"We should also be emphasizing that the studies that purportedly "prove" that the Neandertal and Cro Magnon populations didn't interbreed were only looking at mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), for which we have a few Neandertal samples."
I believe there are no more than two samples. This is significant because modern humans are unusual among simians in our lack of genetic diversity, hence the theories about a "bottleneck" event that killed off all other genetic lines around 60,000 years ago. There's no reason to suspect that Neanderthals were less genetically diverse than (for example) chimpanzees, who exhibit many more distinct genetic lines than we do, so we should avoid drawing too many conclusions from two individuals who in any case lived during the late Neanderthal period, when the species was in significant decline, and therefore less genetically diverse than they may have been previously.
"Drawing such conclusions from mtDNA alone is an egregious misinterpretation of the data."
The scientists who did the original sequencing specifically pointed out the fact that their data didn't show that there wasn't any interbreeding, and said we could have inherited (possibly many) other genes from the 99.5% we share with Neanderthals.
"The mtDNA studies couldn't possibly have said anything about such possibilities."
They didn't claim to. It was articles aimed at non-scientists which changed "mtDNA tests on two Neanderthals do not exhibit any recent shared ancestry" to "DNA tests prove we didn't interbreed with Neanderthals".
"For all we know, our Y chromosomes could be entirely of Neandertal origin."
We do know enough to say that some of our genetic lines separated around 500,000 years ago, while others appear to have entered our gene pool more recently, and could therefore be of Neanderthal origin. There's direct evidence that we lived as neighbours for around 60,000 years in the Middle East, and the scarcity of evidence in general (we only have around 70 Neanderthal skeletons, many of which consist of nothing more than a few fragments) means that we may never know how frequent contact was with them, how genetically diverse they were, and therefore how many of the genes that entered our pool within the last 100,000 years or so came from them.
"I was duly amused to see firefox's spell checker suggest "Netherlander" as the correct spelling for "Neandertal""
It's actually "Neanderthal", a word which MS Office on Windows XP, the global dictionary used for spell checking on Macs, and the Open Office dictionary all seem to be aware of (the Mac one even has a pretty good definition). Perhaps the Firefox people would do well to let people use these obviously superior dictionaries if they're installed instead of forcing their obviously shitty one on all of us...
"Greater than average human intelligence isn't necessarily a survival or reproductive trait"
It is when you don't have a modern technological civilisation with enough excess production of everything to support foolish individuals, and enact enact endless safety laws to ensure their foolish children don't die from foolishness.
Take all the above away, and you end up with a situation where intelligence definitely is a survival and reproductive trait, because the stupid people don't manage to survive long enough to be capable of reproducing themselves.
"when modern humans, with their superior hunting, superior language, superior technological abilities and capacity for innovation"
There's not any real evidence for us being notably superior at any of these things while Neanderthals were still around. Both species lived in small family groups; both species occupied the same areas for long periods (there are caves which show evidence of being continuously lived in by humans for over 10,000 years); both had similar levels of hunting technology (and Neanderthals knew how to build traps long before there's any evidence of us doing so); and claims about us having superior language skills are purely speculation, because Neanderthals had both the physical equipment and brain size to be perfectly capable of forming languages that were as expressive as our own.
If you want to find areas where the evidence shows we actually did have some innate superiority, then you need look no further than our respective skeletons:
1) Neanderthal shoulders were articulated differently, so they were muscularly more powerful but less capable of throwing things over long distances.
2) The semicircular canals in their inner ears were smaller than ours, so they didn't have as good a sense of balance. This would have meant that they were less capable of jumping over things while running.
Although the differences were actually quite small, _any_ advantage in situations that were tough both species could make the difference between one of them losing weaker members such as small children who survived in the other group, which over a few generations would result in a large difference in relative populations, and therefore the amount of territory the bigger group needed to feed itself.
"Recently I read that there appears to be no purely Neanderthal genes in the genome of modern man tends to discount the interbreeding theories."
It's a long way from discounting them, because we don't actually know whether any of the genes from the European hunter-gatherer cultures who lived alongside Neanderthals for thousands of years exist in modern humans. There's at least one theory which suggests that the sudden introduction of agriculture into Europe was the result of migrations from the Middle East by peoples who simply killed off the indigenous hunter-gatherers whenever they encountered them, so it's quite possible for regular interbreeding to have occurred without leaving any trace in modern human DNA.
If we didn't interbreed, then explaining the presence of mixed-trait skeletons in Portugal and Romania where we know populations of Neanderthals lived alongside humans for long periods becomes very difficult indeed.
"How do we know that Neanderthals are in fact a different species from Homo Sapiens?"
There are significant differences between homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals in both skeletal structure and mitochondrial DNA. The debate in the scientific community is therefore about whether they should be classed as a separate species (homo neanderthalensis) or a sub-species (homo sapiens neanderthalensis), but just about everyone agrees that they weren't direct members of the homo sapiens sapiens species.
"Even today, there is a wide variety in skeletal structures among humans."
The variance in human skeletons (from normal individuals) is minor compared with the differences between our skeletons and those of Neanderthals.
"While I do not condone racism in any way, it is verifiable that there are at least five distinct races [110mb.com] of man."
All of them do however share notable characteristics that were markedly different in Neanderthals, especially at the genetic level (humans and Neanderthals share 99.5% of our genes, but human races share pretty much 100% of them). Note though that skeletal remains unearthed in Portugal and Romania appear to have a mix of Neanderthal and modern human characteristics, and this has led to a lot of debate in scientific communities about possible interbreeding between them and Cro-Magnon man.
