I wish I had mod points. Hmmm - haven't had any for months. But you are spot on. The trials with putting modern sale systems on large container ships look most promising.
Today, it almost seems that voice calls are the least-used function of most phones,
No. Voice calls is the most used function, with SMS following behind. The network operators would like whizzy data services to be the most used service, they would like to get away from being voice carriers - but today, no. The 3G networks are mainly used for 'two way real-time streamed audio' - or voice to you and me.
while Wi-Fi and WiMax use ever-growing amounts of network bandwidth.
ever-growing, in this case equating to vanishingly small, but now more than zero.
As I understand it, the problem with comparing plasma and LCD energy ratings is that LCD's power consumption is independent on the image displayed, whereas plasma's consumption varies with the brightness of the image.
Manufacturers such as Panasonic claim that under normal conditions consumption is about the same. I simply don't know. But I suppose plasma's figures could look unfairly bad if consumption figures are calculated while the TVs are displaying a bright standard test pattern or set of colour bars
Sorry no. It's really very simple - Like Gandalf, Faramir has enough insight to know that if he ever picked up the ring, it would corrupt him - no matter how noble he was or how good his intentions were - that's what makes the ring ultimately so dangerous. That is why Faramir is wiser than his brother.
It's really not that hard to understand - or make the audience understand, P.J's explanation is lame.
You got me. I - what I was thinking when I wrote that comment is that LoTR is primarily intended for an adult audience, whereas The Hobbit is a kids' book. My attempt to be succinct rendered me inaccurate.
First off, anything about evolution is controversial.
No. Really, it's not. It;s directly observable - you can see this from the experiment.
Second, it's controversial because if these animals didn't become tree-born, this quick evolution of short legs never would have happened.
.
Nothing controversial about that. If peahens didn't prefer to mate with showy males as a measure of fitness, presumably we wouldn't have peacocks.
A lot of evolutionary theory revolves around evolution not by choice (example of the brown moths becoming dominant over white moths during the industrial revolution when smoke and carbon on trees and buildings hid them). But this almost suggests that the decision to take to the trees is in and of itself a factor in evolution. So it appears that there is evolution by way of behavior in addition to random mutations. I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people consider evolution to be purely random... but this study suggests that behavioral choices influence that.
No. This almost suggests nothing of the kind. The lizards tried to escape by climbing. Those with shorter legs were better climbers and were therefore "fitter" the lizards didn't sit around stroking their chins and devising a cunning new survival strategy.
Maybe you can argue that it was only natural for them to seek safety in the trees
.
Precisely. This was clearly a behaviour used by the ancestral lizards when there were predators.
but I think that this study addresses something we must face. If you believe in evolution, you have to acknowledge that it's not only random genetics but also influenced by the behaviors of the animals granted those random mutations. If the lizards had behaved differently and not gone to the trees, perhaps longer and longer legs would have been developed until they were fast enough to outrun their predators. Or perhaps the species just would have been eradicated on the island.
Uh - yeh, OK. So what's the problem? No controversy there.
Controversial because it implies that species may be able to subconsciously choose which feature is 'evolved' to be the dominant factor.
What? That's just silly. Short legged lizards are better at climbing trees and survived It's as simple as that. Long legged ones could neither climb very well, nor run fast enough to escape. They were shit out of luck.
If you want to apply this to human evolution (as one is naturally only concerned with their own species), then I suggest you read Guns, Germs & Steel by Jared Diamond. What I found interesting is that in some places, humans began a farming lifestyle earlier than other hunter-gatherers. It was this decision by way of discovery that led some civilizations to outpace others. In fact, the choice or 'discovery' of planting seeds and harvesting them periodically eventually led to some regions invading and 'colonizing' other regions.
It's been a long time since I read it, but he makes a persuasive case that farming took off in certain regions because the natural wildlife were well adapted to being used as crops (large grain size etc.)
Can we call this evolution?
Nope. You can call it the predominance of a successful meme, if you want.
Can we say that some evolution hinges on behavioral choices? I think we can, but that's why it's controversial because it has traditionally been thought that the dominant feature was only influenced by the environment--not by a choice made by the animal.
You're seeing controversy where none exists. Really. Behaviour effects evolution and vice versa all the time and it has nothing to do with conscious decision. A classic case. In the UK hedgehog behaviour has changed dramatically over the last 40 years. They no longer curl up in a spikey ball when threatened by cars on roads - they run for it?
