How in the world do you get this? I mean seriously. I much prefer GDB and it's variouse front ends to Visual Studio. And Valgrind does a pretty good job of helping find memory leaks and such. If it's just preference or working style I could see it maybe. But that just shows that the parent was right in his assessment. Don't confuse personal preference and working style with functionality. GDB and the other OSS debugging tools give you a lot of information.
Sure, Hech even I'm still occasionally tempted to punch ben ladin.
But I've never purchased anything from the resulting site. Even if middle men advertising companies think all that matters is click through, their clients want purchases. The real driving force for the decline of pop-up/pup-unders was money. You get more purchases from Google Adsense than from indiscriminate annoying ads. You should always follow the money. That's how a free market works. And the internet is the closest thing to a pure free market going out there right now.
Simple. Put the responsibility back on the parents. Parents don't feel or take any responsibility for their childrens education because they leave it up to a public school to handle that for them. The ones who do feel or take responsibility tend to put their children in private school, pay private tutors or tutoring companies, or home school their kids. The Public School approach just doesn't foster parental responsibility because they take decision making out of the parents hands. Change that and you will have motivating parents. And motivating parents make motivating communities.
Depending on the quality and delivery mechanism I might be persuaded to pay out 6 dollars per movie. There are a number of caveats in that though. I'd have to be able to watch the movie anywhere I wanted anyway, I wanted. It would have to have a fast delivery mechanism, and It would have to be a new release. Older releases I wouldn't pay that much for. For your standard movie that's not a new release I'd pay about 4 dollars for maybe 5. The cost of distribution if they do it right(ie bittorrent or similar) will be minimal so that shouldn't enter into it. And the demand will be high so I can't see them having a volume problem. I don't believe that 8 dollars a movie is an accurate reflection of their costs vs market demand to pay. They need to keep in mind that they are competing with the illegal download market. It's not a market vacuum.
I very seriously doubt that the average person who buys a desktop at best buy already has a wireless card to plug into it. And if they do want one they will look for one at best buy where you can steer them to the appropriate model. Again. If a retailer decides to take this step then they are more than capable of preparing for it. So no, your still wrong.
I'm not a DNS expert but I don't think that would technically be possible. Nothing says that the country in question can't roll back to a previouse version of the database and just not sync up to offending root servers. Heck I can cache DNS results on my own personal server if I wanted. In fact the only thing keeping those Root Servers as TOP Dog is the voluntary agreement by all the ISP providers and Backbone providers to do so. Those Same Providers could if they wished cut the root server out of the deal totally and come up with something else. Which they would if global market pressures required it. That's the thing about free markets. Someone always finds a way.
True, So just imagine the side benefits of a project like this. It could conceivable advance materials and engineering sciences just by existing. If for no other reason than getting a chemist to think about what kind of materials would last for that time span. We may see some advances as a result that we might otherwise have had to wait for.
Hate to rain on your parade but your just way off base with that. It is not at all impossible to support at the desktop. If you can customize it to the point that tech support can't fix it then you don't need the kind of tech support you call in for.
The kind of user who buys linux on the desktop at a bestbuy isn't going to be installing a custom kernel or modifying their X-Windows config file. So yes you can support it. That's like saying if Mom and Pop buy a preinstalled linux computer then they will be instantly smart enough to find all the ways to mess it up thoroughly. I don't think so.
In other words let all that meta-data sitting in your database give context to the data you display. That is what a good UI design should do. I'll echo this request.
ummm.... actually no. most of those enterprise CMS's now use CSS to manage how the content looks. The CSS may be generated and managed by the CMS and stored in a database but it is still CSS and thus subject to all the wonderful things you can do with it. Wordpress, Typo3, movable type, and many other CMS applications all use CSS to style their content. And HTML/XML to structure it. So your rant just shows you really don't know what your talking about. Large operations don't approximate the functionality of XML/CSS internally they use the functionality of XML/CSS internally.
As someone who develops custom CMS solutions on a regular basis for customers I can tell you I'd much rather use the prebuilt functionality of XML/CSS in my app than to have to use old style table based layouts.
a pair of eyes will tell you exactly where it is stored. as will the applications documentation or a google search. As for the format. Like any text based config file format one second in a text editor will tell you everything you need to know. Not so with the registry.
