We seem to be agreeing more than we (or at least I) think. I completely agree with you on the evolution and random chance thing. I just interpreted that you saying that individuals have to be so prolific and more successful in order for random chance mutations to be spread throughout a population, evolution doesn't have enough time for the variation of life we see today.
To counter this I was saying that evolution works in parallel on every extant species throughout time, it's not really a linear process of bacteria -> plant -> pig -> chimp -> human, and that an individual doesn't have to be wildly more successful in order to have their genes spread throughout a population. In retrospect, I should go to bed because I seem to be just replying to those with whom I already agree with (even though we may disagree about the specific rates/numbers/severity/success, etc.) I clued in when you seemed to be suggesting that I thought God (a God, gods) was directing this process. This was not what I meant.
Unless I really did misinterpret what you are saying again.
Evolution keeps lots of things that aren't necessarily advantageous, they can't just be disadvantageous enough to make a significant impact on the population.
As long as we're both being speculative, here's a shot (and I guarantee my shot in the dark here is wrong, but it's an attempt). Perhaps elephant ancestors have a gene that regulates expression of a protein that controls cartilage. Due to a random mutation, an extra promotor for this protein uncovered from 'junk DNA', and this ancestor expresses the gene in far greater quantities. As a result, a species of pig-sized elephant ancestors develops large noses and ears. Complete with more area to develop on, more olfactory nerve clusters are in the nose, and the ears provide a greater area to gather sound. The mammalian brain, being a malleable enough organ to learn new patterns, identifies the extra sensitivity to sound and smell and can detect more predators easily. Over time, subsequent species find that directing their noses with a finer degree of muscle control (the protein to promote growth of muscle attaching to cartilage has been exapted from the muscles controlling the ears for better directional hearing) allows them to more accurately sniff out delicious tubers, which they dig using their newly evolving tusks. Suddenly, during a drought, proto-elephants (or whatever you want to call them) are able to retain enough water by digging for roots, whereas their less fortunate relatives die off. This new behaviour and trunk-like appendage becomes increasingly useful, acquiring more and more encoding genes and proteins causing a sort of runaway evolution.
If that individual doesnt reproduce, then that mutation (benificial or adverse) is lost.
Yes.
When a mutation of significance happens, which might be once every few hundred generations, that individual is the only one that can pass it along. It has to reproduce so much more than normal that it has enough offspring that the mutation is preserved through not only the first generation, but the second, third and so on. Remember, each generation it goes through, there is only a 50/50 chance that the offspring will have it too.
Many animals will have multiple generations of offspring. There may be a 50/50 chance for a specific mutation (that is only linked through one gene) to be passed on, but if the offsprings chances improve, they will be more successful at reproduction, and their offspring as well.
Mutations in genetics during reproduction are actually pretty rare. Note that mutations later in life dont matter because they no longer have the ability to affect the entire organism. It is a localized mutation, like cancer.
Rare for a particular part of the gene. Even one mutation in a million base pairs works out to some mutations per generation for any sizable genome. Animals have lots of DNA. I'm assuming you're talking about a mutation rate in terms of base pairs. If you're talking about encoding proteins and so forth, then obviously it's much lower and I apologize for pointing this out.
Even considering the age of the universe and the earth, there isnt enough time for random chance to have created life as we know it. For the slightest change to a species as a whole, it would require not one, but many individuals to have the same mutation (requiring untold generations to pass), and for them all to reproduce so much more than normal that it spreads to the entire offspring population.
Not enough time for random chance -absolutely-, but evolution is a higher order function. It occurs in subtler ways, and in parallel across every species.
-Could be selected sexually.
-Could be evolving for another purpose before being adopted to its current use.
-Could be related to hormones and embyonic development (many physiological differences in mammals are due to differences in development).
-Could be vestigial.
-Could be 'switched on' by regulator genes.
-Could be simple genetic drift.
Certainly not the norm, but very impressive 250 k.
Besides, who said we hunted down dogs and horses?
We're outrunning the slow/weak herd animals. Some profs have done studies where they have reasonably fit students run in the field and take turns chasing down animals. After a while, the animal overheats and cannot fight back.
In a way, the "cloud" is much worse, because it's piggybacking asynchronous protocols on top of http, rather than making or utilizing or building much more efficient asynchronous protocols directly connecting the client to the server.
WHAT?!? Next, you're going to start saying that SOAP is an abuse of HTTP...:P
Not sure how it works with options -r -R, I believe this is dependent on the program. However, capitalization is irrelevant in Windows as Windows is case insensitive.
Interesting idea.
I'm not sure. I can't seem to find much on shaped diamonds like that, but being a crystal it has certain angles that it cannot achieve.
Most applications I can find use diamonds for grinding and cutting very hard materials. Diamonds are used for sharpening knives it seems though, and lots of people swear by them.
My guess is that a steel blade would be sharper than a diamond blade, but not harder. My guess is in shaving sharpness matters more than hardness. Then again, I don't know for sure.