"If we had never heard of the Pygmy races and discovered a Pygmy burial site, would we be likely to conclude that the bones were from a separate species?"
No, because they're morphologically humans despite the difference in height. Size changes of populations in response to specific environmental conditions are a well known phenomenon among many animals, and humans are no exception.
"How can we determine if a specimen is truly a new species just from bone samples?"
From the fact that those bone samples have notable features that differentiate them from other species.
"Could the Neanderthals even be a variation of one of the races that exist today?"
Most of what we think of as human races emerged long after Neanderthals disappeared, so we can safely say that they weren't a variation on any of today's races, all of whom share traits that are markedly different from those of Neanderthals.
"Another [theory] is that when there's nobody to show off to (or envy), collecting artificial status symbols is a poor motivator. "
If this is the case, then please explain why RPGs from the likes of Bioware and Bethesda that incorporate the same basic elements and motivations as an MMORPG in a primarily (or in some cases exclusively) single-player game have been so successful.
"The single biggest motivating factor in MMORPGs is to show off"
This is definitely true of dick-waving young males, but the really successful MMORPGs also have _many_ players who are women and older men that have outgrown the desire to engage in pissing contests.
"actually reaching the top at any given time frequently results in a lost subscriber"
Reaching the top in non-online games tends to result in people not wanting to play them as much too, and their players aren't expected to pay monthly fees for something they've grown bored with.
"It becomes painfully obvious that your Tier X gear is useful for absolutely nothing.. other than waiting for the next Tier or making previous encounters trivially easy."
This has been true of RPGs since the first pen-and-paper rules sets were published, so the fact that it's also true of MMORPGs is unsurprising (to say the least). This did not however mean that everyone who played such RPGs was primarily interested in character progression and loot, hence the rapid adoption of terms such as "power gamer" and "rules lawyer" that were used to describe what were usually socially inadequate young males who self-identified with their characters, and threw hissy-fits when things didn't go their way.
"The reason most knock-offs fail, is because people have already experienced that gaming style and flavour, juts changing some of the scenery will not drive people to basically buy the same game."
If this was the case, it would be impossible to sell add-ons to existing games, most of which do little more than add some extra scenery and rules to the original while maintaining the same (successful, otherwise they wouldn't bother releasing an add-on) game play.
The real reason most knock-offs fail is due to the fact that the people who write them misidentify what buyers liked about the original, so they produce a game that copies (and in some cases improves on) the wrong things. Note that this isn't something peculiar to computer games, but has also been a factor for companies producing board games, pen-and-paper role playing games, card games, etc.
"Blizzard has proven that there are tens of millions of gamers who game SOLELY for the objective of collecting incrementally improving loot."
Those games are actually proof of the fact that Blizzard are good at making games which appeal to a wide range of people for all sorts of different reasons. It's the designers who think WOW or Diablo's success are "SOLELY" due to one or two factors that end up producing stuff which only appeals to a sub-set of people who play Blizzard games in a particular way, thereby denying them the massive success that Blizzard's offerings enjoy.
"One thing that does tend to improve it seems to be the proportional system of representation used in most European states"
People who actually live in countries with proportional representation will tell you that it tends to result in a situation where the party most people voted for ends up having to form coalitions with tiny minority groups that only represent a specific region or special interest who demand all sorts of concessions (pork barrels for US readers) in return for voting for (or abstaining from voting against) legislation.
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 1
"the apartheid regime owes it's downfall partly due to economic sanctions by the western world."
That's because apartheid South Africa had a population of less than 30 million people and an economy that was almost totally dependant on commerce with other Western countries. Both factors made them extremely easy to bully.
"the western world is powerful, and public opinion is a powerful factor in the western world"
The Western world is powerful on paper, but gutless in practice when it's dealing with anyone big enough to call its bluff:
- North Korea got nuclear weapons despite what the West wanted because we were too shit scared of their big Chinese neighbour to do anything beyond attempting to bribe them.
- India got nuclear weapons despite the West not wanting it because it's big enough to take care of itself.
- Ditto for Pakistan, which is probably where Osama is hiding because we're too shit scared to go in and get him.
- Iran will end up with nuclear weapons unless Israel decides to do something to stop them. Meanwhile, the "powerful West" tries the same tactics that failed with North Korea because we're far too scared of their military muscle to do anything else.
- Russia waltzed into Georgia despite it being allied with the "powerful West" because Putin knows we're far too shit scared to risk fighting anything with more military might than Serbia in that region.
There have been plenty of other examples since WWII that show the "powerful West" as being just like the Soviet Union was during the same period, i.e. a bully that only picks on little countries, while posturing and dancing endlessly to avoid having to actually walk the walk with anyone big enough to potentially give it a bloody nose.
"Sorry, but in what way are Eastern and Central European countries not "western"?"
In the geographical sense, just as geography is what qualifies countries for being part of North, South, or Central America, and North, South, East and West Africa.
"They may not be a part of "Western Europe", but neither is the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, all of which are considered "Western" countries."
You're building a straw man, because I haven't said Australia etc. are part of Western Europe, only that Central and Eastern Europe aren't part of the Western world, just as Antarctica isn't part of the Northern world (i.e. Northern hemisphere).
"The second bottom on the list was the Czech Republic (with 19%), which is absolutely a "Western culture"
So is Singapore, a parliamentary democracy where most people speak to each-other in English, but that doesn't magically transport it westwards.
"But, let's just say there's some magical cut-off point around the eastern edge of Germany"
The Balkans have traditionally been the dividing line because they're a physical barrier (hence the term "balkanisation"). That's why Greece has always been regarded as part of the Western world despite the fact that it shares far more in the way of culture with its Balkan neighbours than countries to its West.