As well there may be traits in the new pool that didn't happen to also occur in the bigger one. By yoru logic isolation has now suddenly spawned these?
I would dispute that this would be possible. If the traits are present in the isolated population then they had to be present in the larger population. With the very rare exception of mutation.
Anyway I think we have pretty much exhausted this discussion. It was a pleasure discussing the subject with you. I'd be happy to continue but I have a feeling we would just start repeating ourselves after this.
I see your misunderstanding my use of the term lose. I totally agree. But my point still stands. The loss that occurs when the seperation occured is a driving force of speciation.
Isolation did not diminish the pool of traits. the fact that it was a seperate pool means it both didn't have traits other pools did, and had traits other pools didn't. Your idea that isolation intrisically reduces the number of traits is ridiculous.
You have just made my point. if two pools have traits that the other doesn't have and those pools came from a larger pool that had those same traits. Then the isolation has removed those traits from those populations. Your logic doesn't follow. The traits were accessible before isolation and now after isolation they aren't. Ergo the population lost traits.
It does indeed diminish traits compared to the population the subpopulation was taken from. the reason recessive traits surface more often is because dominant traits are less frequent and in some cases not present. This is by definition a loss of traits for the population as a whole.
The following article might be illuminating. Pay close attention to the use of the term heterozygosity which is a reference to the measurement of the presence of different alleles of a gene at one or more loci. A decrease of heterozygosity in a poplutation is a decrease in genetic traits available to that population. In other words genetic "traits" are lost.
You haven't read many scientific papers have you? Gaining features is rare, losing them also equally rare.
I could say the same to you. How exactly do you support the statement that losing features is rare? Compared to gaining its anything but rare. Anytime a sub-population is isolated traits are lost. It's goes hand in hand. That is why inbreeding poses such a danger. It's hardly a rarity. More a law of nature and genetics. Seperation from the larger genetic pool by necessity causes a loss of traits. Some of those losses aren't immediately visible morphologically but it's still there.
The difference is not one of scale or complexity but of mechanism. You point to mutation as the method for the introduction new traits. However there is no evidence that such events have occured on the scale necessary for evolution to occur. Speciation through the loss of traits is however both observed and documented. Saying, well we know it's theoretically possible and therefore it must have happened that way is not proof. I happen to think that it happened in reverse. We started out more complex and lost traits as time went on resulting in speciation. And there are reputable scientists who agree. It's like you have this blind spot to an entire area of research just because you "assume" that evolution through mutation and specialization is the way it must have occured. Your world view won't allow for any other options. Science may start out with an assumption but ignoring other options isn't a valid way to conduct research.
Actually if I may make a clarification. (thanks for the link to the article by the way it was very interesting reading)
As I term it the macro/micro evolution seperation is not one of scale but of mechanism. With the exception possibly of the cases of polyploidization listed in the article (I would have to look into those more closely) The speiciation events described are caused through a "specialization" to the point that interspecies breeding becomes impossible. No one is disputing that such events occur. Specialization however often occurs through the shedding of characteristics not the gaining of new ones. To completely make the case of course you would have to have a complete understanding of the organism's genetic code and determine whether (for lack of a better term) more information was added, or whether information was shed through lack of use. I believe in most cases of documented speciation it is caused by each population losing traits the other carries. Given enough time these losses can result in a biological incompatibility on the genetic level causing insterility in the offspring. This to me is micro evolution. It is in essence a loss of genetic information. Much like what causes problems when inbreeding occures.
For instance if you take a small enough population and isolate it you will have a non viable population that is for a while at least markedly different from the population you took them from. The reason is because they have lost access to too much of the genetic code necessary to maintain viability. Intbreeding occurs eventually and you have "mutations" most of which are fatal. These changes in morphology are not caused by new genes however. They are caused by a lack of genes.
Only on the single cell level do you see any real evidence of the addition of useful genetic information and I'm not sure it can apply beyond that level. Especially since the barriers between interbreeding of various types of microbes are so low. Going so far in many cases as to allow them to share and trade genes back and forth. That type of thing has not been demonstrated possible in more complex systems. For anything at the muticell level the trend is heavily weighted toward losing genes rather than gaining them. A trend that seems to contradict the idea of speciation causing the type of massive change Evolution proponents require.