Why? Because the ones that curled up didn't have many offspring.
If you read the article, maybe you would wonder why the lizards didn't just keep growing longer legs to outrun the predators.
With all due respect - only if you assiduously avoid thinking. Running away from a predator up a tree is is a strategy that can be implemented by an individual immediately. "Growing longer legs" is something that may happen to a population over many generations if there is both the selection pressure and the existing genetic diversity.
If the experiment had shown that two types of individual had survived: 1. Those with very short legs that could climb 2. Those with very long legs that could run
you might have expected a bifurcation in the species over time, with longer legged specimens getting longer-legged. But in fact, it appears that even the most extremely long-legged individuals in the initial population could run fast enough to escape the predator - so this never happened.
Had they not climbed trees, evolution may have taken a different route and they might have become longer legged animals.
No - they would all have been eaten
The study pushes for the reader to realize that these animals had to evolve one way or another to stay alive--but they made a behavioral choice to live in trees.
No. If the population had had a big enough spread of phenotypes they may have been able to either run away or climbed. In that case evolution may have split the population. As it was, they only had one escape route.
Congratulations, you have succinctly described evolutionary adaptation - a population where some individuals breed more successfully than others due to naturally occurring variety. The mean length of leg of the population decreases and it appears as if the population has adapted to the new circumstances.
Both aspects are needed for evolution to occur: The variation through mutation etc., and the differential selection.
From the article description, I thought this experiment was going to provide evidence for Lamarkism or something. In fact, this seems an interesting, but not too-surprising finding.
Introduce a change to the environment that causes a behavioural change - is it so surprising that some members of the population are better suited to the behaviour than others?
Apropos nothing, it's pretty sad to see such a story headed with the words "Pending your beliefs about evolution" on a site such as Slashdot. Evolution is an observable fact. Evolution through natural selection is a massively successful and well supported theory.
Well, they are experimenting with this system in a very small part of London at the moment (South Kensington) at the moment. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Be aware however, this is much more than reducing traffic signals, it is about removing the street furniture 'clutter' that blights roads. Drivers are overwhelmed by the amount of information and rely on the signs as an alternative to thinking, and this experiment attempts to see what happens if some (not all) markings and signs are removed.
If the iPod's clickwheel could be used by other manufacturers, than everybody and Apple would need to offer -more- and thus, innovate, to make sure they keep their customers and sell their devices
Alternatively: If the iPod's clickwheel could be used by other manufacturers, than Apple wouldn't have bothered with the R&D required to come up with it, since the ROI would have been negative
I hope they are wrong. I simply don't believe that unprompted, the world population will change their oil consumption behaviour sufficiently to avert catastrophic climate change. Running out of oil is the only way that we will be able to avoid a very nasty fate by forcing the pace of innovation in alternative energy sources.
Sorry to be depressing, but I find the prospects very depressing.
You say it is is probably not an example of electronic voter fraud, but in fact you have zero data at this point to make that assertion. It may, or may not have been an example of fraud. Imagine a fraudster who decides to salami-slice n votes from other candidates and add it to his/her preferred candidate. That act is likely to result in something like the reported error.
The jury isn't just out - it hasn't even been assembled yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I wish I had mod points. Hmmm - haven't had any for months. But you are spot on. The trials with putting modern sale systems on large container ships look most promising.
1 .600.html
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg1852488
No. Voice calls is the most used function, with SMS following behind. The network operators would like whizzy data services to be the most used service, they would like to get away from being voice carriers - but today, no. The 3G networks are mainly used for 'two way real-time streamed audio' - or voice to you and me.
ever-growing, in this case equating to vanishingly small, but now more than zero.
As I understand it, the problem with comparing plasma and LCD energy ratings is that LCD's power consumption is independent on the image displayed, whereas plasma's consumption varies with the brightness of the image.
Manufacturers such as Panasonic claim that under normal conditions consumption is about the same. I simply don't know. But I suppose plasma's figures could look unfairly bad if consumption figures are calculated while the TVs are displaying a bright standard test pattern or set of colour bars
Imagine yourself being a Firefox users. What would you think? Aside from "I think I better use something else".
