In this age of plenty, the best selection traits I can think of are:
1) Ability to predict and manipulate other people; 2) High sex drive;
These two traits in the modern world will almost certainly result in more children, with a high diversity in genes. I certainly don't think that "stupid" people are reproducing more - or if they are, their children are less likely to successfully reproduce.
While both of these may sound negative, the first can actually be very useful in advanced pattern-prediction, and may be highly-related to intelligence. What I don't know is where morality falls into all of this. With the fall of tribalism and the high mobility of modern life, morality may fall by the wayside, as you can subtly screw people for personal gain over without suffering any consequences.
The flipside is that with the current rise in communications and the subsequent loss of worldwide anonymity, we may see some selection for people who are genuinely nice in the coming centuries.
The thing to realize is that we really have no control over this. It's the environment and lifestyle that's providing the biggest pushes in any direction (not eugenics). We have the ability to affect these, but we have *never* used the ability with the intent to drive evolution in any direction.
It's not "survival of the fittest" anymore - it's "reproduction of the fittest". Consider the man who "loves'em and leaves'em" - for a few hundred women a year. Chances are those genes are being reproduced far more than the average man.
Social skills are at least partially genetic, including the ability to predict and manipulate people. These skills are affected by brain structure and chemistry, so to say the brain is an exception to evolution is almost certainly false.
Of *course* there are stupid people breeding. There are still people born with tails too, but you don't consider that to be a trait of a normal human. On the whole, I suspect that truly stupid (not just poor or underprivileged) do not reproduce as much - or if they do their children are also less likely to survive (which is the same thing to the genes). That's how evolution works.
By no means was I suggesting that he put work before family. I was suggesting a move.
Seriously - if his job is so bad, why not either find another or move? That's 8 hours a day at work, plus X hours commuting and general getting-ready time. It leaves precious little for family as it is. And add onto that the fact that his work time might as well be spent sleeping - he doesn't feel like he gets *anything* out of it.
I'm not putting down his family time - it's obviously the best time of his day - I'm just questioning the quality of his life as a whole.
But then, I'm young. Maybe my idealism is still ripe.
PS - I was referring to half-life with the "accomplish nothing" comment - I'd missed the previous two words ("my family"), so there was definitely an edge I didn't intend on that comment. Someone who works all day to be able to afford to play HL2, I'd have some harsh words for.
Think about it - you're spending over half your waking life "not caring" - it might as well not be done.
Then you go home and accomplish nothing.
Sure, it's a great way to pass the time, but before you know it, that time adds up to 10 years, and you've nothing to show for it - certainly less than you'd have if you'd entertain some ideas of moving or finding some work you don't find so horrible.
Not only does DVD look better, but I simply can't watch a dramatic show on TV anymore with the commercials. How can you get into a story that's interrupted every 7 minutes?
I don't know that Fox *ever* stood a chance with that type of dynamic.
I've seen all of them, but wanted to comment on a phenomenon I think I see happening. I watched Buffy and Angel on TV, every week. Looking back now, I'm nowhere near as interested as I once was, and don't necessarily see the attraction.
The thing is, Buffy started in what - 1995? I believe there may be a progression towards more mature audiences even as the characters (and Joss) evolved in those shows. Firefly is head and shoulders above Buffy or Angel in my book, and I think that represents a maturation of Joss' skills.
Basically what I'm saying is - if you've seen Buffy or Angel recently and not seen the attraction, don't worry - you're seeing a different Joss than is making Serenity.
I agree that the River story is the only real hook in the first 13 eps, but I'm in awe of what it could have been.
Because you just know that Mallory - starting as a small-time smuggler - would end up leading the second great rebellion. It's a classic rags to riches story, but I'm sure the complete storyline would blow just about any other show out of the water.
And as long as we're suggesting random shows here - Charlie Jade. Download it on a torrent, since it's not shown in the US yet, and you'd be lost without watching the eps in order.
I've never seen NES spelled N.E.S. in recent years, and yet hear it pronounced as an acronym all the time. It's like the brits saying "an historic event", even though "historic" begins with a consonant. The spelling and the pronunciation do not always mesh.
Again I ask, what are the physical underpinnings of this philosophy called evolution? If your hand is empty, please quit preaching its authority.
