Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Adult Brains Grow From Specialist Use

Posted by kdawson on from the use-it-or-lose-it dept.

Xemu writes "Researchers at University College of London's Institute of Neurology have discovered that taxi drivers grow more brain cells in the area associated with memory. Dr Eleanor Maguire says, 'We believe the brain increased in gray matter volume because of the huge amount of data memorized.' She warns against the use of GPS and says it will possibly affect the brain changes seen in this study. This research is the first to show that the brains of adults can grow in response to specialist use." London cabbies, unlike their American counterparts, have to learn the layout of streets and the locations of thousands of places of interest in order to get a license.

7 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. FUCK YOU, IM A QUE-HEGAN, AND I WILL BEAT YOUR ASS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    With Nicole Brazzle's beautiful tits!

  2. Re:So how does this explain George Bush ? by HappySqurriel · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm going to start off by saying that I'm not an American ...

    Honestly, George Bush has not been a very good president but I don't think the problem with his performance has anything to do with lack of intelligence. The War in Iraq is often mentioned as a "disaster" but has been one of the most successful and casualty free wars in history; the main problem with it is that it was sold to Americans on false information which brings up questions on the motivation for war (many people belive in a deeper conspiracy but if there was a successful conspiracy it would imply that GW was smarter than people suspected). The ecconomy is running into difficulty but a large portion of that is caused by the dramatic reduction in interest rates post 9-11 which drove up consumer spending and created massive inflationary pressures; ultimately, the recession that would have occured after 9-11 was delayed and it is difficult to know if it is for the better or for the worse.

    Ultimately, GW was probably not a good president, but I don't think it is fair to say that he was all that dumb.

  3. Re:So how does this explain George Bush ? by bhirsch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Still better than Carter.

  4. Re:FUCK YOU, IM A QUE-HEGAN, AND I WILL BEAT YOUR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I'd rather stuff the dollars down my own pants.

  5. +1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    The War in Iraq is often mentioned as a "disaster" but has been one of the most successful and casualty free wars in history
    Yeah, deteriorating into civil war, where over 100,000 civilians have already been killed is really "successful and casualty-free".
    1. Re:+1 Funny by HappySqurriel · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      "After 2 hours of bombardment, Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. The aftermath of the incendiary bombings lead to an estimated 100,000 Japanese dead. This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the firebombing of Dresden"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_W orld_War_II

      Remember, the 100,000 number was the number of people who died directly from the bombing and doesn't include the thousands that would have died from famine/disease in the weeks and months following the bombing (which is what the estimate of 100,000 of Iraq's citizens is based off of).

      Even today the number of those killed, military and civilian, in the period covered (1959-1975) is open to debate and uncertainty. To illustrate the problem, below are three reference works by three or more authors listing casualty figures. What is remarkable about them is that the only ones that seem to match are the ones that must be, at best, approximations. None of the figures include the members of South Vietnamese forces killed in the final campaign. Nor do they include the Royal Lao Armed Forces, thousands of Laotian and Thai irregulars, or Laotian civilians who all perished in that peculiar conflict. They do not include the tens of thousands of Cambodians killed during the civil war or the estimated one and one-half to two million that perished in the genocide that followed Khmer Rouge victory

      1. Harry G. Summers, The Vietnam War Almanac. Novato CA: Presidio Press, 1985.

      U.S. killed in action, died of wounds, died of other causes, missing and declared dead - 57,690. South Vietnamese military killed - 243,748. Republic of Korea killed - 4,407. Australia and New Zealand (combined) - 469. Thailand - 351. The Vietnam People's Army and NLF (combined) - 666,000. North Vietnamese civilian fatalities - 65,000. South Vietnamese civilian dead - 300,000.

      2. Marc Leepson, ed, Webster's New World Dictionary of the Vietnam War. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.

      U.S. killed in action, etc. - 58,159. South Vietnamese military - 224,000. Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand - not listed. DRV military - not listed. DRV civilians - 65,000. South Vietnamese civilians - 300,000.

      3. Edward Doyle, Samuel Lipsman, et al, Setting the Stage. Boston: Boston Publishing Company, 1981.

      U.S. - 57,605. South Vietnamese military - 220,357. Republic of Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and Thailand - not listed. DRV and NLF deaths - 444,000. Combined DRV and RVN civilian deaths -587,000.

      A fourth Source, John Rowe's Vietnam: The Australian Experience. Sydney: Time-Life Books Australia, 1987, gives a figure of 496 Australians killed in action or died of wounds.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#Casualtie s

      100,000 is a lot of people, and is larger than many of the cities that people will be reading Slashdot from but when you look at casualties of wars the US has been in the number has been steadily declining since World War 2.

    2. Re:+1 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Oh my god, you're serious. I was holding out some hope that it was just clever satire. While the bombing of German and Japanese cities was terrible, it achieved something: the end of their military aggression. Tell me why exactly it was worth slaughtering Iraqi civilians when Iraq posed no immediate danger, and what objective has now been achieved?