Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 08:46:00AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----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.
Umm, I didn't say that it wouldn't, I merely raised the question, and
indicated what it would *not* have been, had it not made it. Ie.,
suitable for making more money.
> 1With 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.
>
Unless MS have found something which makes them more money than
releasing an additional version of Vista, which was rather my point.
--
Mark Kent
Reply to: