Oh, that doesn't make any sense! You *have to* learn these things in college. I mean, where would all these mainframe people have come from in the first place if colleges back then hadn't been teaching about mainframes in their CS departments?
The DOS emulator isn't too complicated I guess, but there are all sorts of issues that come first. Where do I get the games? I don't have them anymore. It might not be too hard to find someone selling them, but then I have to figure out how to install them, given that I don't own a floppy drive. After all that, I still have to worry about whether they'll work in the DOS emulator.
I mean, it's a good suggestion, but I'm not sure I'm willing to buy the game and USB 3.5" and 5.25" drives for old games with old graphics and stories I already know on the off-chance that they *might* work. Maybe, but not for the mood I'm in today.
However, if you could give me QfG in a download that would work without hassle on OSX, I'd be willing to pay something for that. If you made a new QfG or KQ with a new story, even with the same crappy graphics (and especially if it still used the CLI) I'm sure I'd want that puppy.
My overall question, anyway, wasn't "How can I spend hours and lots of money trying to play old games?" but "What happened to the adventure genre?" It just doesn't exist anymore. NO ONE is making them. Why not?
Oh, and with all the time/effort spend to newer/cooler graphics, couldn't someone innovate the CLI interface a bit? I'd love for someone to put that style of gaming back into development.
I'm not sure if this is off-topic (since it doesn't necessarily relate to console games) but...
Speaking of Monkey Island, what ever happened to the "adventure" genre? You know, the whole story/puzzle driven walk-over-here, pick-this-up, talk-to-this-guy thing? I'm sure somebody remembers these games, where you had an inventory, and it was neither a FPS or a RPG?
Recently, I've really been wishing I could get a copy of Kings Quest 3 or Quest for Glory 2 that would play on OSX.
From then on I saw my primary responsiblities as being three: 1.) Advise the coders on what decisions made the most sense based on the overall agenda of the project and its team members and come to an understanding of how we planned to move forward; 2.) Go to meetings and speak to that position, gather requirements from the other team members and communicate them back to my staff; and 3.) Keep the guys out of those same meetings as much as humanly possible.
I've thought for some time that the best managers are those who see their jobs backwards from the way most managers see their jobs: they act like they work for the people they manage. They help the employees work well together. They organize and make sure their different employees understand what is going on with the other employees. They evaluate the various obstacles that their employees are facing, and they try to remove those obstacles. They deal with executives and customers so you don't have to.
IMO good manager knows it's not his job to do the job. It's his job to make it easy for his subordinates to do their jobs.
Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that Office 2000 is also 5 years old, that Windows 98 is 7 years old, or that Office 97 has been around for 8 years now. Ok, smart guy, how long has Office 2003 been out?
It was definitely during the install. I don't remember which game, but it was certainly something I've installed/played, and I think something I liked, which pretty much rules out the Sims games. I was pretty sure it was a sierra online game, maybe something in the "Space Quest" series?
Well, it's a little more specific, I think. Viral marketing tends to imply that the "word of mouth advertising" is started by releasing small amounts of obscure or confusing information. It doesn't look like an ad. It looks like a leak or something they don't want you to know about.
So the "word of mouth" when people say, "what the hell is this?" and the mystery/obscurity of the information drives the spread, not the virtues of the product. Viral marketing works on something like reverse psychology. The point is, whatever they're selling is so cool and underground, you shouldn't really know about it, so everyone wants to know about it.
of course, lots of people will think this, employers will begin expecting it, and then you won't be able to make a livable salary by working less than 20 hours a day.
Speaking of disk misuse, I remember these classics (IIRC, supposedly from Sierra's tech-support hotline):
A young man called complaining that his computer wouldn't let him insert any more disks. He was installing a game that had several disks, and after installing everything from disk 1, the install program had prompted him to "insert disk 2". He did so, but without first removing disk 1. After getting three disks 2 and a half disks in, he called tech support.