"UK was 38%"
Their national census carried out in 2001 says that 76.8% of the population claimed to follow a religion. This equates pretty well with belief in gods, as this phrase from the census page indicates (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293):
"About sixteen per cent of the UK population stated that they had no religion. This category included agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight."
Populus, Mori, ORB, and the BBC have all run surveys in the UK since the year 2000 which indicate that 70% believe in the existence of a higher power, and over 60% directly believe in God. Given the fact that several polling organisations pretty much agree with the National census, I'd very much like to see how the EC arrived at such a low figure for the UK, and what this says for their figures on other countries.
"By drawing that magical cut-off line that excludes countries like the Czech Republic, you also exclude countries like Poland, which was one of the higher ones at 80%."
I already said this was the case in my last post. Quote:
Note that this also excludes some countries with much higher than average belief in gods, e.g. Croatia and Slovakia because they're not Western countries; it also includes Western European countries that aren't part of the EC with lower belief thresholds (e.g. Switzerland and Norway).
"According to the Eurobarometer "Social Values, Science, and Technology" from 2005, 52% of Europeans believe in a god"
1) Those figures are for the EC, which now includes a fair number of countries that are part of the Eastern world, not the Western one that JebusIsLord was citing as accepting anthropormorphic causes of climate change.
2) The question they asked was specifically about belief in _a_ god, whereas my post deliberately uses the phrase "believe in gods".
"According to the Eurobarometer "Social Values, Science, and Technology" from 2005, 52% of Europeans believe in a god"
Neither of which has ever been regarded as part of the Western world.
"you cut off the top and bottom five countries, the average falls to 49%"
Whereas eliminating all non-Western countries puts it around 70%, which is the figure I cited. Note that this also excludes some countries with much higher than average belief in gods, e.g. Croatia and Slovakia because they're not Western countries; it also includes Western European countries that aren't part of the EC with lower belief thresholds (e.g. Switzerland and Norway).
Is this the same educated Western world that a number of surveys indicate has 70% of its population believing in gods, while 60% believe in astrology and fate? (these were European studies carried out in a variety of countries, not ones from the US, where the figures are significantly higher).
"There's been no reports of Blackberries having these issue"
There have been many dropped call issues with Blackberries, especially on certain carriers with particular OS version and model combinations. Google "blackberry drops calls" to find out about some of them.
"nor the Symbian based Nokia e90"
The E90 did however have serious microphone problems and frequent browser crashes that required updates from Nokia to fix.
Quote: "Customers who purchased the Samsung BlackJack i607 manufactured during the months of November 2006 - February 2007 may find they are experiencing dropped calls or poor signal reception."
"It *is* irrelevant to the overall point, which is that computers can be sold with software - even non-"OEM" software - without that being a copyright violation."
Only somebody who is completely ignorant of copyright law would consider making such a claim. The text from the US copyright law as it applies to computer software is as follows (this is a direct quote):
"Sect. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USCS Sect. 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner."
Note the last sentence of the last paragraph, which specifically states that the prepared adaptations described cannot be transferred without the authorisation of the copyright holder. So it was in fact your claims that are rendered irrelevant by virtue of being utter balderdash.
"You are suggesting that changing a piece of software's configuration defaults, and/or installing additional software (eg: to support additional hardware), then selling the computer, are copyright infringment."
Yes. See the quoted section from US copyright law to see why I am suggesting this.
"Why should there be a distinction drawn between an end user and someone providing a service for the end user ?"
It specifically allows others to provide such services _as long as no distribution of the resultant copies occurs_. Somebody else can therefore install software for you if you are present to ensure that no unauthorised copies are made (this is your responsibility under copyright law). You must also personally accept or reject any EULAs that may occur as part of an installation process because the agent acting for you isn't the software's end-user, so he or she cannot agree to a EULA on your behalf. Note that using software in contravention of its licensing terms automatically counts as a copyright violation (this has recently been established by an appeals court decision that upheld the validity of the terms in the Artistic License).
"You are basically insisting that any work done by software vendors which is not explicitly allowed in the EULA, should be considered copyright infringement"
I am not insisting anything of the sort, because I've already stated in several answers to you that EULAs (_END USER_ Licence Agreements) don't apply to OEMs, ISVs, or resellers because they're not end-users. They therefore require special non-EULA licenses from copyright holders to distribute installed copies, and are violating copyright if they do so without having such licenses.
"The crux of this case is going to be whether the "must be installed on Apple-labelled hardware" is a reasonable EULA restriction."
Apple have a 16 page complaint (with another 19 pages of evidence). Some of the complaints are about licensing, while others concern copyrights, trademarks, and customer goodwill (lawyers tend to make as many complaints as they can think of in civil filings even when they believe that some of them have little or no chance of success). Which of these turn out to be the crux of the case will depend on the courts, not you.
"Pretty sure Quicken, et al, don't have "OEM software""
I suggest you Google for "Quicken OEM", because they do.
"even if they do, it's irrelevant to the overall point"
It's not irrelevant, because OEMs have specific permission from copyright holders to make a copy of EOM versions by pre-installing (it's common for them to include the additional right to make copies by generating stock disk images that include the OEM software). As is the case with corporate site licenses, OEM software licenses are very different from those included with retail shrink-wrapped software that's meant to be sold to end-users.
"An "alteration" is not inherently a derivative work."
It is under copyright law.
"Changing configuration files, adding drivers, etc. These do not constitute a "derivative work" (or shouldn't, in a sane system)."