Not "physical underpinnings" - mathematical underpinnings. Given two populations, one of which reproduces at a greater rate than the other, that one will flourish (especially if they're vying for the same resources). This is pretty obvious, and can be proven mathematically.
Once you throw in the concept of random mutations, you can once again mathematically prove that organisms get more complex in a complex environment.
That's the principle of evolution, and is supported by the most tool of science - mathematics.
We're not talking about "perpetually sustainable" cities that will last until the end of time. Yes, there will be natural disasters - glaciers will appear at some point and wipe out a lot of the earth's surface. But in the short (human-lifespan) term, there's no reason to think we can't design sustainable cities that can survive all of the short-term disasters that will be thrown at us.
And if we ever want to get off this rock, we're going to have to design the technology anyway. You honestly don't believe a moon-base is possible, regardless of advances in technology?
The fact is, MS doesn't have to be the big scary monster anymore. I believe they're in a period of transition. Yes, they're still in the old mindset of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, but it can no longer go on forever.
MS is losing good people to Google. They used to pride themselves on having only the smartest. Now they realize there's more to retaining the smart guys (and gals) than just offering the best benefits. You also have to offer a culture - and Google's "Do no harm" culture is winning.
MS may face a crisis in the coming years. It won't be monetary (what with the billions of dollars saved up), but it will be cultural. A crisis is the best time to affect change, since everyone knows they have to move *somewhere*, but no one really knows where that somewhere is.
By providing positive feedback for the actions the geek community approves of, and negative feedback for every step in the wrong direction, they *will* get the message.
A step in the right direction can't be met with the message "It's not far enough" - they will figure that out for themselves as they find more and more success along certain lines. We can't do it for them, but we can show them the path.
MS has been "the enemy", but the nice thing about business is that they can change. IBM was the enemy - they're now an ally, and promote a culture of openness. Nintendo abused its dominant position in gaming, and was pushed in a completely different direction than other gaming companies. With the vast resources MS has, I would rather see them become a force for good than watch them die.
But I know what the gist of half of them will be. "Open? Hah! M$ is the suxorz!".
Shut up. It's a step in the right direction. Rather than naysay *everything* that's ever done, perhaps you could send off a nice, non-sarcastic email to the nice folks at MS saying how much you approve of this first tep, and hope that it is leading to a true open format.
Maybe every attempt at >light-speed travel sets off a nova in the nearest star - through a mechanism that is completely unpredictable at planetary scales.
Although my favourite theory is that life is dependent on quantum phenomena, and since we're too far away to observe any of these in aliens, they're in a state of quantum flux until we meet them.
That would be damn cool, but some of the biggest events might have been ignored at the time.
Jesus pops to mind. Christianity didn't really take off until he was dead. Any outside observers simply wouldn't have been paying him much attention.
Or who knows - maybe the aliens were rooting for the aboriginal peoples of the Americas and concentrated all of their attention there, ignoring the rabble over in Europe.
aaaannndd...I just realized how stupid I sound throwing a fly into this most unlikely of ointments. Ah well - Submit!
Well...it *was*, but not entirely. I think the rise of the internet has pretty much been a death knell for adventure games. For every person who gets satisfaction by not looking at gamefaqs.com through the whole game, there are fifty who will give up on a puzzle after less than a week of trying.
Back in the day, if you had a problem, you either stuck with it, or you got a friend to help. Collaboration with a friend was a great joy - "leapfrogging" and taking turns helping each other out.
Now that's actually more work than a simple google-search, and the willpower to resist just isn't there for most gamers. It ruins the fun (and hence the genre), but I really can't see a solution.
Slashdot Mirror
In this age of plenty, the best selection traits I can think of are:
1) Ability to predict and manipulate other people;
2) High sex drive;
These two traits in the modern world will almost certainly result in more children, with a high diversity in genes. I certainly don't think that "stupid" people are reproducing more - or if they are, their children are less likely to successfully reproduce.
While both of these may sound negative, the first can actually be very useful in advanced pattern-prediction, and may be highly-related to intelligence. What I don't know is where morality falls into all of this. With the fall of tribalism and the high mobility of modern life, morality may fall by the wayside, as you can subtly screw people for personal gain over without suffering any consequences.
The flipside is that with the current rise in communications and the subsequent loss of worldwide anonymity, we may see some selection for people who are genuinely nice in the coming centuries.