Someone called claiming that the 3.5" floppy disks didn't work. The caller complained that he had inserted the first floppy disk into the drive and typed "install" just like the directions said, but it kept giving him error messages about how the disk was not found. After talking a bit, the caller admitted that the one part of the process that concerned him was, he thought it was awfully difficult to get the floppy disks out of those hard cases they come in.
A company that specialises in RSS feeds reports that RSS has conquered the last hurdle in becoming the industry syndication standard. The great victory of RSS over Atom consists in RSS being supported by Microsoft (who is also supporting Atom) as well as Google (who is also supporting Atom).
I agree when people say "death toll", the world "toll" seems to be taking a sense closer to "toll bridge" than "funeral toll". However, it is true that "toll" can mean the ringing of bells to signal that someone has died. So toll="death knell".
In fact, both "toll" and "knell" can be defined as something like, "the ringing of bells, especially when marking the time of someone's death." They're pretty synonymous. It's a small mistake, in that they said "death toll" instead of "funeral toll". (At least, I've heard "funeral toll" before, but I'm sure someone will tell me that's wrong too.)
Nitpick: Capitalism is not a type of government, it's an economic system.
That mistake does bother me some. Another nitpick: Really, capitalism is neither a government nor an ideology, it's an economic system.
You can be in favor of capitalism (i.e. a free market with little/no governmental control) and still believe that "money isn't everything," or even that, "money is the root of all evil". You can be a capitalist and be in favor of sharing. You can be against governmental control of the economy and still be in favor of fair dealings. You can be in favor of a free market, and also be in favor of businesses/investors/individuals using those freedoms to make honest, equitable, moral decisions.
I think the question that confronts us is, do you want to allow people the freedom to make bad decisions and hope that they make good ones, or do you want to put your faith in a single body which will make our decisions for us. I've always thought it was a bit of a lose-lose decision anyhow.
Putting aside the arguments over "natural selection", it remains in the gene pool because it works. There are often situations that require someone to push through the bullcrap and make something happen.
I think if you really want to get into this angle of evolution, you can't look at psychopaths alone. It is possible that 1 psychopath in a large pack would increase the chance of survival of the psychopath or perhaps the entire pack, but it may also be that a pack of psychopaths are doomed to die off. So there's a question of ratio, and also a question of role.
For example, perhaps there might be some evolutionary advantage to having a slow deer or two in a herd of deer. You might have one or two animals that fall behind and get eaten by predators, thereby allowing the rest to escape. This role might play itself out in some way that it's better for the herd in the long term to have suck members, and so herds with a certain ratio of slow deer might have an increased chance of survival. Evolution takes over.
It's possible a certain ratio of an assortment of physical and psychological maladies have aided/hindered human survival in ways we don't fully understand. That does not suggest, however, that any one of these maladies recommends the sufferer for a leadership role.
These people get hired because some of their traits are highly useful, but the people doing the hiring doesn't know about the remaining aspects of their personality.
Also, these people get hired because they're flashy and they can make the numbers look good in the short term, but at the expense of long term business interests. In the long term, happy employees, happy customers, and happy suppliers are really good for business, but too many companies are willing to screw everyone for some short-term gain.
It's a simpler and more primitive immune response than the adaptive immune system that is key for mammals, but the advantage is that it's very direct and hence difficult for bacteria etc to evolve resistance to. It's "primitive" nature may be behind its effectiveness.
So if their immune system is more "primitive", is it in some way inferior? The reason I ask is, we usually assume that evolution doesn't add complexity to organisms to make them weaker with absolutely no benefit (which I know is debatable, but I'm talking general trends).
If I were a biologist, I might have a more precise question here, but I'm just curious to know (in a loose way of speaking): Are there grounds for concern that evolution might have gone with our less-primitive approach to immunity for good reason?
Or it could be that he's assuming you don't have "some unused drive" handy. In such a case, even if you are currently running linux, the live cd is still an important step.
Jose Luis Ortiz of Sierra Nevada Observatory asked me to forward his message. Actually he sent it to MPML today but it looks as if he is moderated and so his message is delayed. As this is pretty urgent, to give anyone interested the chance to do science on it, I hope my message gets relayed faster!
---------- Hi there,
We found a very slowly moving object while carrying out a checking of some of our oldest images from the modest TNO survey that we started in 2002.
The object was very bright in our images (m_V~17.6!!) so we were able to precover it, and also recover it. It turned out to be 45.1 million dollars in gold.
Based on the recommendation made to me by a reputable official of the commercial sector of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration who guaranteed me of your reliability and trustworthiness in business dealings, I wish to entrust this large amount with you believing that it will be of our mutual benefit; this has to be highly confidential.it is in our effort to get this money paid into a foreign account, company/ private bank account. To this effect, I am therefore asking for your co-operation to remit this sum of U$D 45.1 million into your private/company^Òs account. We have unanimously resolved to compensate you with 30% (thirty percent) of the total amount involved for your assistance, while I and my associates take 60% (sixty percent) of the total amount which of course will be released to us by you after the transaction is completed and 10% (ten percent) will be mapped out to cover envisaged expenses by both parties in the course of processing the documents for the transaction.
While I expect an immediate confirmation of your interest in addition with your account details as well as fax and telephone numbers which are to be sent to me by fax, I urge of urgency and confidentiality that it deserves and keep this transaction between you and I alone.
The orbital elements are:
OSNT11 Epoch 2005 July 29.0 TT = JDT 2453580.5 M 197.97485 (2000.0) P Q n 0.00345428 Peri. 239.53682 +0.91285785 -0.07597426 a 43.3408541 Node 121.89008 +0.13526717 +0.98332108 e 0.1887862 Incl. 28.19395 -0.38521856 +0.16524998 P 285.33 H 0.2 G 0.15 U 2
--
Jose-Luis Ortiz
Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, CSIC
P.O.Box 3004. 18080 Granada. Spain. ----------
Well, of course no security is unbreakable. The idea is usually:
to prevent people who have no idea what they're doing from being able to break in
to make the break-in appear dangerous enough that a large portion of those who could break in are too afraid to try.
Now, maybe some security measures will make it really hard for even those with quite a lot of expertise, but that's pretty rare. Most locks/alarms rely on fear and a lack of expertise, and that's pretty effective.
Sterile offspring (e.g. horse+donkey -> mule or ass, which are sterile. Same for lion+tiger, although there happens to be a geographical separation here too.
But that is when they're already a different species. It doesn't explain how they get to be different species.
Physical incompatibility. A chihuahua (very small dog) and a doberman (very big dog) can't mate and produce offspring, because they are just the wrong sizes to get it on.
Well, again, that's getting close to the case of "this is why different species can't mate" instead of the question of "how do they get to be different species?". Granted, you can have dogs of the same species which can't mate practically, but the assumption is that the breeds could mix genes through mating... eventually and indirectly. Like, if a doberman mated with the smallest breed it was compatible with and a chihuahua with the largest, perhaps their offspring would be able to mate? Still, being unable to mate with each other is usually grounds for being considered "different species".
So the question I was raising was (and this was really the question the article was claiming this study helped answer), "How is it that a new species can be created in the first place if there is nothing keeping members of the originating species from mating?" The answer seems to be, they choose not to mate. There is a tendency among animals to prefer to mate with genetically similar animals of the same species.
In other words, when a new mutation arises, perhaps the mutant breed is more attracted to mates with the same mutation. I thought this was the implication of the article, that the mutant butterflies preferred to mate with other mutant butterflies, which indicated that they wouldn't need geographic separation to created a new species of butterfly.
Mutations occur, and when they occur in parallel for members of the same species, and those mutations survive into succeeding generations, you achieve speciation. End of story. What am I missing?
That mutations occur within a species without creating a new species? Your explanation only covers that mutations occur and are passed on, which is still insufficient to explain what it means for a new species to be created, or how it is that this occurs.
