Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/15/07 06:40, Mark Kent wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:33:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 03/14/07 22:01, Kent West wrote:
>
>>> Good analogy, because I'm not talking about whether change can happen or
>>> not; I'm merely saying that an extinction event in one sub-group of a
>>> population does not cause improvement in another sub-group. Even if
>>> crayons could mutate, this would not mean that the red ones would
>>> automatically "improve" because the green ones went extinct.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying that the surviving ducks would not improve (or degrade,
>>> or stay the same); I am saying that the extinction of the
>>> windmill-killed ducks does not automatically cause the survivors to
>>> improve (or degrade, or stay the same). That's all I am saying.
>>>
>>> Arnt (I believe) and Atis implied that the extinction of an unfit group
>>> leads to improvement in the survivors. I'm just saying that's not true;
>>> the extinction of an unfit group only means that the unfit group went
>>> extinct. The survivors were indeed "more fit" (for this purpose, and
>>> however they got that way), but the extinction of the less-fit does not
>>> automatically mean that the more-fit will get even more fit.
>> That's right. The *survivors* don't improve; the *species* improves.
>>
>
> Which is the whole point, isn't it. The only important grouping here is
Yes, exactly.
> that which can breed. Those which die off can *no longer* breed, so the
> improvement is in the *next generation* which have fewer of the
> defective or no longer useful gene/genetic characteristics. The
> successful genes are the ones which make it to the next generation, the
> unsuccessful ones are those which do not. The term "survival of the
> fittest" means that the "fittest", those most suited to their
> environment, remain alive in order to breed a next generation.
>
> This is also why Darwinian-like selection can be seen to apply to
> open-source projects and/or distros; those which make it to another
> release are successful, those which become moribund are not. Looking at
> a population of crayons is daft, however, looking at the success of the
> manufacturers of crayons, say, is not quite so daft. In these cases,
> the survival characteristics are clearly not genetic, but other
> characteristics. The question you should consider, if you truly
> question Darwin's theory, is why genetics should be any different to any
> other evolutionary system, like business, open-source project survival,
> or any number of similar systems. Should Windows never make it to a
> release beyond Vista, it will be because it was no longer suitable for
> its environment, perhaps less fit for it than Debian, say which hopefully
> will continue to evolve.
>
> Doesn't anyone here learn science or economics?
The first paragraph and a half were excellent, but you yourself shot
down your own argument by saying /Should Windows never make it to a
release beyond Vista, it will be because .../.
It's delusional to think that Windows won't have a post-Vista
version. With US$34Bn in the bank, US$12Bn net income per *quarter*
and contracts that lock the Tier-1 & Tier-2 vendors into automatic
licensing payments, MSFT has been making money hand-over-fist for 25
years, has a (at worst) 93% desktop share and no real reason for
ISVs to make Linux version of popular software.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFF+U4YS9HxQb37XmcRAsc9AJ9dTh9qeowDPHzlAIz2c7GUDeTB5wCaA2zH
Zt1P4dkg6U7cBfZRC3K1qVU=
=Y9gQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: