zenzen% python3
Python 3.2.3 (default, Oct 19 2012, 20:10:41)
[GCC 4.6.3] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> from math import *
>>> pi
3.141592653589793
>>> sin(pi/2)
1.0
>>>
an hour with pygame would probably give you a graphing module.

where I work we have real phones in the worst sense. Voice Mail is a distinct system, with limited storage, and not properly synchronized so the timing is always a little off. I've tried traditional headsets but they always seem to be cordless, and on 400$ devices they always seem to have issues with their batteries and charging (even though they sit for 16 hours a day on a charger.) I hate the old stuff.

I have a headset for the computer anyways. I want my voice mails in my email anyways. The headset is very comfortable, cabled to the computer for reliability, rather than having battery issues like a smartphone, it can follow me, when I VPN. I can re-direct to a smart phone if needed. Forget the phone, just let me use standard SIP applications to connect to a bridge. (I'm on Linux... but the employer is windows oriented, so I can see this turning into 'thou shalt use myfavorite windows app' through simple bloody-minded thoughtlessness.) for conference calling, I have speakers, just need a decent mic on the desk.

I'm sorry you took one course in population genetics and decided your understanding was infallible on that basis, but your interpretation is still wrong. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

• Genetic drift versus natural selection
  The law of large numbers predicts little change over time due to genetic drift when the population is large. When the reproductive population is small, however, the effects of sampling error can alter the allele frequencies significantly. Genetic drift is therefore considered to be a consequential mechanism of evolutionary change primarily within small, isolated populations.[23]

As the human population is large, genetic drift's effects are negligible, and a wider variety in the gene pool being present because of decreased selective pressure is NOT evolution proceeding at a higher rate, as is claimed by the fine article.

You're just wrong bucko... from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis: here is large excerpt of the summary of the modern synthesis:

1. The modern synthesis bridged the gap between experimental geneticists and naturalists, and between paleontologists. It states that:[3][4][5]
2. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.
3. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes regulated by natural selection accumulate over long periods. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation).[clarification needed]
4. Natural selection is by far the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment.
5. The role of genetic drift is equivocal. Though strongly supported initially by Dobzhansky, it was downgraded later as results from ecological genetics were obtained.
6. Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important.

Evolution, even with the modern synthesis, is requires both the generation of variations, and a force of selection. The role of genetic drift is equivocal That means it isn't demonstrated to be important, or people are arguing about it. It certainly does not mean that it can drive evolution.

I call it natural selection, and I call the first post on this thread absolutely correct. It says that a wider variety of mutations being present in a gene pool is not evolution. The original article is fundamentally incorrect in equating evolution with a higher frequency of mutations, and doubly incorrect in giving that increased frequency as an indication of the speed at which evolution is proceeding. The truth is that evolution is slowing down, because the selective pressures have dropped, and transportation available to modern humans has meant that the degree of isolation has decreased. It is likely to preclude allopatric speciation for humans.

The increased variability within the species is perhaps a good thing in terms of providing a more varied gene pool for future evolution, and improving our resistance to diseases, but not at all an indicator that the current species is evolving any new traits, or approaching a point where speciation is likely.

The reason why groups form does not make it something other than natural selection. Some of Darwin's original examples for natural selection were Galapagos finches, classic allopatric speciation. For someone to say that that is not natural selection is just 100% incorrect.

the great-grandfather started this thread by saying that the accumulation of mutations by itself, without any form of natural selection, is evolution. My point is: That's wrong. Selection is essential.

Unfortunately, it isn't one random walk, it is an ensemble of billions of random walks. It is more like Monte Carlo simulation, if there isn't an advantage to a particular set, you will just get a broader distribution around the same centre. You then posit people forming like groupings, and diverging because they have babies together. Sexual selection is very much part of natural selection.

You didn't read the article. It's not IP level least cost routing, it is Voice traffic carriers picking the "cheapest" (in terms of the complicated inter-phone company charging rules.)

I call B.S. on that definition. The probability of random mutations accumulating in a population to the point of creating a significant change in allele frequencies without a selective force of some kind approaches 0. Sure, random mutations occur, but they can just as easily occur in the opposite direction barring some sort of "slope" to genetic drift... If there is such a slope, then it is a selective force, though perhaps not classic natural selection. Evolution does indeed require a selective force, which traditionally has been natural selection. If you are going to say there are other selective forces, that's fine, but pure generation of mutations (genetic drift) without selection will not bring about a statistically important number of significant changes in frequency, and thus is not evolution. It is just mutational/evolutionary noise.

In Québec, there is no-fault insurance. All drivers pay into (ghasp!) Socialized single insurance system, and no-one figures out who is to blame for a given accident. There are standard rules, no huge payouts, and almost everything gets settled out of court. Far, Far cheaper. My hand is up for a self-driving car, pick me!

oh, make sure it works in the snow though...

Dude. Really. WTF?

Exactly. In Canada, there is one health insurance provider, run by provincial governments and it is illegal for doctors to charge any additional amounts to what the government decrees is the fee for any given service, unless they simply do not use the system at all (and charge other entitites for the entire cost of the services.)

Canada is the country that brought you Matrox, ATI, QNX, RIM and where most of the world's mines get their capital from ( http://www.tmx.com/en/listings/sector_profiles/mining.html ) hardly a hotbed of socialism. Yet the Canadian scheme is far to the left of Obamacare.... but in the U.S. Obamacare is "radical" and "left wing"... U.S. rhetoric is completely unreasonable, leaving no room for any discussion. It is clear that it is difficult to negotiate with left-wing radicals... the problem is stop calling reasonable people left-wing radicals, and it will become a heck of a lot easier to negotiate.

I think he means this: http://linux.slashdot.org/story/04/08/11/1712204/munich-to-go-ahead-with-linux-after-all

I think all the examples you cited as radical are laughably over blown hyperbole. What is scary is that folks don't even seem to realize that it is hyperbole anymore. Just because someone is 1 degree off dead centre, or even ten degrees off, does not make them radical. To me, radicals plant bombs (or fake bombs just to inconvenience people), commit sabotage, and generally pursue extra parliamentary means to get their point across. Some of the more radical acts of the student protests this spring in quebec (powders and fake bombs in the subway) to lump main stream political parties in the same category is pure polemic demonization, which hampers rational discussion by amplifying polarization to the point where no-one can discuss anything.

that sucks!