I'm not going to argue about the sanity of the system, but the fact of the matter is that any alterations to an established original count as derivative works under copyright law, which treats software in the same way as other copyrightable stuff when establishing derivation. This is the foundation for most plagiarism cases, where the plaintiff has to show that (a) their work existed prior to that of the defendant: (b) that it's substantially similar; and (c) that the defendant had a reasonable probability of having encountered the original prior to issuing their derivation.
"PC vendors who install hardware drivers, or preconfigure for customers (eg: setting up internet access), or preinstall requested software, are not creating derivative works, nor are they infringing copyright."
They are indeed creating derivative works under copyright law, and those derivatives would be infringing if they're distributed to a third party without permission from the copyright holder, just as somebody who adds some notes to a book or a verse to a piece of music is creating a derivative work that would be infringing if any copies are distributed to a third parties. There is a specific exception to this under fair use provisions for software if the alterations are required as a step in making it work, but this exception specifically and uniquely applies to the end-user of the software, not those selling it to that end-user (unless of course the seller is the software's copyright holder).
Note that the viral parts of the GPL which make any project that includes GPL code itself subject to the GPL depend on the above copyright law definition of a derived work, otherwise companies like MS would be able to get away with incorporating as much GPL stuff as they like in closed-source systems by the simple act of altering or adding some trivial bits of code.
It's an unusual enemy that headquarters its company in enemy territory (London) from 1932 until its merger with Grand Metropolitan (another "enemy" company). It's also strange that they would base their recipe on the porter style, which originated in enemy London.
" you pirate something, and are caught, can you claim that because of the EUR12 you already paid for it?"
There's no fear of being caught, because a Spanish court has already ruled that the levy paid on blank media (including things such as iPods and printing / photocopy paper) means that non-commercial file sharing is legal is Spain.
"If they can't pay the money, they go to jail too right?"
The owners of Psystar _could_ go to jail for not paying awarded damages (and any other costs the judge / jury / both decide to apply) in a civil suit, but it would depend on a number of factors, so it's far from certain. This is not however the case with being convicted of felony copyright infringement, which carries a minimum penalty of one year in jail plus a large fine which the courts can sieze and auction personal assets to pay.
"I am trying to explain people that it is not a very simple "little company trolls Apple" thing. It has real life consequences."
That's why Psystar keeps changing its physical address. IMO their plan is to keep moving around, and if necessary liquidate the company and open another one under a different name selling the same crappy clones as "Mac compatible" (when in reality they're no more Mac-compatible than significantly better quality PCs that can be bought from far more reputable sources). While this tactic might well make civil suits more difficult, it won't work with felony copyright infringement, which would result in arrest warrants being issued for the people who own the company.
"People have right to be curious about where they get their trust from."
My puzzlement is practical rather than being a trust issue, i.e. the matter of why anyone would bother to pay a premium for a machine from Psystar that's no more "Mac compatible" than cheaper and better systems from the likes of Dell, HP, Asus, Toshiba., etc., all of which come with a legal version of Windows at OEM prices, and can be turned into a Hackintosh by the simple expedient of downloading exactly the same stuff Psystar use with their Hackintoshes. If people really want to get an OS X license to ease their consciences, then they can buy one from just about anywhere that sells Apple computers, or purchase it from Apple's own web-site for exactly the same price Psystar are charging.
"Then a helluva lot of PC vendors are breaking copyright law."
The vast majority of PCs come with OEM software because it costs them a fraction of what they'd have to pay for a retail version.
"This may be true (although I'm very skeptical, if for no other reason than the lack of lawsuits)"
The much lower cost of OEM software means that the lawsuits tend to go in the opposite direction, i.e. against people or companies who are selling OEM software at retail (EBAY auctions and on-line sales by spammers count as retail for legal purposes).
"So all Psystar need is a shopfront ?"
A shop-front might well get around the copyright violation issues if (a) Psystar could show that only people who visited them got such a pre-installation, and (b) that the installation was directly from the shrink-wrapped media sold to the customer, and didn't include any alterations (derivative works) that didn't come from Apple via the usual end-user channels.
Psystar pre-install OS X, i.e. generate and distribute a copy of it. Whether they modify it or not only affects whether it counts as a derived work or a copy. Both are illegal without permission from the copyright holder.
"Because that's what it sounds like they're doing to me."
If they only install an EFI emulator and leave the OS X installation to end users, then they wouldn't be in breech of copyright laws. Distributing _anything_ with Apple's copyright in a form that Apple themselves don't distribute it in without permission is however illegal.
"If I buy a PC from a local small business and ask them to preinstall, say, Quicken for me, I sincerely doubt that either Quicken is paying them, or they've got a special licensing agreement."
Asking somebody to install something you've bought while you are physically present would count as fair use. Buying a PC with the software already installed on it however requires permission from whoever owns the copyright.
" this is suggesting that a PC vendor cannot sell a PC with software preinstalled. Since this is exceptionally common, it is difficult to believe it is illegal."
PC vendors can only pre-install stuff they have specific permission from copyright holders to pre-install. Without that permission, pre-installation is a clear violation of copyright law (which, as the name suggests, involves controlling who is allowed to make copies of things). It should be noted that copyright holders do not need to specifically prohibit pre-installation because it's already prohibited by copyright law -- the pre-installer is the one who requires permission to comply with the law.
Slashdot Mirror
"We should also be emphasizing that the studies that purportedly "prove" that the Neandertal and Cro Magnon populations didn't interbreed were only looking at mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), for which we have a few Neandertal samples."