To put it into perspective on how common diamonds are, a common technique for diamond collection is to first round up your slaves, force them to put a small bucket around their neck with a string, and make them crawl on their hands and knees in a line, shoulders touching. Once collection begins, the sound of diamonds hitting the bottom of the bucket is said to sound like a machine gun.
Would you be content with being charged 10x as much if they went from version 6.0 to version 60? Seriously, it's just a number. Why does everyone care so much?
And for being free... Apple charges from 10.1 > 10.2, etc. It's the same 'difference' of 0.1
It's just a number showing the internal build of the kernel. It has the same driver model as Vista, which is probably why they stuck with the 6, but incremental improvements (GDI lock, etc.) meaning the 0.1 upgrade.
Besides the kernel build, there are other things that change with Windows. Microsoft probably thinks they've changed enough (or re-branded enough of Vista) that they can convince enough people to make a respectable profit.
Btw, did you get a free upgrade from Windows 2000 (build 5.0) to XP (build 5.1) as you mention?
As you've said, many applications would write to memory addresses directly and would have even less compatibility between OSes, hardware, and versions than we have now.
DOSBox and ScummVM do similar things (and do them very well) to what you are suggesting, but it's not easy. Not everything works for DOSBox.
As for why MS doesn't do this, they do have 'Compatibility-mode' (go to the "Compatibility" tab of a program/shortcut), but doesn't go beyond Windows 95. I don't really use it, so I don't know how well it works.
MS wouldn't incorporate DOSBox into OS code because it's GPL, but that would be pretty cool.
Slashdot Mirror
We seem to be agreeing more than we (or at least I) think. I completely agree with you on the evolution and random chance thing. I just interpreted that you saying that individuals have to be so prolific and more successful in order for random chance mutations to be spread throughout a population, evolution doesn't have enough time for the variation of life we see today.
To counter this I was saying that evolution works in parallel on every extant species throughout time, it's not really a linear process of bacteria -> plant -> pig -> chimp -> human, and that an individual doesn't have to be wildly more successful in order to have their genes spread throughout a population. In retrospect, I should go to bed because I seem to be just replying to those with whom I already agree with (even though we may disagree about the specific rates/numbers/severity/success, etc.) I clued in when you seemed to be suggesting that I thought God (a God, gods) was directing this process. This was not what I meant.
Unless I really did misinterpret what you are saying again.
Evolution keeps lots of things that aren't necessarily advantageous, they can't just be disadvantageous enough to make a significant impact on the population.
As long as we're both being speculative, here's a shot (and I guarantee my shot in the dark here is wrong, but it's an attempt). Perhaps elephant ancestors have a gene that regulates expression of a protein that controls cartilage. Due to a random mutation, an extra promotor for this protein uncovered from 'junk DNA', and this ancestor expresses the gene in far greater quantities. As a result, a species of pig-sized elephant ancestors develops large noses and ears. Complete with more area to develop on, more olfactory nerve clusters are in the nose, and the ears provide a greater area to gather sound. The mammalian brain, being a malleable enough organ to learn new patterns, identifies the extra sensitivity to sound and smell and can detect more predators easily. Over time, subsequent species find that directing their noses with a finer degree of muscle control (the protein to promote growth of muscle attaching to cartilage has been exapted from the muscles controlling the ears for better directional hearing) allows them to more accurately sniff out delicious tubers, which they dig using their newly evolving tusks. Suddenly, during a drought, proto-elephants (or whatever you want to call them) are able to retain enough water by digging for roots, whereas their less fortunate relatives die off. This new behaviour and trunk-like appendage becomes increasingly useful, acquiring more and more encoding genes and proteins causing a sort of runaway evolution.
If that individual doesnt reproduce, then that mutation (benificial or adverse) is lost.
Yes.
When a mutation of significance happens, which might be once every few hundred generations, that individual is the only one that can pass it along. It has to reproduce so much more than normal that it has enough offspring that the mutation is preserved through not only the first generation, but the second, third and so on. Remember, each generation it goes through, there is only a 50/50 chance that the offspring will have it too.
Many animals will have multiple generations of offspring. There may be a 50/50 chance for a specific mutation (that is only linked through one gene) to be passed on, but if the offsprings chances improve, they will be more successful at reproduction, and their offspring as well.
Mutations in genetics during reproduction are actually pretty rare. Note that mutations later in life dont matter because they no longer have the ability to affect the entire organism. It is a localized mutation, like cancer.
Rare for a particular part of the gene. Even one mutation in a million base pairs works out to some mutations per generation for any sizable genome. Animals have lots of DNA. I'm assuming you're talking about a mutation rate in terms of base pairs. If you're talking about encoding proteins and so forth, then obviously it's much lower and I apologize for pointing this out.