Unless you start out, not with less complex but more complex creatures to speciate from. If, for instance, the proto-dog was more complex than current dog breeds speciation through microevolution would possible without going against the observable trend. Of course just like evolution needs it's missing link. I need my proto-dog. So we are back where we started. Believing what we think is true with logical models that can explain how it is possible.
What else would you discuss? Well the philosophy, legal, ethical, and practical business applications are indeed some of the things to discuss. But OSS is a Development Model of sorts also. I would cover managing an OSS Project effectively and how to effectively participate in an OSS project. People think it's only a philosophy but it's also a methodology in some ways.
Distributed collaborative development, maintaining a projects vision in a completely open system, patch management. All of these are issues that while not unique to OSS are handled differently in OSS.
Another poster above us said how to beg for money (kind of tongue in cheek) but I would suggest possibly covering the various ways to get corporate sponsorship and the ramifications of that. And covering ways to make money in OSS. Possibly that would help to clear the fog for a lot of people and not just coders either. I agree with the parent post. It's not necessarrily just a coding class. In fact I think you could have a couple. One for IT Managers in training and one for programmers.
actually no. Macro evoltuion/micro evolution are not concepts in evolutionary theory. They are ideas introduced by the ID/creationist camp after they could not directly assault evolution. It is a rhetorical trick. Split the definitioninto and disprove one side of yoru split. Outside of the US macro/micro evolution are almost unheard of. There is no differences, macro vs micro are entirely a american construct made to partially support creationism/ID.
How exactly does the question of who introduced the concept make a difference as to it's validity? There most certainly is a difference. It's a clarification of terms to define the argument. They don't dispute that you can have mulitple breeds of dog (or cat or elephant or any other species) We do dispute that you can have large irreversible shifts in a population resulting in the introduction of a significantly more advanced species genetically. That is the crux of the argument. And it required a definition of terms to keep the discussion on target. The fact that you can't allow for the difference demonstrates the flaw in Evolutionary theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Why The Game of Life of course!
0
0
0
lol I wonder how many will get the reference?
1. Listened to france
2. Realized they didn't have any good points
3. ???
4. Profited!!!!
How in the world do you get this? I mean seriously. I much prefer GDB and it's variouse front ends to Visual Studio. And Valgrind does a pretty good job of helping find memory leaks and such. If it's just preference or working style I could see it maybe. But that just shows that the parent was right in his assessment. Don't confuse personal preference and working style with functionality. GDB and the other OSS debugging tools give you a lot of information.
Sure, Hech even I'm still occasionally tempted to punch ben ladin.
But I've never purchased anything from the resulting site. Even if middle men advertising companies think all that matters is click through, their clients want purchases. The real driving force for the decline of pop-up/pup-unders was money. You get more purchases from Google Adsense than from indiscriminate annoying ads. You should always follow the money. That's how a free market works. And the internet is the closest thing to a pure free market going out there right now.
I don't know about you, but I don't like opening massive holes in my servers.
Your in the habit of playing music CD's on your servers? What IT department to you work in? I only ask so I can avoid working there.
All joking aside Sony does deserve some serious recrimination and perhaps legal repercussions for their highly irresponsible actions.
How can this be done?
Simple. Put the responsibility back on the parents. Parents don't feel or take any responsibility for their childrens education because they leave it up to a public school to handle that for them. The ones who do feel or take responsibility tend to put their children in private school, pay private tutors or tutoring companies, or home school their kids. The Public School approach just doesn't foster parental responsibility because they take decision making out of the parents hands. Change that and you will have motivating parents. And motivating parents make motivating communities.
