Re: Question on audio amplifiers for a change...
From: Kevin Aylward (salesEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk)
Date: 07/13/04
- Next message: Max Hauser: "Destruct-O-Tron: Physics at work"
- Previous message: Karl Uppiano: "Re: Announcing 'hifi-am', to discuss High Fidelity AM tuners and hobbyist transmitters"
- In reply to: John Larkin: "Re: Question on audio amplifiers for a change..."
- Next in thread: Genome: "Re: Question on audio amplifiers for a change..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 06:35:00 GMT
John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:44:32 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Paul Burridge wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 06:44:18 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>>> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ho humm.. You claimed that Self claimed that one, essentially,
>>>> uses a diff pair to save a cap. I claimed that was claim was crap.
>>>
>>> No I didn't! Self explains *many* advantages conferred by the use
>>> of a DA stage, only *one* of which is the saving of a large and
>>> expensive capacitor!
>>>
>>>> Err.. and just what would be some of those arguments that your
>>>> claimed I lost.?
>>>
>>> Pretty much most of the stuff you post on neo-Darwinism and sexual
>>> selection.
>>
>> Oh?
>>
>> This would be very unlikely as most of what I say is all *standard*
>> and accepted Darwinian evolution, which is the cornerstone of all of
>> biology and zoology. Its not debateable. What is observed mostly, is
>> what replicates the most. Its a tautology, i.e. correct by
>> construction. Period. All we have do is look to see if we can
>> identify what will generate the most offspring. e.g. For males, its
>> pretty much sex at very opportunity with as many as possible, for
>> females its chose the best they can to avoid being in the club for 9
>> months with bad gene stock. If you have an argument to refute what
>> is actually experimentally proven, lets hear it.
>>
>
> A few interesting twists:
>
> The grandmother theory: unlike most animals and pre-homo-sapiens,
> humans live far beyond their active-reproductive ages,
This isnt really true. Males can have offspring at any age.
>so that they
> can protect and teach their kids. Social structure then becomes a
> survival mechanism, and we have social evolution as well as
> biological.
Yes, but this is still Darwinian evolution of replicants
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html.
genes = nature
memes = nurture
So its not an "and" or "Grandmother theory". Social structure is all
part of Darwinian evolution, and handled all in the wash with the
general properties of replicators and replicants obeying the 3 Darwinian
axioms of, random generation, replication and selection. Its part of the
*same* theory.
>Males have a primary family and tribe which command their
> first loyalty. Females want not just good genes, but a good provider
> and protector, too,
Yes, and these characteristics are not usually available in the one
mate, so females have developed techniques to overcome this problem. It
is experimentally shown that females prefer facial characteristics
associated with the jack the lad, "he man" types during ovulation, and
the caring, sucker type when not ovulating. Hence, many males are
bringing up someone else's offspring. 30% of them by some reckoning.
>so the beautiful brats can survive. So mating
> isn't just lets-go-for-it, but lets-make-a-deal.
I didn't say it was. There are numerous competing memes and genes which
need a full mathematical analysis in general. One is simplifying the
situation to make the main features tractable. If a trait of a replicant
does not have a contineous overall advantage then it wont nesesarilly
exclude the visability of other traits. e.g.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/competitionmath/competitionmath.html
One has to do the actual numbers in a real situation to see all of the
trade offs.
>
> Inter-species gene transfer is an interesting idea, possibly mediated
> by viruses. Why restrict the available gene pool to your own species?
>
> Macros: DNA is complex enough to have macro-evolution mechanisms,
> genes whose function is to manage the evolution process itself.
Yes. Random generation and selection has resulted in DNA machines that
have specific functions. I call it "Darwinian purpose"
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
- Next message: Max Hauser: "Destruct-O-Tron: Physics at work"
- Previous message: Karl Uppiano: "Re: Announcing 'hifi-am', to discuss High Fidelity AM tuners and hobbyist transmitters"
- In reply to: John Larkin: "Re: Question on audio amplifiers for a change..."
- Next in thread: Genome: "Re: Question on audio amplifiers for a change..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]