. There's no individual advantage or disadvantage for this trait.
Darwin favors the individual that can pass on its genes, not just those that can survive long enough to be old...that counts for nothing evolutionarily.
As soon as the gender balance became disproportionatley male (which happens in evolution), males would most certainly be "unfavored" over females, and therefore so would the tendency to produce all males. So the ability to make female offspring would become a Darwinian advantage.
Sorry, but this trait would disappear quick if introduced into the wild (and not continuously re-stocked).
But not necessarily the human that made the error. And many times people killed because of the "stupidity" of buying an SUV aren't the ones that bought the SUV, but the unfortunate person to be hit by one.
Suppose this gene multiplies further out past Australia, we could very well see the extinction of all Carp once they all become male.
Can somebody think about that and mod the parent down....please? Is Darwinism really that hard to understand that such a statement makes any sense whatsoever?
(all-maleness is self-limiting within a population from day one, not just when the very last female dies and it suddenly kills the whole species overnight)
Well it sounds like you don't quite get the way evolution works. Natural selection would never favor an "all maleness" gene, because populations where this gene is present in high numbers would have a disproportionate number of males, and would produce less offspring. The gene would be natural-selected away in short order......and not in a single event that wipes the whole species out, but in the gradual way that all such processes happen.
You are talking as if it would be in no way a disadvantage, allowing it to spread, and then at some point the last female would die and the species would go extinct. Think about that a bit.
The gene does not cause infertility, just maleness. So it can spread. [snip] When you have all males, then the population dies
Um....hello....?
You could drive a 2004 GM Carp through the holes in that logic.
Ok, so they produce males. This gene spreads wildly, even though all the new ones carrying the gene are male. So what you are saying is that the diminishing numbers of females that are left are somehow still cranking out just as many total offspring as before. And then magically, when the very last female dies (who has, apparently been doing all the reproducing for the whole species), they suddenly become extinct?
That is just nonsense. If they produce all males, their numbers will diminish compared to those that produce a mix of the two. "All maleness" isn't going to spread far. It's a Darwian disadvantage, from the beginning, not just at an arbitrary point in the future where it suddenly kills the whole species.
Bash away. His site is simply awful. It is the ugliest site I have ever seen that says "web design" in the title. If "usable" means it has to be that drab, then no thanks.
One of the things I love about David Byrne is that you often don't know if he is poking fun of something or paying homage to it. The album and movie True Stories is a perfect example of this. This little stunt seems along the same lines.
A famous quote of his regarding the Russians: "If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at five o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"
A bit scary. He may have been brilliant, but I am glad we didn't take all his advice.
They didn't "think" it, they simply asked. And if they hadn't asked, they should have been fired for incompetency. Geez, it's friggin smallpox, not exactly your everyday thing.
Code in the client is needed to authenticate the incoming email, and to add the key to outgoing email. An email server might be able to do the authenticating of incoming, but if the server does the outgoing part (generating the key), mail servers are going to bog down and only be able to handle a certain amount of mail per day. Dumb.
And spammers can't get around it by not using MS products (or other clients that have the capability), since their mail won't be received by people who do.
Now, if Bill were to knock on my front door, and was willing to actually talk about it...
But you *know* what the chances of that are...
Um, you are indeed right, the chances are pretty low. Go figure.
I mean, if Santa can visit EVERY SINGLE HOUSE ON THE PLANET in one night, delivering presents to each child in the world, you'd think the richest man in the world would be able to figure out how to personally speak with each Linux user. Geez....
But isn't the special effects award for special effects, not plot?
I agree that Jurassic Park had a kind of stupid plot, but I felt that my money was well spent for the effects alone. I mean, the Mona Lisa doesn't have much of a plot, but apparently people still like to look at it.
I'm confused as to why those would make you not take the survey seriously. They seem like valid answers, and if that's the way people feel, they should want to know about it, right? I would not be surprised if they designed their survey by first asking people to answer the questions "free form" (i.e. not multiple choice), and then tried to include the most popular answers in their multiple choice.
Geeks/nerds are known for liking coffee (and other forms of caffiene), and for being lazy when it comes to everyday life things, for instance, preparing a bowl of cereal AND brewing coffee.
Personally, I'm glad Slashdot has a good mix of compputer, science, geek humor and geek lifestyle stories. Personally I can't stand the case mod stories (just doesn't interest me, for some reason), but I've found skipping over them, rather than reading them and complaining, works well for me.
I think you are right that in most cases the "Microsoft tax" refers to cases of buying a PC where you don't have a choice of whether the OS comes along with it or not.
However, I think it could be said that buying and upgrading Microsoft operating systems is not quite as volutary and subject to competitive options like other purchases....therefore it is like a tax: something you really don't have a choice and have to pay whatever they demand.
But the relations of languages is much more complex than indicated by that graphic. The graphic does show old english, and it shows old saxon....but there was a lot of intermixing and combining of those languages as peoples intermixed, which is not indicated in the graphic.
The graphic shows a tree that branches but never rejoins, which is usually appropriate for biology (to show speciation), but not as accurate for languages.
Reminds me of an old saturday night live sketch (very old, Jane Curtain I think), the "What if?" show. One episode covered the topic of "What if Napoleon had B-52's at Waterloo" and another "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?"
Slashdot Mirror
. There's no individual advantage or disadvantage for this trait.
Darwin favors the individual that can pass on its genes, not just those that can survive long enough to be old...that counts for nothing evolutionarily.
As soon as the gender balance became disproportionatley male (which happens in evolution), males would most certainly be "unfavored" over females, and therefore so would the tendency to produce all males. So the ability to make female offspring would become a Darwinian advantage.