Depending on the quality and delivery mechanism I might be persuaded to pay out 6 dollars per movie. There are a number of caveats in that though. I'd have to be able to watch the movie anywhere I wanted anyway, I wanted. It would have to have a fast delivery mechanism, and It would have to be a new release. Older releases I wouldn't pay that much for. For your standard movie that's not a new release I'd pay about 4 dollars for maybe 5. The cost of distribution if they do it right(ie bittorrent or similar) will be minimal so that shouldn't enter into it. And the demand will be high so I can't see them having a volume problem. I don't believe that 8 dollars a movie is an accurate reflection of their costs vs market demand to pay. They need to keep in mind that they are competing with the illegal download market. It's not a market vacuum.
I very seriously doubt that the average person who buys a desktop at best buy already has a wireless card to plug into it. And if they do want one they will look for one at best buy where you can steer them to the appropriate model. Again. If a retailer decides to take this step then they are more than capable of preparing for it. So no, your still wrong.
I'm not a DNS expert but I don't think that would technically be possible. Nothing says that the country in question can't roll back to a previouse version of the database and just not sync up to offending root servers. Heck I can cache DNS results on my own personal server if I wanted. In fact the only thing keeping those Root Servers as TOP Dog is the voluntary agreement by all the ISP providers and Backbone providers to do so. Those Same Providers could if they wished cut the root server out of the deal totally and come up with something else. Which they would if global market pressures required it. That's the thing about free markets. Someone always finds a way.
True, So just imagine the side benefits of a project like this. It could conceivable advance materials and engineering sciences just by existing. If for no other reason than getting a chemist to think about what kind of materials would last for that time span. We may see some advances as a result that we might otherwise have had to wait for.
Hate to rain on your parade but your just way off base with that. It is not at all impossible to support at the desktop. If you can customize it to the point that tech support can't fix it then you don't need the kind of tech support you call in for.
The kind of user who buys linux on the desktop at a bestbuy isn't going to be installing a custom kernel or modifying their X-Windows config file. So yes you can support it. That's like saying if Mom and Pop buy a preinstalled linux computer then they will be instantly smart enough to find all the ways to mess it up thoroughly. I don't think so.
In other words let all that meta-data sitting in your database give context to the data you display. That is what a good UI design should do. I'll echo this request.
ummm.... actually no. most of those enterprise CMS's now use CSS to manage how the content looks. The CSS may be generated and managed by the CMS and stored in a database but it is still CSS and thus subject to all the wonderful things you can do with it. Wordpress, Typo3, movable type, and many other CMS applications all use CSS to style their content. And HTML/XML to structure it. So your rant just shows you really don't know what your talking about. Large operations don't approximate the functionality of XML/CSS internally they use the functionality of XML/CSS internally.
As someone who develops custom CMS solutions on a regular basis for customers I can tell you I'd much rather use the prebuilt functionality of XML/CSS in my app than to have to use old style table based layouts.
a pair of eyes will tell you exactly where it is stored. as will the applications documentation or a google search. As for the format. Like any text based config file format one second in a text editor will tell you everything you need to know. Not so with the registry.
I would dispute that this would be possible. If the traits are present in the isolated population then they had to be present in the larger population. With the very rare exception of mutation.
Anyway I think we have pretty much exhausted this discussion. It was a pleasure discussing the subject with you. I'd be happy to continue but I have a feeling we would just start repeating ourselves after this.
I see your misunderstanding my use of the term lose. I totally agree. But my point still stands. The loss that occurs when the seperation occured is a driving force of speciation.
You have just made my point. if two pools have traits that the other doesn't have and those pools came from a larger pool that had those same traits. Then the isolation has removed those traits from those populations. Your logic doesn't follow. The traits were accessible before isolation and now after isolation they aren't. Ergo the population lost traits.
It does indeed diminish traits compared to the population the subpopulation was taken from. the reason recessive traits surface more often is because dominant traits are less frequent and in some cases not present. This is by definition a loss of traits for the population as a whole.
The following article might be illuminating. Pay close attention to the use of the term heterozygosity which is a reference to the measurement of the presence of different alleles of a gene at one or more loci. A decrease of heterozygosity in a poplutation is a decrease in genetic traits available to that population. In other words genetic "traits" are lost.
t ml
Here is the link: http://www.geocities.com/farmcollie1/inbreeding.h
I could say the same to you. How exactly do you support the statement that losing features is rare? Compared to gaining its anything but rare. Anytime a sub-population is isolated traits are lost. It's goes hand in hand. That is why inbreeding poses such a danger. It's hardly a rarity. More a law of nature and genetics. Seperation from the larger genetic pool by necessity causes a loss of traits. Some of those losses aren't immediately visible morphologically but it's still there.