The separation into species is a strange thing. It's subtle. When do you have a different "breed" or just lots of members of the species that have a unique trait? Given that a new species is only formed when there's a sustained break in cross-breeding, how can a new species evolve when there isn't a geographic separation?
Wow, you must be a really big deal, huh? If people LIKE me are "a dime a dozen"? That's... priceless. I mean, since you know so much about me and all. Does saying things like "people like you are a dime a dozen" really make you feel important?
People who say people like me are a dime a dozen are a dime a dozen.... nope, doesn't do anything for me. Then again, my ego isn't so fragile that it needs to be defined in terms of the worthlessness of strangers.
And 'fraud'? Ooooo, am I supposed to be scared? Oh no, I'm committing 'fraud'. Just wait until the jury hears that I've been working 10 hour days when I've been hired to work 8 hour days, but only 7 of those hours are REALLY productive. Do you think I'll get the chair?
All your talk about contracts is simple-minded and absurd. And irrelevant. For one thing, many of us never signed any contract. Second, you seemed to have missed my not-so-subtle point that employers aren't looking for "work". If I work 24 hour days but get nothing done, my employer isn't going to be happy. I'll still get fired, even though I've fulfilled my side of your "contract" where I give my time and energy.
My employer wants results, and if the results I provide are well worth the money paid, he won't be looking to enter into a contract dispute even if I only work 5 hour days. Contracts usually won't come into play as long as the business relationship is good. Contracts are broken all the time.
And my obligations aren't mine to determine? What, take a job and I'm a slave for as long as my master determines? Sorry, it works both ways. Just the way you're saying, if I don't like my job, I can quit-- well, if an employer doesn't like my work, he can fire me. The employer role holds no special privilege here. He might WISH that I would work harder, and I might WISH that I got better pay and benefits. Either way, a productive relationship relies not just on our continuing to uphold "our obligations", but also that we treat each other decently.
But I'd really rather not go on explaining the obvious to someone who's either unwilling or incapable of understanding it.
No, I pointed out that your situation is in no way, shape or form like that of the gorillas. You have a choice about where you want to be; they don't.
And as I pointed out, you're completely missing the point. But all this pointing is getting tiresome. Ever have the experience of trying to point something out to a dog and they just keep looking at your fingertip?
You seem to think it's a given that screwing around while you're supposed to be working is the same as being "treated humanely". Me, I call that "cheating the company" and "violating your contract". You're there to WORK, and not just whatever portion of the day you feel is appropriate; it isn't up to YOU to make that decision. If you want that sort of power then start your own business instead of ripping your current employer off and trying to justify your actions on Slashdot.
Well, according to your prior logic, it would be a complete response to merely say, "they could fire me," as though that should be an excuse to "rip off my employer" as much as I want up until the point where they do fire me.
Contrary to what you may believe, an employer does not have a priviledged role in the employer/employee exchange. The employer is not more special or important. The employer is not doing the employee a favor by letting him work, nor is the employer being nice when they pay the employee. If anything, it's the opposite: though I take my employer's money, he takes large portions of my life. Which do you think is more valuable? Who should be more grateful?
Just as the employer should expect that his money is going to get results (as opposed to just "time" or "work") from the employee, the employee should have the right to expect that his work will earn him decent treatment (as opposed to just "money") from the employer.
Given that so many employers aren't willing to keep up their end of the bargin (decent treatment), it's no wonder that employees won't keep up their end (productivity/results). The end result is general inefficiency (in all facits of the workplace, including interpersonal relationships).
So of course it's up to me to make the decision of how much work is appropriate for me to do that day. Just as I don't have the right to demand whatever pay I wish for the day, they can't demand whatever time they want. It's a bit of a stand-off which either side may threaten to quit the relationship. Employers should recognize, however, that they are employing PEOPLE and not machines, and people, very much like gorillas, need healthy social interaction and pleasant environments in order to be their best.
I think most [reasonable] people wouldn't have much of a problem with what you were doing, but unfortunately a few bad apples can spoil the batch.