I believe there are no more than two samples. This is significant because modern humans are unusual among simians in our lack of genetic diversity, hence the theories about a "bottleneck" event that killed off all other genetic lines around 60,000 years ago. There's no reason to suspect that Neanderthals were less genetically diverse than (for example) chimpanzees, who exhibit many more distinct genetic lines than we do, so we should avoid drawing too many conclusions from two individuals who in any case lived during the late Neanderthal period, when the species was in significant decline, and therefore less genetically diverse than they may have been previously.
"Drawing such conclusions from mtDNA alone is an egregious misinterpretation of the data."
The scientists who did the original sequencing specifically pointed out the fact that their data didn't show that there wasn't any interbreeding, and said we could have inherited (possibly many) other genes from the 99.5% we share with Neanderthals.
"The mtDNA studies couldn't possibly have said anything about such possibilities."
They didn't claim to. It was articles aimed at non-scientists which changed "mtDNA tests on two Neanderthals do not exhibit any recent shared ancestry" to "DNA tests prove we didn't interbreed with Neanderthals".
"For all we know, our Y chromosomes could be entirely of Neandertal origin."
We do know enough to say that some of our genetic lines separated around 500,000 years ago, while others appear to have entered our gene pool more recently, and could therefore be of Neanderthal origin. There's direct evidence that we lived as neighbours for around 60,000 years in the Middle East, and the scarcity of evidence in general (we only have around 70 Neanderthal skeletons, many of which consist of nothing more than a few fragments) means that we may never know how frequent contact was with them, how genetically diverse they were, and therefore how many of the genes that entered our pool within the last 100,000 years or so came from them.
"I was duly amused to see firefox's spell checker suggest "Netherlander" as the correct spelling for "Neandertal""
It's actually "Neanderthal", a word which MS Office on Windows XP, the global dictionary used for spell checking on Macs, and the Open Office dictionary all seem to be aware of (the Mac one even has a pretty good definition). Perhaps the Firefox people would do well to let people use these obviously superior dictionaries if they're installed instead of forcing their obviously shitty one on all of us...
"Greater than average human intelligence isn't necessarily a survival or reproductive trait"
It is when you don't have a modern technological civilisation with enough excess production of everything to support foolish individuals, and enact enact endless safety laws to ensure their foolish children don't die from foolishness.
Take all the above away, and you end up with a situation where intelligence definitely is a survival and reproductive trait, because the stupid people don't manage to survive long enough to be capable of reproducing themselves.
"when modern humans, with their superior hunting, superior language, superior technological abilities and capacity for innovation"
There's not any real evidence for us being notably superior at any of these things while Neanderthals were still around. Both species lived in small family groups; both species occupied the same areas for long periods (there are caves which show evidence of being continuously lived in by humans for over 10,000 years); both had similar levels of hunting technology (and Neanderthals knew how to build traps long before there's any evidence of us doing so); and claims about us having superior language skills are purely speculation, because Neanderthals had both the physical equipment and brain size to be perfectly capable of forming languages that were as expressive as our own.
If you want to find areas where the evidence shows we actually did have some innate superiority, then you need look no further than our respective skeletons:
1) Neanderthal shoulders were articulated differently, so they were muscularly more powerful but less capable of throwing things over long distances.
2) The semicircular canals in their inner ears were smaller than ours, so they didn't have as good a sense of balance. This would have meant that they were less capable of jumping over things while running.
Although the differences were actually quite small, _any_ advantage in situations that were tough both species could make the difference between one of them losing weaker members such as small children who survived in the other group, which over a few generations would result in a large difference in relative populations, and therefore the amount of territory the bigger group needed to feed itself.
"Recently I read that there appears to be no purely Neanderthal genes in the genome of modern man tends to discount the interbreeding theories."
It's a long way from discounting them, because we don't actually know whether any of the genes from the European hunter-gatherer cultures who lived alongside Neanderthals for thousands of years exist in modern humans. There's at least one theory which suggests that the sudden introduction of agriculture into Europe was the result of migrations from the Middle East by peoples who simply killed off the indigenous hunter-gatherers whenever they encountered them, so it's quite possible for regular interbreeding to have occurred without leaving any trace in modern human DNA.
If we didn't interbreed, then explaining the presence of mixed-trait skeletons in Portugal and Romania where we know populations of Neanderthals lived alongside humans for long periods becomes very difficult indeed.
Cats kill for fun.
"How do we know that Neanderthals are in fact a different species from Homo Sapiens?"
There are significant differences between homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals in both skeletal structure and mitochondrial DNA. The debate in the scientific community is therefore about whether they should be classed as a separate species (homo neanderthalensis) or a sub-species (homo sapiens neanderthalensis), but just about everyone agrees that they weren't direct members of the homo sapiens sapiens species.
"Even today, there is a wide variety in skeletal structures among humans."
The variance in human skeletons (from normal individuals) is minor compared with the differences between our skeletons and those of Neanderthals.
"While I do not condone racism in any way, it is verifiable that there are at least five distinct races [110mb.com] of man."
All of them do however share notable characteristics that were markedly different in Neanderthals, especially at the genetic level (humans and Neanderthals share 99.5% of our genes, but human races share pretty much 100% of them). Note though that skeletal remains unearthed in Portugal and Romania appear to have a mix of Neanderthal and modern human characteristics, and this has led to a lot of debate in scientific communities about possible interbreeding between them and Cro-Magnon man.
"If we had never heard of the Pygmy races and discovered a Pygmy burial site, would we be likely to conclude that the bones were from a separate species?"
