Another thing to remember is that being forced to compete with the BBC ad free channels keeps the number of ads on ITV, channel 4 et al down to a bearable level.
I'll add this here, but it could equally be tacked on to just about every thread on this story.
Next week there will probably be a story about someone trying to get video games banned because they affect the impressionable kids. It would be interesting to go through and correlate how many of the people crying out then that video games never affected them are today posting about how they fantasise about beating up hookers and running others off the road.
Will you make up your mind, first you agree with the grandparent poster that one particular example doesn't prove the general case, and then you make the claim that the SCA example does suggest the general case is zero sum.
Come on man, make up your mind! which side of the fence are you on?
It is worth noting that there is a natural bias towards observing negative mutations, not only are they probably far more common but also they stand out against the background, i.e. when people start dieing, or are born with gills, or no legs then people are going to notice pretty damn quick and start saying "ohhhh, mutation==bad!" however a beneficial mutation (for example a resistance to the common cold) is much more likely to go unnoticed at first, as it is a lot harder to notice or prove that something hasn't happened during a persons lifetime. Chances are by the time the mutation is noticed it will be wide spread enough in the population that it will be impossible to identify as a single mutation to a specific person sometime in the past, and it will thus look as though it is simply part of the general mix of genes in the population.
I apologise if you took offence at being called a troll earlier, I meant it in the original sense of someone who deliberately posts inflammatory content in the hopes of sparking a debate. (anti-evolution posts certainly qualify on Slashdot)
As for calling you a creationist.... well are you are aren't you, you claim to not believe in evolution, so how do you think we got here?
Score:3 Insightful? when did creationist trolls become insightful?
Nature makes no distinction between your so called macro and micro-evolution. Rather there are to separate processes at work that combine to produce evolution.
1. Survival of the fittest (what you call environmental adaptation) starts with a population with a mixture of genes and states that those best able to reproduce in the current environment will probably make up a larger percentage of the next generation.
2. Genetic crossover during reproduction and random mutation, happens to keep the gene pool mixed and introduces new adaptations. This provides the "raw material" for survival of the fittest to work on.
Large changes are unlikely in nature because 99.999999% of major random changes to an organism will result in something that is less fit than its siblings (a giraffe with gills for instance will either suffocate in the savannah, or be unable to eat if by some miracle it also finds itself in the ocean), small changes however have better chance of being an incremental improvement that will become dominant in a population through natural selection. These small changes WILL compound over time to produce major changes in physiology (for example the way whales have adapted back to living in the oceans (actually for a really good example go read Richard Dawkins description of how eyes have evolved in many different creatures as it strikes down very effectively the old creationist chestnut of "the eye is far to complex to have ever evolved in stages")).
ARRGGHHHHH why did I bother writing all this, I know you are a troll.
It called emperical evidence, and it's not always releiable. The example my logics teacher gave wase:
I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok. I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok. I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok. I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok. I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok. I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok. I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok. I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok. ...
Therefore I'll continue to be ok.
At the risk of sounding ungrateful...
on
Thief of Time
·
· Score: 1
I still enjoy reading Pratchett books enough to buy the hard cover editions when they first come out, but does anyone else think they are getting a tiny bit repetative.
The last two have been a bit better, the new main characters provide a venier of originality but they are still the same old:
Something lifted straight from our world but dangerously different under discworld rules threatens the existence of the universe/disc.
Plucky Hero/Heroine saves the day.
I'm trying to think of a recent example were this was not the case, but you have to go way back into the early books to find one.
wait a minute... (ii) use the Napster browser or service, or attempt to penetrate, modify or manipulate the Napster browser or service or any of the hardware or software thereof in order to: invade the privacy of, obtain the identity of, or obtain any personal information about (including but not limited to IP addresses of) any Napster account holder or user Would this prevent someone from writing a program to trawl Napster collecting username and associating them with particular files? (i.e. aren't Metallica in violation of Napsters Term of use policy? )
Its been a while since I played with Mindstorms (and assuming that is what they used) then there is a shutdown command that is supposed to be sent from the controlling PC. it is possible (again from my feeble analougue memory) for the robot to generate the same signal as well, effectivly shutting down any competition who sees it.
Hmm, you make an excellent point. 1st posters are the slashdot equivilant of mutation. They introduce some totally random garbage that might just be needed to start a great lineage (this thread being prime example numero uno).
So what does a normal reply correspond to? is it asexual reproduction? there is only one parent of this message, everything in it refers to that parent.
However it is not identical to its parent so some change has gone on. Its not mutation, the result is not a random change.
Perhaps a normal reply is actually an example of cross-over, the memes of your message have mingled with the memes of my brain to produce this message.
If getting replies corresponds to reproduction then we already have a genetic slashdot, Poor messages are unlikely to to generate responses, interesting ones are. Moderation only helps reinforce this by hiding poor messages, furthur reducing the chances of reproduction.
Comments like this are unfit and have a low probability of being allowed to reproduce. As more and more highly fit comments come along the selection pressure will eliminate such comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing to remember is that being forced to compete with the BBC ad free channels keeps the number of ads on ITV, channel 4 et al down to a bearable level.
I'll add this here, but it could equally be tacked on to just about every thread on this story.
Next week there will probably be a story about someone trying to get video games banned because they affect the impressionable kids. It would be interesting to go through and correlate how many of the people crying out then that video games never affected them are today posting about how they fantasise about beating up hookers and running others off the road.
Will you make up your mind, first you agree with the grandparent poster that one particular example doesn't prove the general case, and then you make the claim that the SCA example does suggest the general case is zero sum.
