionally, we are becoming increasingly aware of the totality of mankind, and the degree to which empathy is an endless hole - we cannot lift mankind with the generosity of strangers - we can only indulge in a massive wealth transfer from the fit to the least fit - resulting in the degradation of the species.
in short fuck empathy - it's bad for humanity. - but do it nicely so people will think you give a damn.
Some mice have two buttons - others (apple - often have only one),
I was suggesting this is a similar difference. As you further add, the mouse wheel is yet another mouse dimension - further creating diversity on the PC.
I agree that apple creates a strength by expanding the user input and making it core - I disagree that such is likely to overcome the explosive growth potential of an open platform.
We see.
I haven't used a mouse in years. All of computers are laptops, and they all have some unique "touch" related software - exactly the substance of the RTFA. The pop-up keyboard is presumably core - so common among apps - even keyboard phones offer a touch keyboard feature.
This is all about multi-touch, and it's ironic that Apple was addicted to single-touch mice for years, and now the freer OS are playing catchup.
Right - because a plethora of unique PC machines hasn't worked out as well as apple's - more-expensive-all-the-time strategy.
except a camel can go several days... and live off the land.
Uh, Evolution has had plenty of experience with hexapods (spiders) and a plethra of arrangements, some less than symmetrical (crabs).
Very often, extra limbs are more valuable for manipulating food, than for motivation and become "arms", "claws", etc...
I'll bet they could have offered a prize of 1/10th that amount and got 10 better designs.
Good to see where our tax dollars are going. Where would this country be if we didn't rule out speed of light travel?
Gawd - good catch.
The number of dyslexic patent attorneys still in possession of a fax machine has probably dwindled to extinction.
You can and should file electronically. If you're still using an Underwood machine to prepare patents, you might not be on the cutting edge of innovation.