There are TWO models detailing the origins of our species. One model is the Out-of-Africa model. This effectively states that Homo sapiens left africa and COMPLETELY replaced Home Erectus (found in China) and Homo sapiens neandertalensis in Europe with little to no inter-breeding. This is the current "popular" theory.
However, there is another model called the multi-regional model that states Homo sapiens evolved sperately on each of the different continents. How could this happen you say? Because enough interbreeding went on to maintain species integrity. Proponents of the Out-of-Africa model tend to ignore fossil evidence from Dali China that shows a skull exhibiting charateristics closer to H. sapiens than H. erectus - pre-dating the earliest evidence from Africa. Or other evidence such as a blending of charateristics in the middle east (mix of Neanderthal/H. Sapiens): EXACTLY where you would expect to find that sort of thing.
The Out-of-Africanists are force fitting a theory on the existing data. Something they are able to get away with because the current "most popular" scientists (D. Johanson, Leekey) push it. Its unfortunate that politics has worked its way into science.
I agree and would take your comment a step further. Switching between programming languages is fairly easy. Switching between vendors of proprietary technology is a whole other ball game.
From one standpoint, take someone who develops on Linux using C++ and Qt. Everything just seems to have a "standard" feel to it. The API documentation for Qt is typically enough to get you through and ANY ANSI C++ book can serve as a reference. Now take that person and drop them into Developer Studio building Visual C++ applications. Its a whole other ball-game. Between the MS Framework, MFC, and variable notation, its hard to tell which end is up. Now obviously I am wrting this from the former perspective, I would imaging someone who is intimate with Visual Studio would have just as hard of a time going the other way.
From another standpoint, there are companies like SAP. Their Enterprise portal is, from a technical standpoint, really nothing more than a J2EE engine, database, and some addtional Java libs. However, it is totally inundated with market-speak. SIMPLE concepts, terms, and ideas that could be considered standard are reduced to totally unintelligable babble.
I think that at some point in the not too distant past, we hit a point where IDEs and additional libraries are no longer helpful, but rather a hinderance.
I agree - the point is not to colonize the moon with current technology. It is totally impractical. However, I think what the original author is saying is that we should find another planet similar to ours, figure out how to get THERE in a reasonable time frame, and colonize IT.
I disagree.
The collapse of the steel/auto industry in the 1980's was countered by the advent of technology and computers. In the 1980's, it was farily obvious that technology would be the next big thing. You could not convince me otherwise - I grew up then and my parents heavily pushed me into that area on the promise of a future.
Now - technology is moving off-shore. I, for one, do not see the next big thing on the horizon. Please spare me the speech on bio/nano-tech. It has already come and gone overseas.
What do we have left to fall back on this time?
I've read the other posts and have some formal eduction in econ - I know WHY this is happening. However, do not be so naieve as to believe that a "pure" capatilistic system is the "best" way. Given enough time, it will self destruct in much the same way that communism has.
An illustration of my point: In your post you specifically mention how America recovered its economy via the tech industry. Imagine what our economy would be like today if we had BOTH.
Don't get me wrong - I am not anti-globalization or firmly entrenched in the idea of a "closed" US economy. However, I believe that the answer has to be somewhere in the middle. Our government NEEDS to be more proactive in regulating trade to be to OUR advantage.
Take a look at some south american countries (Brazil), asian countries (China), and the EU. All are rapidly turning against Microsoft. Again, please do not misunderstand me or where I am going with this. I use Linux at home and firmly believe that it is the answer to the MS monopoly. However, it is important to recognize that what is happening is that other countries are positioning themselves to NOT rely on the US tech industry at ALL in the future. China is building its own Linux version. Brazil openly rejected MS. The EU is regulating it to death. Frankly, while I could care less about what happens to MS, what DOES concern me is that these other countries are NOT embracing other US companies like Red Hat, Novell, or IBM, but are rather moving to non-US alternatives.
Wake up and smell the coffee people. Out sourcing (pick your decade/industry) is NOT the problem. Rather, it is the symptom of a larger problem with how our current system works.