No, because they're morphologically humans despite the difference in height. Size changes of populations in response to specific environmental conditions are a well known phenomenon among many animals, and humans are no exception.
"How can we determine if a specimen is truly a new species just from bone samples?"
From the fact that those bone samples have notable features that differentiate them from other species.
"Could the Neanderthals even be a variation of one of the races that exist today?"
Most of what we think of as human races emerged long after Neanderthals disappeared, so we can safely say that they weren't a variation on any of today's races, all of whom share traits that are markedly different from those of Neanderthals.
"Another [theory] is that when there's nobody to show off to (or envy), collecting artificial status symbols is a poor motivator. "
If this is the case, then please explain why RPGs from the likes of Bioware and Bethesda that incorporate the same basic elements and motivations as an MMORPG in a primarily (or in some cases exclusively) single-player game have been so successful.
"The single biggest motivating factor in MMORPGs is to show off"
This is definitely true of dick-waving young males, but the really successful MMORPGs also have _many_ players who are women and older men that have outgrown the desire to engage in pissing contests.
"actually reaching the top at any given time frequently results in a lost subscriber"
Reaching the top in non-online games tends to result in people not wanting to play them as much too, and their players aren't expected to pay monthly fees for something they've grown bored with.
"It becomes painfully obvious that your Tier X gear is useful for absolutely nothing.. other than waiting for the next Tier or making previous encounters trivially easy."
This has been true of RPGs since the first pen-and-paper rules sets were published, so the fact that it's also true of MMORPGs is unsurprising (to say the least). This did not however mean that everyone who played such RPGs was primarily interested in character progression and loot, hence the rapid adoption of terms such as "power gamer" and "rules lawyer" that were used to describe what were usually socially inadequate young males who self-identified with their characters, and threw hissy-fits when things didn't go their way.
"The reason most knock-offs fail, is because people have already experienced that gaming style and flavour, juts changing some of the scenery will not drive people to basically buy the same game."
If this was the case, it would be impossible to sell add-ons to existing games, most of which do little more than add some extra scenery and rules to the original while maintaining the same (successful, otherwise they wouldn't bother releasing an add-on) game play.
The real reason most knock-offs fail is due to the fact that the people who write them misidentify what buyers liked about the original, so they produce a game that copies (and in some cases improves on) the wrong things. Note that this isn't something peculiar to computer games, but has also been a factor for companies producing board games, pen-and-paper role playing games, card games, etc.
"Blizzard has proven that there are tens of millions of gamers who game SOLELY for the objective of collecting incrementally improving loot."
Those games are actually proof of the fact that Blizzard are good at making games which appeal to a wide range of people for all sorts of different reasons. It's the designers who think WOW or Diablo's success are "SOLELY" due to one or two factors that end up producing stuff which only appeals to a sub-set of people who play Blizzard games in a particular way, thereby denying them the massive success that Blizzard's offerings enjoy.
"One thing that does tend to improve it seems to be the proportional system of representation used in most European states"
People who actually live in countries with proportional representation will tell you that it tends to result in a situation where the party most people voted for ends up having to form coalitions with tiny minority groups that only represent a specific region or special interest who demand all sorts of concessions (pork barrels for US readers) in return for voting for (or abstaining from voting against) legislation.
"the apartheid regime owes it's downfall partly due to economic sanctions by the western world."
That's because apartheid South Africa had a population of less than 30 million people and an economy that was almost totally dependant on commerce with other Western countries. Both factors made them extremely easy to bully.
"the western world is powerful, and public opinion is a powerful factor in the western world"
The Western world is powerful on paper, but gutless in practice when it's dealing with anyone big enough to call its bluff:
- North Korea got nuclear weapons despite what the West wanted because we were too shit scared of their big Chinese neighbour to do anything beyond attempting to bribe them.
- India got nuclear weapons despite the West not wanting it because it's big enough to take care of itself.
- Ditto for Pakistan, which is probably where Osama is hiding because we're too shit scared to go in and get him.
- Iran will end up with nuclear weapons unless Israel decides to do something to stop them. Meanwhile, the "powerful West" tries the same tactics that failed with North Korea because we're far too scared of their military muscle to do anything else.
- Russia waltzed into Georgia despite it being allied with the "powerful West" because Putin knows we're far too shit scared to risk fighting anything with more military might than Serbia in that region.
There have been plenty of other examples since WWII that show the "powerful West" as being just like the Soviet Union was during the same period, i.e. a bully that only picks on little countries, while posturing and dancing endlessly to avoid having to actually walk the walk with anyone big enough to potentially give it a bloody nose.
"Sorry, but in what way are Eastern and Central European countries not "western"?"
In the geographical sense, just as geography is what qualifies countries for being part of North, South, or Central America, and North, South, East and West Africa.
"They may not be a part of "Western Europe", but neither is the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, all of which are considered "Western" countries."
You're building a straw man, because I haven't said Australia etc. are part of Western Europe, only that Central and Eastern Europe aren't part of the Western world, just as Antarctica isn't part of the Northern world (i.e. Northern hemisphere).
"The second bottom on the list was the Czech Republic (with 19%), which is absolutely a "Western culture"
So is Singapore, a parliamentary democracy where most people speak to each-other in English, but that doesn't magically transport it westwards.
"But, let's just say there's some magical cut-off point around the eastern edge of Germany"
The Balkans have traditionally been the dividing line because they're a physical barrier (hence the term "balkanisation"). That's why Greece has always been regarded as part of the Western world despite the fact that it shares far more in the way of culture with its Balkan neighbours than countries to its West.