The thing to realize is that we really have no control over this. It's the environment and lifestyle that's providing the biggest pushes in any direction (not eugenics). We have the ability to affect these, but we have *never* used the ability with the intent to drive evolution in any direction.
It's not "survival of the fittest" anymore - it's "reproduction of the fittest". Consider the man who "loves'em and leaves'em" - for a few hundred women a year. Chances are those genes are being reproduced far more than the average man.
Social skills are at least partially genetic, including the ability to predict and manipulate people. These skills are affected by brain structure and chemistry, so to say the brain is an exception to evolution is almost certainly false.
Of *course* there are stupid people breeding. There are still people born with tails too, but you don't consider that to be a trait of a normal human. On the whole, I suspect that truly stupid (not just poor or underprivileged) do not reproduce as much - or if they do their children are also less likely to survive (which is the same thing to the genes). That's how evolution works.
Stadia were a Roman unit of measurement equivalent to the length of a stadium
So "football fields" is a valid unit of measurement...
What was their measurement equivalent to the width of a human hair?
Information contained in Libraries of Congress?
# of times various things stacked together will encircle the earth?
By no means was I suggesting that he put work before family. I was suggesting a move.
Seriously - if his job is so bad, why not either find another or move? That's 8 hours a day at work, plus X hours commuting and general getting-ready time. It leaves precious little for family as it is. And add onto that the fact that his work time might as well be spent sleeping - he doesn't feel like he gets *anything* out of it.
I'm not putting down his family time - it's obviously the best time of his day - I'm just questioning the quality of his life as a whole.
But then, I'm young. Maybe my idealism is still ripe.
PS - I was referring to half-life with the "accomplish nothing" comment - I'd missed the previous two words ("my family"), so there was definitely an edge I didn't intend on that comment. Someone who works all day to be able to afford to play HL2, I'd have some harsh words for.
Think about it - you're spending over half your waking life "not caring" - it might as well not be done.
Then you go home and accomplish nothing.
Sure, it's a great way to pass the time, but before you know it, that time adds up to 10 years, and you've nothing to show for it - certainly less than you'd have if you'd entertain some ideas of moving or finding some work you don't find so horrible.
River was incarcerated before the first episode aired - the first episode is her bloody escape.
And it's no secret she's got mental problems.
Not only does DVD look better, but I simply can't watch a dramatic show on TV anymore with the commercials. How can you get into a story that's interrupted every 7 minutes?
I don't know that Fox *ever* stood a chance with that type of dynamic.
I've seen all of them, but wanted to comment on a phenomenon I think I see happening. I watched Buffy and Angel on TV, every week. Looking back now, I'm nowhere near as interested as I once was, and don't necessarily see the attraction.
The thing is, Buffy started in what - 1995? I believe there may be a progression towards more mature audiences even as the characters (and Joss) evolved in those shows. Firefly is head and shoulders above Buffy or Angel in my book, and I think that represents a maturation of Joss' skills.
Basically what I'm saying is - if you've seen Buffy or Angel recently and not seen the attraction, don't worry - you're seeing a different Joss than is making Serenity.
I agree that the River story is the only real hook in the first 13 eps, but I'm in awe of what it could have been.
Because you just know that Mallory - starting as a small-time smuggler - would end up leading the second great rebellion. It's a classic rags to riches story, but I'm sure the complete storyline would blow just about any other show out of the water.
And as long as we're suggesting random shows here - Charlie Jade. Download it on a torrent, since it's not shown in the US yet, and you'd be lost without watching the eps in order.
Sorry to nitpick, but let's not try.
I've never seen NES spelled N.E.S. in recent years, and yet hear it pronounced as an acronym all the time. It's like the brits saying "an historic event", even though "historic" begins with a consonant. The spelling and the pronunciation do not always mesh.
Again I ask, what are the physical underpinnings of this philosophy called evolution? If your hand is empty, please quit preaching its authority.
Not "physical underpinnings" - mathematical underpinnings. Given two populations, one of which reproduces at a greater rate than the other, that one will flourish (especially if they're vying for the same resources). This is pretty obvious, and can be proven mathematically.
Once you throw in the concept of random mutations, you can once again mathematically prove that organisms get more complex in a complex environment.
