For any species to survive, they need to reproduce. According to natural selection, the strongest traits that give the most advantage survive. It is not natural in this sense, that a portion of the gene pool would intentionally commit suicide.
I'm coming in partway through this argument having read only some of the posts, but this line above caught my eye.
Your point here may apply well enough when considering a purely atomistic species, i.e. some lifeform that is entirely non-social. However, once you begin to look at group dynamics, other factors come into play. With humans, for instance, social behaviour is key to how we function. In this perspective, a portion of the gene pool that does not reproduce does not necessarily mean suicide per se, as these individuals would be free to engage in other behaviours aside from direct child rearing with all the costs associated with that, and these free agents may instead increase the survivability of the group as a whole. These genes, although not reproducing themselves directly, would thereby be positively selected for within the group.
So was this malware put together by, on on the orders of, a mobile company itself, seeking to boost revenues? What other reasons would there be for this malware to exist? Does simply searching for terms do something for SEO?
I thought they meant that Hotfile infringed on copyright in stages or something. The hyperbolic meaning didn't even occur to me; and now that it has, I really wish all those MBA marketing types would go fall down a well somewhere.
This is a complaint about how wealth is distributed, not a complaint against progress.
No, I'm serious, and not being snarky -- for many people already in positions of power, "progress" means them getting more [desirable noun]. So while the recent global financial meltdown set many of us back considerably, it has still been deemed as "progress" by the financial elite, at least as I've been reading in the media. For that matter, I've been reading and hearing for over a year now about how the economy is supposedly doing better and better, i.e. "progressing", but I have yet to see my personal situation, or the standings of my friends and relatives, improve in any measurable way. And that's not for lack of working hard...
How can you falsify the idea that some monkeys had sex a few million years ago and gave birth to a human?
Last I knew, the only people claiming this were the folks trying to make the theory of evolution look crazy. I've never read any real science that says anything like what you've written.
I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just really confused.
If you only need Windows for one or two apps, you might give VMware or Parallels a spin -- both work on hosts running Lin/Win/Mac, and with Unity mode in VMware or Coherence mode in Parallels, the integration with the host desktop environment is much smoother. In fact, as I write this in FF in Mac, I've got some of my Windows-only work software each appearing as their own window just under the browser window via Parallels, and iTunes in the background keeping my ears happy. When I'm at my desktop, I use a similar approach, only the host system is Ubuntu and the VM is VMware.
I've been running Windows in a window since around 2001, and haven't booted MS software on the bare metal since. This way I get all the usability and admin goodness of whatever Linux flavor I want, while still getting to use any Windows-only software that work requires of me. And having the ability to take snapshots of the machine is quite nice -- if an install hoses something in the virtual Windows box, I just roll back to the last snapshot. Plus the VMs are portable, since they're basically files, so I can just copy the whole VM over to my laptop when I'm traveling.
If memory serves, that is exactly the limiting feature of Ebola -- it burns through its host so quickly that any given outbreak is self-limiting.
The quick onset of symptoms from the time the disease becomes contagious in an individual makes it easy to identify sick individuals and limits an individual's ability to spread the disease by traveling. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola#Transmission]
Wow, she's now openly peddling her back? My view of American politics was pretty dim, but that's taking things in an interesting direction.
On a more serious grammar-Nazi note, I think you mean pedaling, what you do on a bicycle, rather than peddling, which is small-scale sales like the peddlers of old.
You're clearly too young to have experienced the old ATT or Standard Oil.
You got me on Standard Oil but not on AT&T. And they both eventually fell. No company can maintain control forever, even if some manage for a while.
You must be too young to remember the Roman Empire. They were not regulated away you know...
Um, yes, AT&T and Standard Oil "fell", so to speak -- but they fell precisely because *regulations* were applied to break them up: AT&T's breakup, and Standard Oil's breakup. This history makes your Roman Empire comparison something of a non sequitur, turning the Romans into the oranges to compare with AT&T's and Standard Oil's apples. I like a good fruit salad, but this one was a bit off, I'm afraid.
The average US constituency is massive, at around 700,000 people. This is much larger than originally envisioned when the country was founded, and guarantees that the little guy is drowned out. From Thirty-Thousand.org:
The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned.
Such large constituencies as we see now in the US are also much larger than in other representative democracies. The Isle of Wight is an interesting comparison:
With a single Member of Parliament and 132,731 permanent residents in 2001, it is also the most populous parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom.
While not widely known, the first article of the original twelve proposed for the Bill of Rights laid out the size of congressional constituencies, as an attempt to avoid that the dilution of individual votes seen in the modern US. From the US House of Representatives website:
Article the first
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
James Madison himself talked about how larger constituencies tend to favor those with land and property (i.e., the rich). He was writing about the justification for having larger constituencies and longer terms for the Senate than for the House, but his description of the basic political mechanics is sound. From page 155 of The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates by Ralph Ketcham:
Large districts are manifestly favorable to the election of persons of general respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of property, over competitors depending on the personal solicitations practicable on a contracted theater.