"UK was 38%"
Their national census carried out in 2001 says that 76.8% of the population claimed to follow a religion. This equates pretty well with belief in gods, as this phrase from the census page indicates (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293):
"About sixteen per cent of the UK population stated that they had no religion. This category included agnostics, atheists, heathens and those who wrote Jedi Knight."
Populus, Mori, ORB, and the BBC have all run surveys in the UK since the year 2000 which indicate that 70% believe in the existence of a higher power, and over 60% directly believe in God. Given the fact that several polling organisations pretty much agree with the National census, I'd very much like to see how the EC arrived at such a low figure for the UK, and what this says for their figures on other countries.
"By drawing that magical cut-off line that excludes countries like the Czech Republic, you also exclude countries like Poland, which was one of the higher ones at 80%."
I already said this was the case in my last post. Quote:
Note that this also excludes some countries with much higher than average belief in gods, e.g. Croatia and Slovakia because they're not Western countries; it also includes Western European countries that aren't part of the EC with lower belief thresholds (e.g. Switzerland and Norway).
"According to the Eurobarometer "Social Values, Science, and Technology" from 2005, 52% of Europeans believe in a god"
1) Those figures are for the EC, which now includes a fair number of countries that are part of the Eastern world, not the Western one that JebusIsLord was citing as accepting anthropormorphic causes of climate change.
2) The question they asked was specifically about belief in _a_ god, whereas my post deliberately uses the phrase "believe in gods".
"According to the Eurobarometer "Social Values, Science, and Technology" from 2005, 52% of Europeans believe in a god"
Neither of which has ever been regarded as part of the Western world.
"you cut off the top and bottom five countries, the average falls to 49%"
Whereas eliminating all non-Western countries puts it around 70%, which is the figure I cited. Note that this also excludes some countries with much higher than average belief in gods, e.g. Croatia and Slovakia because they're not Western countries; it also includes Western European countries that aren't part of the EC with lower belief thresholds (e.g. Switzerland and Norway).
"Educated world. Western world."
Is this the same educated Western world that a number of surveys indicate has 70% of its population believing in gods, while 60% believe in astrology and fate? (these were European studies carried out in a variety of countries, not ones from the US, where the figures are significantly higher).
"There's been no reports of Blackberries having these issue"
There have been many dropped call issues with Blackberries, especially on certain carriers with particular OS version and model combinations. Google "blackberry drops calls" to find out about some of them.
"nor the Symbian based Nokia e90"
The E90 did however have serious microphone problems and frequent browser crashes that required updates from Nokia to fix.
"nor the Windows Mobile based Samsung Blackjack"
AT&T's support pages don't agree with you:
http://forums.wireless.att.com/cng/board/message?board.id=announcements&message.id=276
Quote: "Customers who purchased the Samsung BlackJack i607 manufactured during the months of November 2006 - February 2007 may find they are experiencing dropped calls or poor signal reception."
"It *is* irrelevant to the overall point, which is that computers can be sold with software - even non-"OEM" software - without that being a copyright violation."
Only somebody who is completely ignorant of copyright law would consider making such a claim. The text from the US copyright law as it applies to computer software is as follows (this is a direct quote):
"Sect. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 [17 USCS Sect. 106], it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner."
Note the last sentence of the last paragraph, which specifically states that the prepared adaptations described cannot be transferred without the authorisation of the copyright holder. So it was in fact your claims that are rendered irrelevant by virtue of being utter balderdash.
"You are suggesting that changing a piece of software's configuration defaults, and/or installing additional software (eg: to support additional hardware), then selling the computer, are copyright infringment."
Yes. See the quoted section from US copyright law to see why I am suggesting this.
"Why should there be a distinction drawn between an end user and someone providing a service for the end user ?"
It specifically allows others to provide such services _as long as no distribution of the resultant copies occurs_. Somebody else can therefore install software for you if you are present to ensure that no unauthorised copies are made (this is your responsibility under copyright law). You must also personally accept or reject any EULAs that may occur as part of an installation process because the agent acting for you isn't the software's end-user, so he or she cannot agree to a EULA on your behalf. Note that using software in contravention of its licensing terms automatically counts as a copyright violation (this has recently been established by an appeals court decision that upheld the validity of the terms in the Artistic License).
"You are basically insisting that any work done by software vendors which is not explicitly allowed in the EULA, should be considered copyright infringement"
I am not insisting anything of the sort, because I've already stated in several answers to you that EULAs (_END USER_ Licence Agreements) don't apply to OEMs, ISVs, or resellers because they're not end-users. They therefore require special non-EULA licenses from copyright holders to distribute installed copies, and are violating copyright if they do so without having such licenses.
"The crux of this case is going to be whether the "must be installed on Apple-labelled hardware" is a reasonable EULA restriction."
Apple have a 16 page complaint (with another 19 pages of evidence). Some of the complaints are about licensing, while others concern copyrights, trademarks, and customer goodwill (lawyers tend to make as many complaints as they can think of in civil filings even when they believe that some of them have little or no chance of success). Which of these turn out to be the crux of the case will depend on the courts, not you.
"Pretty sure Quicken, et al, don't have "OEM software""
I suggest you Google for "Quicken OEM", because they do.
"even if they do, it's irrelevant to the overall point"
It's not irrelevant, because OEMs have specific permission from copyright holders to make a copy of EOM versions by pre-installing (it's common for them to include the additional right to make copies by generating stock disk images that include the OEM software). As is the case with corporate site licenses, OEM software licenses are very different from those included with retail shrink-wrapped software that's meant to be sold to end-users.
"An "alteration" is not inherently a derivative work."
It is under copyright law.