There are loads of good uses for cookies. Like pop-up windows, they were originally meant to be helpful to users and later used for other purposes. Often, technology is morally neutral, available for both bad and good uses.
However, as a user, it's just too much effort to sort through which sites are using cookies in an intrusive manner and which sites are using cookies to help me. Like pop-up windows and flash ads, I have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Block them all, let god sort'um out.
I don't think that is really a response to "why shouldn't you be given the same courtesy?" It's as if I had said, "Why shouldn't you expect to be treated with a base minimum of respect?" and you replied that I could be a hermit. Sure, I guess it gets around the problem of people being disrespectful, but it doesn't address the real issue in the least.
So why shouldn't we, as people, expect to be treated humanely? Saying that I can quit doesn't answer the question.
People need that time during the day to decompress, and maybe even have their subconscious work on a problem for awhile after they have been intensely focused on it.
Yeah, this idea that people used to show up at the office, get straight to work, and work for 8 hours straight-- it's a myth. That never happens. It's not even clear that it would be "good for business" if it did happen, because people would probably go crazy.
It'd be one thing if we all worked 5 hours a day. People might be able to show up, work 5 hours straight, and go home. But 8-12? (I've never worked a job where I got away with working only 8 hours)
By the time you've spent 8 hours at work, that's pretty much your day. You really wake up at work, that's where you do your socializing, that's where you learn what you're going to learn for the day. At 10 hours a day, your work day is your day. Your work is your life. At that point, it's inhumane to expect people to not-have-fun and not-goof-off. Think about it: when we capture gorillas and put them in a zoo, we insist that they're provided with the company of other gorillas. We give them toys. We try to make their habitat as "natural" as possible. In the zoo exhibit that is your cubical, why shouldn't you be given the same courtesy?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that doesn't make any sense! You *have to* learn these things in college. I mean, where would all these mainframe people have come from in the first place if colleges back then hadn't been teaching about mainframes in their CS departments?
I mean, it's a good suggestion, but I'm not sure I'm willing to buy the game and USB 3.5" and 5.25" drives for old games with old graphics and stories I already know on the off-chance that they *might* work. Maybe, but not for the mood I'm in today.
However, if you could give me QfG in a download that would work without hassle on OSX, I'd be willing to pay something for that. If you made a new QfG or KQ with a new story, even with the same crappy graphics (and especially if it still used the CLI) I'm sure I'd want that puppy.
My overall question, anyway, wasn't "How can I spend hours and lots of money trying to play old games?" but "What happened to the adventure genre?" It just doesn't exist anymore. NO ONE is making them. Why not?
Oh, and with all the time/effort spend to newer/cooler graphics, couldn't someone innovate the CLI interface a bit? I'd love for someone to put that style of gaming back into development.
Speaking of Monkey Island, what ever happened to the "adventure" genre? You know, the whole story/puzzle driven walk-over-here, pick-this-up, talk-to-this-guy thing? I'm sure somebody remembers these games, where you had an inventory, and it was neither a FPS or a RPG?
Recently, I've really been wishing I could get a copy of Kings Quest 3 or Quest for Glory 2 that would play on OSX.
I've thought for some time that the best managers are those who see their jobs backwards from the way most managers see their jobs: they act like they work for the people they manage. They help the employees work well together. They organize and make sure their different employees understand what is going on with the other employees. They evaluate the various obstacles that their employees are facing, and they try to remove those obstacles. They deal with executives and customers so you don't have to.
IMO good manager knows it's not his job to do the job. It's his job to make it easy for his subordinates to do their jobs.
Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that Office 2000 is also 5 years old, that Windows 98 is 7 years old, or that Office 97 has been around for 8 years now. Ok, smart guy, how long has Office 2003 been out?
It was definitely during the install. I don't remember which game, but it was certainly something I've installed/played, and I think something I liked, which pretty much rules out the Sims games. I was pretty sure it was a sierra online game, maybe something in the "Space Quest" series?