Sorry, but this trait would disappear quick if introduced into the wild (and not continuously re-stocked).
Apparently it's not really even controversial anymore among geologists. (Google for it)
m
I Googled. If it's not controversial, it's only because most everyone simply says its not true.
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex12752.ht
Your kind of rational, balanced outlook is not welcome here on Slashdot.
Cars kill people because of human error.
But not necessarily the human that made the error. And many times people killed because of the "stupidity" of buying an SUV aren't the ones that bought the SUV, but the unfortunate person to be hit by one.
Actually lots of Amish die from automibile accidents
Suppose this gene multiplies further out past Australia, we could very well see the extinction of all Carp once they all become male.
Can somebody think about that and mod the parent down....please? Is Darwinism really that hard to understand that such a statement makes any sense whatsoever?
(all-maleness is self-limiting within a population from day one, not just when the very last female dies and it suddenly kills the whole species overnight)
Well it sounds like you don't quite get the way evolution works. Natural selection would never favor an "all maleness" gene, because populations where this gene is present in high numbers would have a disproportionate number of males, and would produce less offspring. The gene would be natural-selected away in short order......and not in a single event that wipes the whole species out, but in the gradual way that all such processes happen.
You are talking as if it would be in no way a disadvantage, allowing it to spread, and then at some point the last female would die and the species would go extinct. Think about that a bit.
The gene does not cause infertility, just maleness. So it can spread. [snip] When you have all males, then the population dies
Um....hello....?
You could drive a 2004 GM Carp through the holes in that logic.
Ok, so they produce males. This gene spreads wildly, even though all the new ones carrying the gene are male. So what you are saying is that the diminishing numbers of females that are left are somehow still cranking out just as many total offspring as before. And then magically, when the very last female dies (who has, apparently been doing all the reproducing for the whole species), they suddenly become extinct?
That is just nonsense. If they produce all males, their numbers will diminish compared to those that produce a mix of the two. "All maleness" isn't going to spread far. It's a Darwian disadvantage, from the beginning, not just at an arbitrary point in the future where it suddenly kills the whole species.
Bash away. His site is simply awful. It is the ugliest site I have ever seen that says "web design" in the title. If "usable" means it has to be that drab, then no thanks.
Radiohead is even named for a Talking Heads song.
One of the things I love about David Byrne is that you often don't know if he is poking fun of something or paying homage to it. The album and movie True Stories is a perfect example of this. This little stunt seems along the same lines.
well you probably could have figured this one out: google.com/search?q=von neumann bomb tomorrow five one
A famous quote of his regarding the Russians: "If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at five o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"
A bit scary. He may have been brilliant, but I am glad we didn't take all his advice.
They didn't "think" it, they simply asked. And if they hadn't asked, they should have been fired for incompetency. Geez, it's friggin smallpox, not exactly your everyday thing.
Did you read the article?
Code in the client is needed to authenticate the incoming email, and to add the key to outgoing email. An email server might be able to do the authenticating of incoming, but if the server does the outgoing part (generating the key), mail servers are going to bog down and only be able to handle a certain amount of mail per day. Dumb.
And spammers can't get around it by not using MS products (or other clients that have the capability), since their mail won't be received by people who do.
Isn't something that is "dreamed up" fantasy by definition?
Now, if Bill were to knock on my front door, and was willing to actually talk about it ...
But you *know* what the chances of that are...
Um, you are indeed right, the chances are pretty low. Go figure.
I mean, if Santa can visit EVERY SINGLE HOUSE ON THE PLANET in one night, delivering presents to each child in the world, you'd think the richest man in the world would be able to figure out how to personally speak with each Linux user. Geez....
But isn't the special effects award for special effects, not plot?
I agree that Jurassic Park had a kind of stupid plot, but I felt that my money was well spent for the effects alone. I mean, the Mona Lisa doesn't have much of a plot, but apparently people still like to look at it.
I'm confused as to why those would make you not take the survey seriously. They seem like valid answers, and if that's the way people feel, they should want to know about it, right? I would not be surprised if they designed their survey by first asking people to answer the questions "free form" (i.e. not multiple choice), and then tried to include the most popular answers in their multiple choice.
Don't you think the author was aware of the irony, and assumed the readers would be too?
Geeks/nerds are known for liking coffee (and other forms of caffiene), and for being lazy when it comes to everyday life things, for instance, preparing a bowl of cereal AND brewing coffee.
Personally, I'm glad Slashdot has a good mix of compputer, science, geek humor and geek lifestyle stories. Personally I can't stand the case mod stories (just doesn't interest me, for some reason), but I've found skipping over them, rather than reading them and complaining, works well for me.
I think you are right that in most cases the "Microsoft tax" refers to cases of buying a PC where you don't have a choice of whether the OS comes along with it or not.
However, I think it could be said that buying and upgrading Microsoft operating systems is not quite as volutary and subject to competitive options like other purchases....therefore it is like a tax: something you really don't have a choice and have to pay whatever they demand.
But the relations of languages is much more complex than indicated by that graphic. The graphic does show old english, and it shows old saxon....but there was a lot of intermixing and combining of those languages as peoples intermixed, which is not indicated in the graphic.
The graphic shows a tree that branches but never rejoins, which is usually appropriate for biology (to show speciation), but not as accurate for languages.
Reminds me of an old saturday night live sketch (very old, Jane Curtain I think), the "What if?" show. One episode covered the topic of "What if Napoleon had B-52's at Waterloo" and another "What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly?"
So you are saying Wal-mart is in business to make money. And...?
Gosh, I wonder why people were confused? To think that the Java Desktop System has anything to do with Java......idiots!