Come on man, make up your mind! which side of the fence are you on?
It is worth noting that there is a natural bias towards observing negative mutations, not only are they probably far more common but also they stand out against the background, i.e. when people start dieing, or are born with gills, or no legs then people are going to notice pretty damn quick and start saying "ohhhh, mutation==bad!" however a beneficial mutation (for example a resistance to the common cold) is much more likely to go unnoticed at first, as it is a lot harder to notice or prove that something hasn't happened during a persons lifetime. Chances are by the time the mutation is noticed it will be wide spread enough in the population that it will be impossible to identify as a single mutation to a specific person sometime in the past, and it will thus look as though it is simply part of the general mix of genes in the population.
I apologise if you took offence at being called a troll earlier, I meant it in the original sense of someone who deliberately posts inflammatory content in the hopes of sparking a debate. (anti-evolution posts certainly qualify on Slashdot)
As for calling you a creationist.... well are you are aren't you, you claim to not believe in evolution, so how do you think we got here?
Score:3 Insightful? when did creationist trolls become insightful?
Nature makes no distinction between your so called macro and micro-evolution. Rather there are to separate processes at work that combine to produce evolution.
1. Survival of the fittest (what you call environmental adaptation) starts with a population with a mixture of genes and states that those best able to reproduce in the current environment will probably make up a larger percentage of the next generation.
2. Genetic crossover during reproduction and random mutation, happens to keep the gene pool mixed and introduces new adaptations. This provides the "raw material" for survival of the fittest to work on.
Large changes are unlikely in nature because 99.999999% of major random changes to an organism will result in something that is less fit than its siblings (a giraffe with gills for instance will either suffocate in the savannah, or be unable to eat if by some miracle it also finds itself in the ocean), small changes however have better chance of being an incremental improvement that will become dominant in a population through natural selection. These small changes WILL compound over time to produce major changes in physiology (for example the way whales have adapted back to living in the oceans (actually for a really good example go read Richard Dawkins description of how eyes have evolved in many different creatures as it strikes down very effectively the old creationist chestnut of "the eye is far to complex to have ever evolved in stages")).
ARRGGHHHHH why did I bother writing all this, I know you are a troll.
I remember there being lots of shareware that relied on your good will to send money to the creators.
:)
Perhaps the attitude of the article author that this was all "freeware" is why it has slowly changed to cripple-ware
I know three guys named Andy, Woohoo! I've finally hit the motherlode!
However the two knights that left the grail after drinking from it then lived to be over 200 years old.
Redescovered it as an adult once I started earning enough to afford it. Like all really good toys it is wasted on kids :)
Writing lightening fast engines optimised to a specific console is only one small part of writing a game.
Writing tools that an artist or designer can use to create content for said engine is a big part (and set to get much, much bigger).
Anything that speeds up the process of getting tools into the hands of the creative people is a Good Thing(tm)
Why did he release these so called new "rules" direct to the media instead of having them peer reviewed first? I smell a rat :)
You are correct, but only in the case were you have a network of two computers.
In the real world a company deploying this is likely to have hundreds if not thousands of machines all connected at once.
It called emperical evidence, and it's not always releiable. The example my logics teacher gave wase:
I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok.
I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok.
I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok.
I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok.
I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok.
I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok.
I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok.
I'm in a lift, it is falling but I'm ok.
...
Therefore I'll continue to be ok.
I still enjoy reading Pratchett books enough to buy the hard cover editions when they first come out, but does anyone else think they are getting a tiny bit repetative.
The last two have been a bit better, the new main characters provide a venier of originality but they are still the same old:
Something lifted straight from our world but dangerously different under discworld rules threatens the existence of the universe/disc.
Plucky Hero/Heroine saves the day.
I'm trying to think of a recent example were this was not the case, but you have to go way back into the early books to find one.
Cheers
Tim
wait a minute... (ii) use the Napster browser or service, or attempt to penetrate, modify or manipulate the Napster browser or service or any of the hardware or software thereof in order to: invade the privacy of, obtain the identity of, or obtain any personal information about (including but not limited to IP addresses of) any Napster account holder or user Would this prevent someone from writing a program to trawl Napster collecting username and associating them with particular files? (i.e. aren't Metallica in violation of Napsters Term of use policy? )
Its been a while since I played with Mindstorms (and assuming that is what they used) then there is a shutdown command that is supposed to be sent from the controlling PC. it is possible (again from my feeble analougue memory) for the robot to generate the same signal as well, effectivly shutting down any competition who sees it.
Hmm, you make an excellent point. 1st posters are the slashdot equivilant of mutation. They introduce some totally random garbage that might just be needed to start a great lineage (this thread being prime example numero uno).
So what does a normal reply correspond to? is it asexual reproduction? there is only one parent of this message, everything in it refers to that parent.
However it is not identical to its parent so some change has gone on. Its not mutation, the result is not a random change.
Perhaps a normal reply is actually an example of cross-over, the memes of your message have mingled with the memes of my brain to produce this message.
If getting replies corresponds to reproduction then we already have a genetic slashdot, Poor messages are unlikely to to generate responses, interesting ones are. Moderation only helps reinforce this by hiding poor messages, furthur reducing the chances of reproduction.
Cheers
Tim
Comments like this are unfit and have a low probability of being allowed to reproduce. As more and more highly fit comments come along the selection pressure will eliminate such comments.
(sigh) if only it were true.
Ok how long till we have a genetic slashdot?