So the "word of mouth" when people say, "what the hell is this?" and the mystery/obscurity of the information drives the spread, not the virtues of the product. Viral marketing works on something like reverse psychology. The point is, whatever they're selling is so cool and underground, you shouldn't really know about it, so everyone wants to know about it.
of course, lots of people will think this, employers will begin expecting it, and then you won't be able to make a livable salary by working less than 20 hours a day.
In fact, both "toll" and "knell" can be defined as something like, "the ringing of bells, especially when marking the time of someone's death." They're pretty synonymous. It's a small mistake, in that they said "death toll" instead of "funeral toll". (At least, I've heard "funeral toll" before, but I'm sure someone will tell me that's wrong too.)
That mistake does bother me some. Another nitpick: Really, capitalism is neither a government nor an ideology, it's an economic system.
You can be in favor of capitalism (i.e. a free market with little/no governmental control) and still believe that "money isn't everything," or even that, "money is the root of all evil". You can be a capitalist and be in favor of sharing. You can be against governmental control of the economy and still be in favor of fair dealings. You can be in favor of a free market, and also be in favor of businesses/investors/individuals using those freedoms to make honest, equitable, moral decisions.
I think the question that confronts us is, do you want to allow people the freedom to make bad decisions and hope that they make good ones, or do you want to put your faith in a single body which will make our decisions for us. I've always thought it was a bit of a lose-lose decision anyhow.
I think if you really want to get into this angle of evolution, you can't look at psychopaths alone. It is possible that 1 psychopath in a large pack would increase the chance of survival of the psychopath or perhaps the entire pack, but it may also be that a pack of psychopaths are doomed to die off. So there's a question of ratio, and also a question of role.
For example, perhaps there might be some evolutionary advantage to having a slow deer or two in a herd of deer. You might have one or two animals that fall behind and get eaten by predators, thereby allowing the rest to escape. This role might play itself out in some way that it's better for the herd in the long term to have suck members, and so herds with a certain ratio of slow deer might have an increased chance of survival. Evolution takes over.
It's possible a certain ratio of an assortment of physical and psychological maladies have aided/hindered human survival in ways we don't fully understand. That does not suggest, however, that any one of these maladies recommends the sufferer for a leadership role.
Also, these people get hired because they're flashy and they can make the numbers look good in the short term, but at the expense of long term business interests. In the long term, happy employees, happy customers, and happy suppliers are really good for business, but too many companies are willing to screw everyone for some short-term gain.
So if their immune system is more "primitive", is it in some way inferior? The reason I ask is, we usually assume that evolution doesn't add complexity to organisms to make them weaker with absolutely no benefit (which I know is debatable, but I'm talking general trends).
If I were a biologist, I might have a more precise question here, but I'm just curious to know (in a loose way of speaking): Are there grounds for concern that evolution might have gone with our less-primitive approach to immunity for good reason?
Or it could be that he's assuming you don't have "some unused drive" handy. In such a case, even if you are currently running linux, the live cd is still an important step.
Hello MPML,
Jose Luis Ortiz of Sierra Nevada Observatory asked me to forward his message. Actually he sent it to MPML today but it looks as if he is moderated and so his message is delayed. As this is pretty urgent, to give anyone interested the chance to do science on it, I hope my message gets relayed faster!
----------
Hi there,
We found a very slowly moving object while carrying out a checking of some of our oldest images from the modest TNO survey that we started in 2002.
http://www.iaa.es/~ortiz/OSNTWeb/index.htm
The object was very bright in our images (m_V~17.6!!) so we were able to precover it, and also recover it. It turned out to be 45.1 million dollars in gold.
Based on the recommendation made to me by a reputable official of the commercial sector of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration who guaranteed me of your reliability and trustworthiness in business dealings, I wish to entrust this large amount with you believing that it will be of our mutual benefit; this has to be highly confidential.it is in our effort to get this money paid into a foreign account, company/ private bank account. To this effect, I am therefore asking for your co-operation to remit this sum of U$D 45.1 million into your private/company^Òs account. We have unanimously resolved to compensate you with 30% (thirty percent) of the total amount involved for your assistance, while I and my associates take 60% (sixty percent) of the total amount which of course will be released to us by you after the transaction is completed and 10% (ten percent) will be mapped out to cover envisaged expenses by both parties in the course of processing the documents for the transaction.
