7 posts • joined 10 Sep 2013
Re: Who TF is David Attenborough?
>Who TF is David Attenborough?
>Sure, he's the guy on the telly that my parents used to watch, but when did he make the jump from media
>luvvie to monopolist of the truth? Senile twat.
Juvenile twat. Baby twat. Twatlette.
(wtf are you?)
Re: Natural Selection vs. Evolution
>I would agree that natural selection is no longer the driver of evolution.
So stuff that we - a current product of natural selection - do isn't natural?
What is it then?
Are our brains not natural?
>Genetic engineering of humans will fix this very soon. Not soon on a personal scale,
>possibly not soon on a historical scale, but definitely soon on an evolutionary scale.
>Unless we all die first, of course.
But, Shirley, that *is* the fix. (Dying).
>evolution driven by natural selection... is not a process which is happening all the time.
Actually, it isn't a process at all. It's a retrospective abstraction.
The process (which happens much of the time) is random genetic damage, aka mutation.
Later, we look back and call the long-term change 'evolution'.
(Maths people and 'hard' scientists get this. 'Soft' scientists / general 'ologists' often get confused at the basic linguistic conceptual stage).
But I remember reading a Stephen Jay Gould book that pointed out, eloquently, that humans, rather than being at the pinnacle of the evolutionary tree, are an aberrant side-branch, which might survive for a while, but probably won't.
Dinosaurs dominant: 150 million years.
Cockroaches doing well: 200 million years and counting.
Homo sapiens: 1-2 million years, and struggling (mostly to kill each other or dismantle their habitats).
I've never seen a cockroach smile, but I'd love to be a [whatever]-on-the-wall a few millennia hence...
C1: Remember those human thingies?
C2: Yeah. Wierd things. Prattled about a bit for a while then self-destructed, poor bast***s.
C1: Bet they'd have made good pets, though.
C2: Dunno. Bit stupid, really.
>London's tousle-haired ultra-blond mayor, Boris Johnson, has called for the creation of a
>special "London visa" to tempt the world's tech and fashion superstars to the capital
When did getting good grades in rote-memorising chunks of dead-language stuff provide good credentials for saying anything about technology?
Entertaining bored folks, 'twixt desk-time and pub-time, maybe. But anything beyond Big-Brother-esque amusement? From politico-whorelings? No.
Don't know about this Intelly stuff but, back in the day, different models of the same architecture might implement some instructions differently for all sorts of reasons, whilst conforming to the specification.
Might this not still apply? In which case wouldn't we need to look at a somewhat lower level than 'RdRand'?