The difference is not one of scale or complexity but of mechanism. You point to mutation as the method for the introduction new traits. However there is no evidence that such events have occured on the scale necessary for evolution to occur. Speciation through the loss of traits is however both observed and documented. Saying, well we know it's theoretically possible and therefore it must have happened that way is not proof. I happen to think that it happened in reverse. We started out more complex and lost traits as time went on resulting in speciation. And there are reputable scientists who agree. It's like you have this blind spot to an entire area of research just because you "assume" that evolution through mutation and specialization is the way it must have occured. Your world view won't allow for any other options. Science may start out with an assumption but ignoring other options isn't a valid way to conduct research.
Actually if I may make a clarification. (thanks for the link to the article by the way it was very interesting reading)
As I term it the macro/micro evolution seperation is not one of scale but of mechanism. With the exception possibly of the cases of polyploidization listed in the article (I would have to look into those more closely) The speiciation events described are caused through a "specialization" to the point that interspecies breeding becomes impossible. No one is disputing that such events occur. Specialization however often occurs through the shedding of characteristics not the gaining of new ones. To completely make the case of course you would have to have a complete understanding of the organism's genetic code and determine whether (for lack of a better term) more information was added, or whether information was shed through lack of use. I believe in most cases of documented speciation it is caused by each population losing traits the other carries. Given enough time these losses can result in a biological incompatibility on the genetic level causing insterility in the offspring. This to me is micro evolution. It is in essence a loss of genetic information. Much like what causes problems when inbreeding occures.
For instance if you take a small enough population and isolate it you will have a non viable population that is for a while at least markedly different from the population you took them from. The reason is because they have lost access to too much of the genetic code necessary to maintain viability. Intbreeding occurs eventually and you have "mutations" most of which are fatal. These changes in morphology are not caused by new genes however. They are caused by a lack of genes.
Only on the single cell level do you see any real evidence of the addition of useful genetic information and I'm not sure it can apply beyond that level. Especially since the barriers between interbreeding of various types of microbes are so low. Going so far in many cases as to allow them to share and trade genes back and forth. That type of thing has not been demonstrated possible in more complex systems. For anything at the muticell level the trend is heavily weighted toward losing genes rather than gaining them. A trend that seems to contradict the idea of speciation causing the type of massive change Evolution proponents require.
Unless you start out, not with less complex but more complex creatures to speciate from. If, for instance, the proto-dog was more complex than current dog breeds speciation through microevolution would possible without going against the observable trend. Of course just like evolution needs it's missing link. I need my proto-dog. So we are back where we started. Believing what we think is true with logical models that can explain how it is possible.
What else would you discuss? Well the philosophy, legal, ethical, and practical business applications are indeed some of the things to discuss. But OSS is a Development Model of sorts also. I would cover managing an OSS Project effectively and how to effectively participate in an OSS project. People think it's only a philosophy but it's also a methodology in some ways.
Distributed collaborative development, maintaining a projects vision in a completely open system, patch management. All of these are issues that while not unique to OSS are handled differently in OSS.
Another poster above us said how to beg for money (kind of tongue in cheek) but I would suggest possibly covering the various ways to get corporate sponsorship and the ramifications of that. And covering ways to make money in OSS. Possibly that would help to clear the fog for a lot of people and not just coders either. I agree with the parent post. It's not necessarrily just a coding class. In fact I think you could have a couple. One for IT Managers in training and one for programmers.
How exactly does the question of who introduced the concept make a difference as to it's validity? There most certainly is a difference. It's a clarification of terms to define the argument. They don't dispute that you can have mulitple breeds of dog (or cat or elephant or any other species) We do dispute that you can have large irreversible shifts in a population resulting in the introduction of a significantly more advanced species genetically. That is the crux of the argument. And it required a definition of terms to keep the discussion on target. The fact that you can't allow for the difference demonstrates the flaw in Evolutionary theory.