no offence taken, and I acknowledge I was leaning toward the common usage of the term theory--which no doubt undermines it somewhat. But that wasn't really the meat of my post anyway. The point was the article describes natural selection--variance within a species. This is not evolution, nor is it proof of it. I realize it is a step leading to eventual inter-species (macro) evolution according to the theory. My problem is the misleading title or the article, had it been "Study detects recent instance of human inter-species variation", I would have had nothing to say.
I agree with what some here have said in that this is natural selection and not evolution. Natural selection leads to evolution according to the theory. (I stress the word THEORY) The existance of natural selection alone does not prove the theory.
Furthermore, for this to truly be considered "evolution" then a lactose intolerant individual would no longer be able to mate with a tolerant one as the two would be a different species.
Websites should do more about this. At least post an encryption key on their contact page for those of us who know what to do with it--maybe even go so far as to advise it's use. I bought something on thinkgeek recently and I was pleased to see them doing this. Also, writers of communications s/w (IM etc.) should have privacy built in.. I know they do already, but it should be more transparent and have a better configuration interface (drag and drop keys etc)
As for public apathy, this will change. I just got a letter from the alumni assoc. of my university telling me their system was hacked and my information got jacked. Eventually, this will happen to everyone and they'll be wondering what to do.
As I'm sure we all know, public awareness of technology always starts with nerds doing it first.
1100 of 1124 comments? This has sure stirred up a Hornet's Nest!!
I recall a circle from economics class. In this circle, employment income flowed from firms to employees in one direction and from consumers to firms in the other. Employees of course are also consumers--they are the same. The circle modeled a CLOSED economy where the wealth went round and round and everyone was happy.
I'm up here in Canada (as my name suggests) where we are also stealing American IT jobs to a degree. Or so I hear since I myself haven't been able to find one!;) But as far as I'm concerned, it's all good because we allow American products on our shelves--so money can (and does) flow back (recall the circle model). That's free trade. More trade is only good assuming both parties play fair. Otherwise it might indeed be prudent for the man to step in--"Sorry, you guys can't send jobs to country X until they agree to buy our shit". is about what it amoutns to. "That way we get some of this cash back and are not bled like a slaughtered calf." This is not "protectionist policy"... it's just protection against being hosed.
PS: It may also be true that if the middle class saved/invested more, we might offset our income loss with gains in wealth since our firms are doing so well with cost cutting?
"...the genius of American enterprise is its leaders' knack for envisioning the next big thing -- and workers' ability to redefine job roles and retrain. Americans pioneering developments in nanotechnology and biotech will have far more job security than simple programmers..."
True. In the past the ability for anyone to teach themselves and go on to create their own, garage based, shoestring budget start up has captured that spirit. But nanotech and biotech aren't quite as available as common electronic parts now are they? (even in the 70s)--nor should they be!! So for the theory that we'll just keep up by adapting and retraining will only hold if our schools keep up... oh man, were SCREWED !!!
Slashdot Mirror
no offence taken, and I acknowledge I was leaning toward the common usage of the term theory--which no doubt undermines it somewhat. But that wasn't really the meat of my post anyway. The point was the article describes natural selection--variance within a species. This is not evolution, nor is it proof of it. I realize it is a step leading to eventual inter-species (macro) evolution according to the theory. My problem is the misleading title or the article, had it been "Study detects recent instance of human inter-species variation", I would have had nothing to say.
I agree with what some here have said in that this is natural selection and not evolution. Natural selection leads to evolution according to the theory. (I stress the word THEORY) The existance of natural selection alone does not prove the theory. Furthermore, for this to truly be considered "evolution" then a lactose intolerant individual would no longer be able to mate with a tolerant one as the two would be a different species.
Websites should do more about this. At least post an encryption key on their contact page for those of us who know what to do with it--maybe even go so far as to advise it's use. I bought something on thinkgeek recently and I was pleased to see them doing this. Also, writers of communications s/w (IM etc.) should have privacy built in.. I know they do already, but it should be more transparent and have a better configuration interface (drag and drop keys etc)
As for public apathy, this will change. I just got a letter from the alumni assoc. of my university telling me their system was hacked and my information got jacked. Eventually, this will happen to everyone and they'll be wondering what to do.
As I'm sure we all know, public awareness of technology always starts with nerds doing it first.
SIB
1100 of 1124 comments? This has sure stirred up a Hornet's Nest!!
;) But as far as I'm concerned, it's all good because we allow American products on our shelves--so money can (and does) flow back (recall the circle model). That's free trade. More trade is only good assuming both parties play fair. Otherwise it might indeed be prudent for the man to step in--"Sorry, you guys can't send jobs to country X until they agree to buy our shit". is about what it amoutns to. "That way we get some of this cash back and are not bled like a slaughtered calf." This is not "protectionist policy"... it's just protection against being hosed.
I recall a circle from economics class. In this circle, employment income flowed from firms to employees in one direction and from consumers to firms in the other. Employees of course are also consumers--they are the same. The circle modeled a CLOSED economy where the wealth went round and round and everyone was happy.
I'm up here in Canada (as my name suggests) where we are also stealing American IT jobs to a degree. Or so I hear since I myself haven't been able to find one!
PS: It may also be true that if the middle class saved/invested more, we might offset our income loss with gains in wealth since our firms are doing so well with cost cutting?
Any other econ. bufs out there? Whaddya think?
"...the genius of American enterprise is its leaders' knack for envisioning the next big thing -- and workers' ability to redefine job roles and retrain. Americans pioneering developments in nanotechnology and biotech will have far more job security than simple programmers..." True. In the past the ability for anyone to teach themselves and go on to create their own, garage based, shoestring budget start up has captured that spirit. But nanotech and biotech aren't quite as available as common electronic parts now are they? (even in the 70s)--nor should they be!! So for the theory that we'll just keep up by adapting and retraining will only hold if our schools keep up... oh man, were SCREWED !!!