Even considering the age of the universe and the earth, there isnt enough time for random chance to have created life as we know it. For the slightest change to a species as a whole, it would require not one, but many individuals to have the same mutation (requiring untold generations to pass), and for them all to reproduce so much more than normal that it spreads to the entire offspring population.
Not enough time for random chance -absolutely-, but evolution is a higher order function. It occurs in subtler ways, and in parallel across every species.
Possible (brief, speculative) explanations:
-Could be selected sexually.
-Could be evolving for another purpose before being adopted to its current use.
-Could be related to hormones and embyonic development (many physiological differences in mammals are due to differences in development).
-Could be vestigial.
-Could be 'switched on' by regulator genes.
-Could be simple genetic drift.
Certainly not the norm, but very impressive 250 k. Besides, who said we hunted down dogs and horses? We're outrunning the slow/weak herd animals. Some profs have done studies where they have reasonably fit students run in the field and take turns chasing down animals. After a while, the animal overheats and cannot fight back.
Philosophy based on bread.
In a way, the "cloud" is much worse, because it's piggybacking asynchronous protocols on top of http, rather than making or utilizing or building much more efficient asynchronous protocols directly connecting the client to the server.
WHAT?!? Next, you're going to start saying that SOAP is an abuse of HTTP... :P
Imaging? Norton Ghost, Acronis TrueImage, or you can try this (it worked well for me for image backups) http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=C7D4BC6D-15F3-4284-9123-679830D629F2&displaylang=en
Damn Catharginians...
Yeah, yeah... I know. A typo. And another one. Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't think it's that famous...
I'm not sure where I'm going with this comment, must be the go home signal from my brain
Just postulating; faster to search?
Hmm...
Not sure how it works with options -r -R, I believe this is dependent on the program. However, capitalization is irrelevant in Windows as Windows is case insensitive.
What's the traditional icon for Windows Explorer?
Nope and sorry if I came across as defensive :)
That's the problem with the Internet these days, it can be hard to tell levity from sarcasm and insight from stupidity.
Not that there isn't an abundance of the latter in both categories :P http://timecube.com/
I was just joking that the slaves worked so hard dredging sand and earth that they managed to dig a giant hole in the ground.
Interesting idea. I'm not sure. I can't seem to find much on shaped diamonds like that, but being a crystal it has certain angles that it cannot achieve. Most applications I can find use diamonds for grinding and cutting very hard materials. Diamonds are used for sharpening knives it seems though, and lots of people swear by them. My guess is that a steel blade would be sharper than a diamond blade, but not harder. My guess is in shaving sharpness matters more than hardness. Then again, I don't know for sure.
To put it into perspective on how common diamonds are, a common technique for diamond collection is to first round up your slaves, force them to put a small bucket around their neck with a string, and make them crawl on their hands and knees in a line, shoulders touching. Once collection begins, the sound of diamonds hitting the bottom of the bucket is said to sound like a machine gun.
You must have some hard working slaves http://www.diamonds11.com/images/ekati_diamond_mine.jpg !
While we're on this topic, why don't razor blade manufacturers use diamond dust/shards for the tips of the shaver blades?
I'm sure some will be thinking 'conspiracy' so joe punter has to buy more, but I'm hoping there's a more rational explanation.
I hope people don't need to press that hard to shave... "Diamond blade don't cut, they grind" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_blade
... diamonds! Like heatskinks, processors, memory ... probably cost prohibitive though.
Not too expensive, they're easy enough to come by, what with chimpanzee labour prices so low these days...
My kingdom for mod points...
Science is fun once you know the secret!
Why is it that no one online can spell the term 'lose' correctly?
godammit u dont have to be such a gramar nazi!!!!11onecos(0)
Maybe people are just more interested in the Mac hardware
I don't think ZDnet gives unbiased Windows reviews...
Would you be content with being charged 10x as much if they went from version 6.0 to version 60? Seriously, it's just a number. Why does everyone care so much?
And for being free... Apple charges from 10.1 > 10.2, etc. It's the same 'difference' of 0.1
It's just a number showing the internal build of the kernel. It has the same driver model as Vista, which is probably why they stuck with the 6, but incremental improvements (GDI lock, etc.) meaning the 0.1 upgrade.
Besides the kernel build, there are other things that change with Windows. Microsoft probably thinks they've changed enough (or re-branded enough of Vista) that they can convince enough people to make a respectable profit.
Btw, did you get a free upgrade from Windows 2000 (build 5.0) to XP (build 5.1) as you mention?
As you've said, many applications would write to memory addresses directly and would have even less compatibility between OSes, hardware, and versions than we have now.
DOSBox and ScummVM do similar things (and do them very well) to what you are suggesting, but it's not easy. Not everything works for DOSBox.
As for why MS doesn't do this, they do have 'Compatibility-mode' (go to the "Compatibility" tab of a program/shortcut), but doesn't go beyond Windows 95. I don't really use it, so I don't know how well it works.
MS wouldn't incorporate DOSBox into OS code because it's GPL, but that would be pretty cool.