I.e., large districts are more impersonal, favor the rich, and are less representative. This is precisely what we have in the US. I do not expect any real progress until this gross imbalance is corrected -- and frankly I suspect changing my citizenship would be much more productive for me personally.
Have a look here -- search for the phrase "non-addictive" and read the few paragraphs after that. It sounds like heroin was aggressively marketed as non-addictive / non-habit-forming, and as an effective cough suppressant. Whee. Makes Robitussin look wimpy, that's for sure.
(I seem to be wading into choppy waters, but here goes...)
While not literally describing it as "perfect", Friedrich Hayek and other adherents to the Austrian School of economics appear to come close to viewing the market mechanism as the be-all and end-all foundation of workable economies, depending on how much you include in your definition of economic activity.
That said, I'm under the growing impression that the Austrian School authors are often misquoted -- no real surprise there, as anyone who's read Adam Smith will be aware. I also think it's vital to look at the historic context. Hayek and Mises were in large part reacting against the extreme state-run economic ideas of the Soviet Union; in fact, reading brief excerpts from the authors, it's apparent that their use of the term "socialism" very specifically meant the Soviet variety, decidedly not of the kind seen now in most of Western Europe. Hayek himself was a proponent of some of Western European-style socialism, in terms of social safety nets, welfare, and insurance -- quite at odds with what seems to be the general trend in US public policy of late. The money quote:
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [that] the first kind of security [security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all] should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom.... there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured for everybody. Indeed, for a considerable part of the population of England this sort of security has long been achieved.
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamaties nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance -- where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks -- the case of the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... there is no incompatibility in principle between the state's providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state's rendering assistance to the victims of such "acts of God" as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were 15 or less years old, Power Rangers would have first aired before you were born.
There's this thing we have in the 21st Century called reruns...
There's this thing we have in education called reading comprehension...
Sorry, fishexe, that was too good an example of Muphry's Law to pass up. :)
Cheers,
...
Gah, totally off topic, but there's the rabbit hole this thread has lead me down.
Where's the brain bleach...
For any species to survive, they need to reproduce. According to natural selection, the strongest traits that give the most advantage survive. It is not natural in this sense, that a portion of the gene pool would intentionally commit suicide.
I'm coming in partway through this argument having read only some of the posts, but this line above caught my eye.
Your point here may apply well enough when considering a purely atomistic species, i.e. some lifeform that is entirely non-social. However, once you begin to look at group dynamics, other factors come into play. With humans, for instance, social behaviour is key to how we function. In this perspective, a portion of the gene pool that does not reproduce does not necessarily mean suicide per se, as these individuals would be free to engage in other behaviours aside from direct child rearing with all the costs associated with that, and these free agents may instead increase the survivability of the group as a whole. These genes, although not reproducing themselves directly, would thereby be positively selected for within the group.
Cheers,
So was this malware put together by, on on the orders of, a mobile company itself, seeking to boost revenues? What other reasons would there be for this malware to exist? Does simply searching for terms do something for SEO?
Curious,
The proper spelling is, in fact, "court-martialed".
I don't suppose you've ever heard of Muphry's Law?
Cheers,
The supercomputer Hex. Only at the Unseen University. "Anthill Inside"!
I thought they meant that Hotfile infringed on copyright in stages or something. The hyperbolic meaning didn't even occur to me; and now that it has, I really wish all those MBA marketing types would go fall down a well somewhere.
Meh.
This is a complaint about how wealth is distributed, not a complaint against progress.
No, I'm serious, and not being snarky -- for many people already in positions of power, "progress" means them getting more [desirable noun]. So while the recent global financial meltdown set many of us back considerably, it has still been deemed as "progress" by the financial elite, at least as I've been reading in the media. For that matter, I've been reading and hearing for over a year now about how the economy is supposedly doing better and better, i.e. "progressing", but I have yet to see my personal situation, or the standings of my friends and relatives, improve in any measurable way. And that's not for lack of working hard...
Cheers,
The ThinkPad. Now with remote wiping -- Prevent those embarrassing leaks!
Nah, probably not.
... or maybe so?
How can you falsify the idea that some monkeys had sex a few million years ago and gave birth to a human?
Last I knew, the only people claiming this were the folks trying to make the theory of evolution look crazy. I've never read any real science that says anything like what you've written.
I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just really confused.
Why does this all sound so familiar... Maybe because I grew up reading Bloom County, and have fond memories of the series on Penguin Evolution.
The earth isn't round, either. Yep, it's shaped like a burrito!
Cheers,
I'd be content if they know enough to take _all_ the antibiotics the doctor prescribed, since that could actually hurt me, they being morons, not.
English you speak language the is?
ehsrCe,
If you only need Windows for one or two apps, you might give VMware or Parallels a spin -- both work on hosts running Lin/Win/Mac, and with Unity mode in VMware or Coherence mode in Parallels, the integration with the host desktop environment is much smoother. In fact, as I write this in FF in Mac, I've got some of my Windows-only work software each appearing as their own window just under the browser window via Parallels, and iTunes in the background keeping my ears happy. When I'm at my desktop, I use a similar approach, only the host system is Ubuntu and the VM is VMware.