"Changing configuration files, adding drivers, etc. These do not constitute a "derivative work" (or shouldn't, in a sane system)."
I'm not going to argue about the sanity of the system, but the fact of the matter is that any alterations to an established original count as derivative works under copyright law, which treats software in the same way as other copyrightable stuff when establishing derivation. This is the foundation for most plagiarism cases, where the plaintiff has to show that (a) their work existed prior to that of the defendant: (b) that it's substantially similar; and (c) that the defendant had a reasonable probability of having encountered the original prior to issuing their derivation.
"PC vendors who install hardware drivers, or preconfigure for customers (eg: setting up internet access), or preinstall requested software, are not creating derivative works, nor are they infringing copyright."
They are indeed creating derivative works under copyright law, and those derivatives would be infringing if they're distributed to a third party without permission from the copyright holder, just as somebody who adds some notes to a book or a verse to a piece of music is creating a derivative work that would be infringing if any copies are distributed to a third parties. There is a specific exception to this under fair use provisions for software if the alterations are required as a step in making it work, but this exception specifically and uniquely applies to the end-user of the software, not those selling it to that end-user (unless of course the seller is the software's copyright holder).
Note that the viral parts of the GPL which make any project that includes GPL code itself subject to the GPL depend on the above copyright law definition of a derived work, otherwise companies like MS would be able to get away with incorporating as much GPL stuff as they like in closed-source systems by the simple act of altering or adding some trivial bits of code.
"I was being facetious."
Fair enough.
"and your Irish enemies"
It's an unusual enemy that headquarters its company in enemy territory (London) from 1932 until its merger with Grand Metropolitan (another "enemy" company). It's also strange that they would base their recipe on the porter style, which originated in enemy London.
" you pirate something, and are caught, can you claim that because of the EUR12 you already paid for it?"
There's no fear of being caught, because a Spanish court has already ruled that the levy paid on blank media (including things such as iPods and printing / photocopy paper) means that non-commercial file sharing is legal is Spain.
"If they can't pay the money, they go to jail too right?"
The owners of Psystar _could_ go to jail for not paying awarded damages (and any other costs the judge / jury / both decide to apply) in a civil suit, but it would depend on a number of factors, so it's far from certain. This is not however the case with being convicted of felony copyright infringement, which carries a minimum penalty of one year in jail plus a large fine which the courts can sieze and auction personal assets to pay.
"I am trying to explain people that it is not a very simple "little company trolls Apple" thing. It has real life consequences."
That's why Psystar keeps changing its physical address. IMO their plan is to keep moving around, and if necessary liquidate the company and open another one under a different name selling the same crappy clones as "Mac compatible" (when in reality they're no more Mac-compatible than significantly better quality PCs that can be bought from far more reputable sources). While this tactic might well make civil suits more difficult, it won't work with felony copyright infringement, which would result in arrest warrants being issued for the people who own the company.
"People have right to be curious about where they get their trust from."
My puzzlement is practical rather than being a trust issue, i.e. the matter of why anyone would bother to pay a premium for a machine from Psystar that's no more "Mac compatible" than cheaper and better systems from the likes of Dell, HP, Asus, Toshiba., etc., all of which come with a legal version of Windows at OEM prices, and can be turned into a Hackintosh by the simple expedient of downloading exactly the same stuff Psystar use with their Hackintoshes. If people really want to get an OS X license to ease their consciences, then they can buy one from just about anywhere that sells Apple computers, or purchase it from Apple's own web-site for exactly the same price Psystar are charging.
"Then a helluva lot of PC vendors are breaking copyright law."
The vast majority of PCs come with OEM software because it costs them a fraction of what they'd have to pay for a retail version.
"This may be true (although I'm very skeptical, if for no other reason than the lack of lawsuits)"
The much lower cost of OEM software means that the lawsuits tend to go in the opposite direction, i.e. against people or companies who are selling OEM software at retail (EBAY auctions and on-line sales by spammers count as retail for legal purposes).
"So all Psystar need is a shopfront ?"
A shop-front might well get around the copyright violation issues if (a) Psystar could show that only people who visited them got such a pre-installation, and (b) that the installation was directly from the shrink-wrapped media sold to the customer, and didn't include any alterations (derivative works) that didn't come from Apple via the usual end-user channels.
"Really? are they?"
Yes.
"Really? are they?"
Psystar pre-install OS X, i.e. generate and distribute a copy of it. Whether they modify it or not only affects whether it counts as a derived work or a copy. Both are illegal without permission from the copyright holder.
"Because that's what it sounds like they're doing to me."
If they only install an EFI emulator and leave the OS X installation to end users, then they wouldn't be in breech of copyright laws. Distributing _anything_ with Apple's copyright in a form that Apple themselves don't distribute it in without permission is however illegal.
"If I buy a PC from a local small business and ask them to preinstall, say, Quicken for me, I sincerely doubt that either Quicken is paying them, or they've got a special licensing agreement."
Asking somebody to install something you've bought while you are physically present would count as fair use. Buying a PC with the software already installed on it however requires permission from whoever owns the copyright.
" this is suggesting that a PC vendor cannot sell a PC with software preinstalled. Since this is exceptionally common, it is difficult to believe it is illegal."
PC vendors can only pre-install stuff they have specific permission from copyright holders to pre-install. Without that permission, pre-installation is a clear violation of copyright law (which, as the name suggests, involves controlling who is allowed to make copies of things). It should be noted that copyright holders do not need to specifically prohibit pre-installation because it's already prohibited by copyright law -- the pre-installer is the one who requires permission to comply with the law.