Slashdot Mirror
There are TWO models detailing the origins of our species. One model is the Out-of-Africa model. This effectively states that Homo sapiens left africa and COMPLETELY replaced Home Erectus (found in China) and Homo sapiens neandertalensis in Europe with little to no inter-breeding. This is the current "popular" theory.
i regional-model.html
o ff
However, there is another model called the multi-regional model that states Homo sapiens evolved sperately on each of the different continents. How could this happen you say? Because enough interbreeding went on to maintain species integrity. Proponents of the Out-of-Africa model tend to ignore fossil evidence from Dali China that shows a skull exhibiting charateristics closer to H. sapiens than H. erectus - pre-dating the earliest evidence from Africa. Or other evidence such as a blending of charateristics in the middle east (mix of Neanderthal/H. Sapiens): EXACTLY where you would expect to find that sort of thing.
Check out the following link: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/more-on-mult
Or google: Milford Wolpoff http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Milford+Wolp
The Out-of-Africanists are force fitting a theory on the existing data. Something they are able to get away with because the current "most popular" scientists (D. Johanson, Leekey) push it. Its unfortunate that politics has worked its way into science.
Remember, you only find what you are looking for.
I agree and would take your comment a step further. Switching between programming languages is fairly easy. Switching between vendors of proprietary technology is a whole other ball game.
From one standpoint, take someone who develops on Linux using C++ and Qt. Everything just seems to have a "standard" feel to it. The API documentation for Qt is typically enough to get you through and ANY ANSI C++ book can serve as a reference. Now take that person and drop them into Developer Studio building Visual C++ applications. Its a whole other ball-game. Between the MS Framework, MFC, and variable notation, its hard to tell which end is up. Now obviously I am wrting this from the former perspective, I would imaging someone who is intimate with Visual Studio would have just as hard of a time going the other way.
From another standpoint, there are companies like SAP. Their Enterprise portal is, from a technical standpoint, really nothing more than a J2EE engine, database, and some addtional Java libs. However, it is totally inundated with market-speak. SIMPLE concepts, terms, and ideas that could be considered standard are reduced to totally unintelligable babble.
I think that at some point in the not too distant past, we hit a point where IDEs and additional libraries are no longer helpful, but rather a hinderance.
I agree - the point is not to colonize the moon with current technology. It is totally impractical. However, I think what the original author is saying is that we should find another planet similar to ours, figure out how to get THERE in a reasonable time frame, and colonize IT.
I disagree. The collapse of the steel/auto industry in the 1980's was countered by the advent of technology and computers. In the 1980's, it was farily obvious that technology would be the next big thing. You could not convince me otherwise - I grew up then and my parents heavily pushed me into that area on the promise of a future. Now - technology is moving off-shore. I, for one, do not see the next big thing on the horizon. Please spare me the speech on bio/nano-tech. It has already come and gone overseas. What do we have left to fall back on this time? I've read the other posts and have some formal eduction in econ - I know WHY this is happening. However, do not be so naieve as to believe that a "pure" capatilistic system is the "best" way. Given enough time, it will self destruct in much the same way that communism has. An illustration of my point: In your post you specifically mention how America recovered its economy via the tech industry. Imagine what our economy would be like today if we had BOTH. Don't get me wrong - I am not anti-globalization or firmly entrenched in the idea of a "closed" US economy. However, I believe that the answer has to be somewhere in the middle. Our government NEEDS to be more proactive in regulating trade to be to OUR advantage. Take a look at some south american countries (Brazil), asian countries (China), and the EU. All are rapidly turning against Microsoft. Again, please do not misunderstand me or where I am going with this. I use Linux at home and firmly believe that it is the answer to the MS monopoly. However, it is important to recognize that what is happening is that other countries are positioning themselves to NOT rely on the US tech industry at ALL in the future. China is building its own Linux version. Brazil openly rejected MS. The EU is regulating it to death. Frankly, while I could care less about what happens to MS, what DOES concern me is that these other countries are NOT embracing other US companies like Red Hat, Novell, or IBM, but are rather moving to non-US alternatives. Wake up and smell the coffee people. Out sourcing (pick your decade/industry) is NOT the problem. Rather, it is the symptom of a larger problem with how our current system works.