Cheers,
I've been running Windows in a window since around 2001, and haven't booted MS software on the bare metal since. This way I get all the usability and admin goodness of whatever Linux flavor I want, while still getting to use any Windows-only software that work requires of me. And having the ability to take snapshots of the machine is quite nice -- if an install hoses something in the virtual Windows box, I just roll back to the last snapshot. Plus the VMs are portable, since they're basically files, so I can just copy the whole VM over to my laptop when I'm traveling.
Cheers,
Wouldn't that be the iEye ?
Cheers,
Goodbye, Lenin!
Worth watching.
Cheers,
If memory serves, that is exactly the limiting feature of Ebola -- it burns through its host so quickly that any given outbreak is self-limiting.
Her back peddling is also very telling.
Wow, she's now openly peddling her back? My view of American politics was pretty dim, but that's taking things in an interesting direction.
On a more serious grammar-Nazi note, I think you mean pedaling, what you do on a bicycle, rather than peddling, which is small-scale sales like the peddlers of old.
Cheers,
That's certainly a new turn on a familiar development phrase.
Cheers,
You're clearly too young to have experienced the old ATT or Standard Oil.
You got me on Standard Oil but not on AT&T. And they both eventually fell. No company can maintain control forever, even if some manage for a while.
You must be too young to remember the Roman Empire. They were not regulated away you know...
Um, yes, AT&T and Standard Oil "fell", so to speak -- but they fell precisely because *regulations* were applied to break them up: AT&T's breakup, and Standard Oil's breakup. This history makes your Roman Empire comparison something of a non sequitur, turning the Romans into the oranges to compare with AT&T's and Standard Oil's apples. I like a good fruit salad, but this one was a bit off, I'm afraid.
Cheers,
The average US constituency is massive , at around 700,000 people. This is much larger than originally envisioned when the country was founded, and guarantees that the little guy is drowned out. From Thirty-Thousand.org:
The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned.
Such large constituencies as we see now in the US are also much larger than in other representative democracies. The Isle of Wight is an interesting comparison:
With a single Member of Parliament and 132,731 permanent residents in 2001, it is also the most populous parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom.
While not widely known, the first article of the original twelve proposed for the Bill of Rights laid out the size of congressional constituencies, as an attempt to avoid that the dilution of individual votes seen in the modern US. From the US House of Representatives website:
Article the first
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
James Madison himself talked about how larger constituencies tend to favor those with land and property (i.e., the rich). He was writing about the justification for having larger constituencies and longer terms for the Senate than for the House, but his description of the basic political mechanics is sound. From page 155 of The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates by Ralph Ketcham:
Large districts are manifestly favorable to the election of persons of general respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of property, over competitors depending on the personal solicitations practicable on a contracted theater.
I.e., large districts are more impersonal, favor the rich, and are less representative. This is precisely what we have in the US. I do not expect any real progress until this gross imbalance is corrected -- and frankly I suspect changing my citizenship would be much more productive for me personally.
Cheers,
I don't know, some people just don't seem to 'get it' until enough people have been dicks to them.
If "it" here means 'syphilis', you might be onto something.
( ducks )
Cheers,
Have a look here -- search for the phrase "non-addictive" and read the few paragraphs after that. It sounds like heroin was aggressively marketed as non-addictive / non-habit-forming, and as an effective cough suppressant. Whee. Makes Robitussin look wimpy, that's for sure.
Cheers,
Nope! It's shaped like a burrito!
Bonus points for those who get the reference. :)
Cheers,
(I seem to be wading into choppy waters, but here goes...)
While not literally describing it as "perfect", Friedrich Hayek and other adherents to the Austrian School of economics appear to come close to viewing the market mechanism as the be-all and end-all foundation of workable economies, depending on how much you include in your definition of economic activity.
That said, I'm under the growing impression that the Austrian School authors are often misquoted -- no real surprise there, as anyone who's read Adam Smith will be aware. I also think it's vital to look at the historic context. Hayek and Mises were in large part reacting against the extreme state-run economic ideas of the Soviet Union; in fact, reading brief excerpts from the authors, it's apparent that their use of the term "socialism" very specifically meant the Soviet variety, decidedly not of the kind seen now in most of Western Europe. Hayek himself was a proponent of some of Western European-style socialism, in terms of social safety nets, welfare, and insurance -- quite at odds with what seems to be the general trend in US public policy of late. The money quote:
There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [that] the first kind of security [security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all] should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. ... there can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured for everybody. Indeed, for a considerable part of the population of England this sort of security has long been achieved.
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamaties nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance -- where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks -- the case of the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. ... there is no incompatibility in principle between the state's providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom. To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state's rendering assistance to the victims of such "acts of God" as earthquakes and floods. Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken.
From page 148, early in Chapter 9, of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom .
tl;dr version: Public insurance is a good idea, and is no inherent threat to individual liberty.
Cheers,