That's the principle of evolution, and is supported by the most tool of science - mathematics.
From the symptoms, it sounds more like people were replying to the mailing list address, which was set to forward the mail to everyone else.
Rowell said she could not explain why so many responses, which were meant for her alone, would be sent to each person on the original message list.
That's not a "Reply All" problem, that's a system setup problem. I wouldn't blame this on the users.
Oops - meant to reply to the parent post, not to yours.
We're not talking about "perpetually sustainable" cities that will last until the end of time. Yes, there will be natural disasters - glaciers will appear at some point and wipe out a lot of the earth's surface. But in the short (human-lifespan) term, there's no reason to think we can't design sustainable cities that can survive all of the short-term disasters that will be thrown at us.
And if we ever want to get off this rock, we're going to have to design the technology anyway. You honestly don't believe a moon-base is possible, regardless of advances in technology?
Thanks.
Regret to say we're breaking up this month - school's over for all of us, and we're going our separate ways.
You misspelled "Cinemases"
Did anyone else notice the "seams" in the sand around the pyramids? Are those new, or really, really old?
However, it immmediately shuts up the second you show it to any network executives.
Everybody loves the Michigan Ra-aaag
The fact is, MS doesn't have to be the big scary monster anymore. I believe they're in a period of transition. Yes, they're still in the old mindset of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, but it can no longer go on forever.
MS is losing good people to Google. They used to pride themselves on having only the smartest. Now they realize there's more to retaining the smart guys (and gals) than just offering the best benefits. You also have to offer a culture - and Google's "Do no harm" culture is winning.
MS may face a crisis in the coming years. It won't be monetary (what with the billions of dollars saved up), but it will be cultural. A crisis is the best time to affect change, since everyone knows they have to move *somewhere*, but no one really knows where that somewhere is.
By providing positive feedback for the actions the geek community approves of, and negative feedback for every step in the wrong direction, they *will* get the message.
A step in the right direction can't be met with the message "It's not far enough" - they will figure that out for themselves as they find more and more success along certain lines. We can't do it for them, but we can show them the path.
MS has been "the enemy", but the nice thing about business is that they can change. IBM was the enemy - they're now an ally, and promote a culture of openness. Nintendo abused its dominant position in gaming, and was pushed in a completely different direction than other gaming companies. With the vast resources MS has, I would rather see them become a force for good than watch them die.
But I know what the gist of half of them will be. "Open? Hah! M$ is the suxorz!".
Shut up. It's a step in the right direction. Rather than naysay *everything* that's ever done, perhaps you could send off a nice, non-sarcastic email to the nice folks at MS saying how much you approve of this first tep, and hope that it is leading to a true open format.
Carrot and stick guys, carrot and stick.
And with that, send a consultation invoice to Ms Guibault, thanking her for her business.
Maybe every attempt at >light-speed travel sets off a nova in the nearest star - through a mechanism that is completely unpredictable at planetary scales.
Although my favourite theory is that life is dependent on quantum phenomena, and since we're too far away to observe any of these in aliens, they're in a state of quantum flux until we meet them.
That would be damn cool, but some of the biggest events might have been ignored at the time.
Jesus pops to mind. Christianity didn't really take off until he was dead. Any outside observers simply wouldn't have been paying him much attention.
Or who knows - maybe the aliens were rooting for the aboriginal peoples of the Americas and concentrated all of their attention there, ignoring the rabble over in Europe.
aaaannndd...I just realized how stupid I sound throwing a fly into this most unlikely of ointments. Ah well - Submit!
Well...it *was*, but not entirely. I think the rise of the internet has pretty much been a death knell for adventure games. For every person who gets satisfaction by not looking at gamefaqs.com through the whole game, there are fifty who will give up on a puzzle after less than a week of trying.
Back in the day, if you had a problem, you either stuck with it, or you got a friend to help. Collaboration with a friend was a great joy - "leapfrogging" and taking turns helping each other out.
Now that's actually more work than a simple google-search, and the willpower to resist just isn't there for most gamers. It ruins the fun (and hence the genre), but I really can't see a solution.
Jump upgrades
Most FPSs ignore the jump except to recognize it as a basic need to get over the 10" barriers mentioned in the article.
The fact that Metroid has a number of jump upgrades adds a dynamic to jumping puzzles that doesn't exist in other games.