My use of the term mutation was vague. I was referring to spontaneous random mutations in the parent that are passed on the offspring. I was making the point that this is not some kind of totally new organism. It's a flu virus that has different genetic traits and geometry than its predecessor. It has picked up some virulent traits, changing it into a more harmful variant.

Flu viruses change every year, primarily in Southeast Asia where pigs, ducks, and people live in very close quarters. This may be a form of mutation, but it has not resulted in a new species. I think that puts it in the camp of slight variant, and not of evolved species.

how do you know?

I don't. I'm relying on the fact that no one has put out a press release saying that there's been a mutation. I'm also relying on my understanding that gene swapping, and not mutations, is responsible for the new virus variants that we routinely see every year.

I could be wrong about both since I'm practicing arm chair biology. So far that does not look like the case, however. If someone would like to offer convincing evidence that I'm deluded, I will be more than happy to entertain other conclusions.

Well, yes, we know this. It's known as a "gene".

I didn't word that well. Thanks for making me aware of it.

I suppose what I was trying to say was that the idea of gene transfer between species while well known, and used to great effect industrially and scientifically, does not seem to have made an impact on the evolutionary biology community. It's as if it never occurred to them that what we see as evolution is nothing more than trait swapping and conditional expression. Whereas mutations appear to be universally bad.

This is not evolution. At least not the Darwinian sense.

In the connotative sense of the word, the organisms have "evolved" i.e. changed. They have not, however, evolved in the way Darwin envisioned. They have not mutated in any way. They have done what what efficient, adaptable, resilient life forms always do. Which is to pick up new traits from other compatible organisms, or to express new traits from existing DNA in response to environmental changes.

This happens all the time even in higher order life forms. Good examples may be found in the Galapagos islands ironically, where, depending on environmental conditions the offspring of one species will express a completely different phenotype than their parents. It appears that the DNA for multiple phenotypes is present in the gene pool, but the particular expression is dependent on environmental conditions.

It is unfortunate that evolutionary biologists have become so fundamentalist in their adherence to Darwin's theory that they appear to miss vital clues that suggest a much more interesting and likely hypothesis. Which is that traits seem to come in "packages." If this is true, then the really intriguing question is; Where did the traits themselves come from? The idea that one organism can acquire traits from another's DNA implies a certain level of modularity in all DNA. If that's not the 800 pound gorilla of biology, then it should be.

No, for the same reason you do not have a right to keep and bear nuclear devices or chemical and/or biological weapons.

But I do have a right to those things. I simply choose to reserve that right in order to gain the benefits of living in an industrialized nation with a very high standard of living who will, for a small annual tax, defend me from others who own those same items. That, and the fact that I couldn't hope to afford, or to effectively deploy any of those items making them useless to me.

On a serious note, we call fallacious statements such as yours red herring arguments. The chances of an individual ever owning a nuke are so small as to be nearly zero. This makes your use of it in your particular argument a red herring. On the other hand, if you would have said that I don't have a right to own a machine gun, then you would have made an incorrect, but otherwise logically valid statement. I know dozens of people who own machine guns. It used to be more common than it is now, but it's gotten very expensive since the late '80s.

He can spoof ips yet he can't install software to detect unwanted outbound traffic?

You have to know of a threat to defend against it.

Non-intuitive threats are common and can be deadly. I would imagine that many of the people reading the article summary (who reads the articles?) would have made the same mistake.

It's a classic hacker move, and a common mental error. We think of spyware for tracking individuals, but not an individual. Oops!

I think that Pfizer took it all. I keep hearing people say that's where they get theirs.

To Slashdot at large, I promise that I will stop feeding the troll after this, but I've been working hard all week and need the amusement.

Mcgrew said that he was less productive, and offered some subjective metrics as the basis of his belief. I'm sorry that public school didn't cover the difference between opinion and fact, but his statement was about his own experience. If it was a lie, he was deceiving himself. I don't know him, so can't say. I suppose you do, so you win, he was lying.

As to my mental issues, are you saying that if I'm not bigoted, then it's OK to hate Windows? I'm glad to know that. I'll try not to be so bigoted and fearful in the future. I don't want anything to stand in the way of my hate, and I desprately need your approval for that.

Finally, I really don't care what you find hard to believe. I simply wrote that I hate Windows. I'm sorry that it causes you so much pain. would you like a cookie?

Putting aside the fact that you label someone's personal opinion a lie; I've had exactly the same experience.

I've been a professional SA for over 19 years. I've worked professionally (i.e. been paid) with Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, Irix, Windows (NT, 2k 2k3). My favorites have been Linux and Irix followed closely by HP-UX. I respect Solaris but it's not my style.

Windows, on the other hand, makes me want to scream and tear my hair out. In fact, I was once so frustrated with Windows that I engaged in an extended verbal outburst for about five minutes in a work environment.

I really want to like Windows, it's pervasive, it's pretty, and it's fairly responsive on a fast system. But I can't. I hate it. I don't normally hate "things." Attitudes, sure. People, sometimes. But things; only Windows. I really, really hate windows, and using it make me feel bad. I don't know exactly why.