While I expect an immediate confirmation of your interest in addition with your account details as well as fax and telephone numbers which are to be sent to me by fax, I urge of urgency and confidentiality that it deserves and keep this transaction between you and I alone.
The orbital elements are:
OSNT11 Epoch 2005 July 29.0 TT = JDT 2453580.5
M 197.97485 (2000.0) P Q
n 0.00345428 Peri. 239.53682 +0.91285785 -0.07597426
a 43.3408541 Node 121.89008 +0.13526717 +0.98332108
e 0.1887862 Incl. 28.19395 -0.38521856 +0.16524998
P 285.33 H 0.2 G 0.15 U 2
--
Jose-Luis Ortiz
Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, CSIC
P.O.Box 3004. 18080 Granada. Spain.
----------
Regards,
Jaime Nomen
620 OAM
- to prevent people who have no idea what they're doing from being able to break in
- to make the break-in appear dangerous enough that a large portion of those who could break in are too afraid to try.
Now, maybe some security measures will make it really hard for even those with quite a lot of expertise, but that's pretty rare. Most locks/alarms rely on fear and a lack of expertise, and that's pretty effective.Sterile offspring (e.g. horse+donkey -> mule or ass, which are sterile. Same for lion+tiger, although there happens to be a geographical separation here too. But that is when they're already a different species. It doesn't explain how they get to be different species.
Physical incompatibility. A chihuahua (very small dog) and a doberman (very big dog) can't mate and produce offspring, because they are just the wrong sizes to get it on. Well, again, that's getting close to the case of "this is why different species can't mate" instead of the question of "how do they get to be different species?". Granted, you can have dogs of the same species which can't mate practically, but the assumption is that the breeds could mix genes through mating... eventually and indirectly. Like, if a doberman mated with the smallest breed it was compatible with and a chihuahua with the largest, perhaps their offspring would be able to mate? Still, being unable to mate with each other is usually grounds for being considered "different species".
So the question I was raising was (and this was really the question the article was claiming this study helped answer), "How is it that a new species can be created in the first place if there is nothing keeping members of the originating species from mating?" The answer seems to be, they choose not to mate. There is a tendency among animals to prefer to mate with genetically similar animals of the same species.
In other words, when a new mutation arises, perhaps the mutant breed is more attracted to mates with the same mutation. I thought this was the implication of the article, that the mutant butterflies preferred to mate with other mutant butterflies, which indicated that they wouldn't need geographic separation to created a new species of butterfly.
Maybe I read it wrong though.
That mutations occur within a species without creating a new species? Your explanation only covers that mutations occur and are passed on, which is still insufficient to explain what it means for a new species to be created, or how it is that this occurs.
The separation into species is a strange thing. It's subtle. When do you have a different "breed" or just lots of members of the species that have a unique trait? Given that a new species is only formed when there's a sustained break in cross-breeding, how can a new species evolve when there isn't a geographic separation?
People who say people like me are a dime a dozen are a dime a dozen.... nope, doesn't do anything for me. Then again, my ego isn't so fragile that it needs to be defined in terms of the worthlessness of strangers.
And 'fraud'? Ooooo, am I supposed to be scared? Oh no, I'm committing 'fraud'. Just wait until the jury hears that I've been working 10 hour days when I've been hired to work 8 hour days, but only 7 of those hours are REALLY productive. Do you think I'll get the chair?
All your talk about contracts is simple-minded and absurd. And irrelevant. For one thing, many of us never signed any contract. Second, you seemed to have missed my not-so-subtle point that employers aren't looking for "work". If I work 24 hour days but get nothing done, my employer isn't going to be happy. I'll still get fired, even though I've fulfilled my side of your "contract" where I give my time and energy.
My employer wants results, and if the results I provide are well worth the money paid, he won't be looking to enter into a contract dispute even if I only work 5 hour days. Contracts usually won't come into play as long as the business relationship is good. Contracts are broken all the time.
And my obligations aren't mine to determine? What, take a job and I'm a slave for as long as my master determines? Sorry, it works both ways. Just the way you're saying, if I don't like my job, I can quit-- well, if an employer doesn't like my work, he can fire me. The employer role holds no special privilege here. He might WISH that I would work harder, and I might WISH that I got better pay and benefits. Either way, a productive relationship relies not just on our continuing to uphold "our obligations", but also that we treat each other decently.
But I'd really rather not go on explaining the obvious to someone who's either unwilling or incapable of understanding it.
And as I pointed out, you're completely missing the point. But all this pointing is getting tiresome. Ever have the experience of trying to point something out to a dog and they just keep looking at your fingertip?
You seem to think it's a given that screwing around while you're supposed to be working is the same as being "treated humanely". Me, I call that "cheating the company" and "violating your contract". You're there to WORK, and not just whatever portion of the day you feel is appropriate; it isn't up to YOU to make that decision. If you want that sort of power then start your own business instead of ripping your current employer off and trying to justify your actions on Slashdot.
Well, according to your prior logic, it would be a complete response to merely say, "they could fire me," as though that should be an excuse to "rip off my employer" as much as I want up until the point where they do fire me.
Contrary to what you may believe, an employer does not have a priviledged role in the employer/employee exchange. The employer is not more special or important. The employer is not doing the employee a favor by letting him work, nor is the employer being nice when they pay the employee. If anything, it's the opposite: though I take my employer's money, he takes large portions of my life. Which do you think is more valuable? Who should be more grateful?
Just as the employer should expect that his money is going to get results (as opposed to just "time" or "work") from the employee, the employee should have the right to expect that his work will earn him decent treatment (as opposed to just "money") from the employer.
Given that so many employers aren't willing to keep up their end of the bargin (decent treatment), it's no wonder that employees won't keep up their end (productivity/results). The end result is general inefficiency (in all facits of the workplace, including interpersonal relationships).
So of course it's up to me to make the decision of how much work is appropriate for me to do that day. Just as I don't have the right to demand whatever pay I wish for the day, they can't demand whatever time they want. It's a bit of a stand-off which either side may threaten to quit the relationship. Employers should recognize, however, that they are employing PEOPLE and not machines, and people, very much like gorillas, need healthy social interaction and pleasant environments in order to be their best.
There are loads of good uses for cookies. Like pop-up windows, they were originally meant to be helpful to users and later used for other purposes. Often, technology is morally neutral, available for both bad and good uses.
However, as a user, it's just too much effort to sort through which sites are using cookies in an intrusive manner and which sites are using cookies to help me. Like pop-up windows and flash ads, I have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Block them all, let god sort'um out.
So why shouldn't we, as people, expect to be treated humanely? Saying that I can quit doesn't answer the question.
Yeah, this idea that people used to show up at the office, get straight to work, and work for 8 hours straight-- it's a myth. That never happens. It's not even clear that it would be "good for business" if it did happen, because people would probably go crazy.
It'd be one thing if we all worked 5 hours a day. People might be able to show up, work 5 hours straight, and go home. But 8-12? (I've never worked a job where I got away with working only 8 hours)
By the time you've spent 8 hours at work, that's pretty much your day. You really wake up at work, that's where you do your socializing, that's where you learn what you're going to learn for the day. At 10 hours a day, your work day is your day. Your work is your life. At that point, it's inhumane to expect people to not-have-fun and not-goof-off. Think about it: when we capture gorillas and put them in a zoo, we insist that they're provided with the company of other gorillas. We give them toys. We try to make their habitat as "natural" as possible. In the zoo exhibit that is your cubical, why shouldn't you be given the same courtesy?