You speak as if 44 is old, you insensitive clod. ... a 42 year old writes.
Sorry no. It's really very simple - Like Gandalf, Faramir has enough insight to know that if he ever picked up the ring, it would corrupt him - no matter how noble he was or how good his intentions were - that's what makes the ring ultimately so dangerous. That is why Faramir is wiser than his brother.
It's really not that hard to understand - or make the audience understand, P.J's explanation is lame.
Uh, no - I was correcting the spelling - this is a pet peeve of mine. The bolding of the 'i' doesn't really show - does it?
You got me. I - what I was thinking when I wrote that comment is that LoTR is primarily intended for an adult audience, whereas The Hobbit is a kids' book. My attempt to be succinct rendered me inaccurate.
No. Evolution is an observable fact. The evolution of hominids is not.
It's ridiculous.
The difference between The Hobbit and LoTR is that the former is primarily a kid's book.
Sorry, did I mention humans or primates in my post?
No. Really, it's not. It;s directly observable - you can see this from the experiment.
.
Nothing controversial about that. If peahens didn't prefer to mate with showy males as a measure of fitness, presumably we wouldn't have peacocks.
No. This almost suggests nothing of the kind. The lizards tried to escape by climbing. Those with shorter legs were better climbers and were therefore "fitter" the lizards didn't sit around stroking their chins and devising a cunning new survival strategy.
.
Precisely. This was clearly a behaviour used by the ancestral lizards when there were predators.
Uh - yeh, OK. So what's the problem? No controversy there.
What? That's just silly. Short legged lizards are better at climbing trees and survived It's as simple as that. Long legged ones could neither climb very well, nor run fast enough to escape. They were shit out of luck.
It's been a long time since I read it, but he makes a persuasive case that farming took off in certain regions because the natural wildlife were well adapted to being used as crops (large grain size etc.)
Nope. You can call it the predominance of a successful meme, if you want.
OK, I may know my evolutionary theory - but I suck at closing tags.
Congratulations, you have succinctly described evolutionary adaptation - a population where some individuals breed more successfully than others due to naturally occurring variety. The mean length of leg of the population decreases and it appears as if the population has adapted to the new circumstances.
Both aspects are needed for evolution to occur: The variation through mutation etc., and the differential selection.
From the article description, I thought this experiment was going to provide evidence for Lamarkism or something. In fact, this seems an interesting, but not too-surprising finding.
Introduce a change to the environment that causes a behavioural change - is it so surprising that some members of the population are better suited to the behaviour than others?
Apropos nothing, it's pretty sad to see such a story headed with the words "Pending your beliefs about evolution" on a site such as Slashdot. Evolution is an observable fact. Evolution through natural selection is a massively successful and well supported theory.
Next week: "How viruses and trojans prove that e-mail will never be used as a business tool".
Well, they are experimenting with this system in a very small part of London at the moment (South Kensington) at the moment. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.
Be aware however, this is much more than reducing traffic signals, it is about removing the street furniture 'clutter' that blights roads. Drivers are overwhelmed by the amount of information and rely on the signs as an alternative to thinking, and this experiment attempts to see what happens if some (not all) markings and signs are removed.
Here's an article on the experiment.
Alternatively: If the iPod's clickwheel could be used by other manufacturers, than Apple wouldn't have bothered with the R&D required to come up with it, since the ROI would have been negative
I predict that this thread will illustrate precisely the issue that the politicians were griping about.
I hope they are wrong. I simply don't believe that unprompted, the world population will change their oil consumption behaviour sufficiently to avert catastrophic climate change. Running out of oil is the only way that we will be able to avoid a very nasty fate by forcing the pace of innovation in alternative energy sources.
Sorry to be depressing, but I find the prospects very depressing.
OK. But as long as you recognise that your statement is based solely on your axiomaticbelief that fraud is unlikely in U.S elections.
At best it is an indication of inaccuracy.
You say it is is probably not an example of electronic voter fraud, but in fact you have zero data at this point to make that assertion. It may, or may not have been an example of fraud. Imagine a fraudster who decides to salami-slice n votes from other candidates and add it to his/her preferred candidate. That act is likely to result in something like the reported error.
The jury isn't just out - it hasn't even been assembled yet.
An interesting response to my rather inflammatory post, thanks. I'll have a think.