There is more to estimating intelligence than just measuring the brain size. There is the question of what parts of the brain are larger. A creature that depends on its sense of smell has more of the brain devoted to smelling. The same goes for the other senses and body parts. Another example is modern man where a large parts of the brain are devoted to the sense of sight and the thumb. One has to look at the whole picture including such intangible things such as culture when estimating intelligence.
Also there is the question of what exactly is intelligence. I know many very smart people as measured by "book learning" that do not have a bit of "street smarts" (and vice versa).
If this is true that they don't murder in the area near to where they live, doesn't this run counter to the basic idea behind offender lists? Maybe the people living in the immediate area near where an offender is living are aware of the situation. However if this study is true, then they people not in the surrounding area are the ones at risk. The entire idea of offender lists is filled with flaws.
Often, there is some use for otherwise obsolete equipment. My brother who worked in the IT department of a large company was musing about the print buffer of one printer was continually overflowing. They needed a new printer but there was a new purchasing freeze so a cheap solution had to be found. I then had an idea, I had an old but perfectly good IBM-XT with a 50 Meg hard drive that was not used for 10 years. I told my brother that he could use it for a print server. That is exactly what was done. It was still in use as a print server 4 years later. By the way, this was just after the tech bubble burst.
This is a highly unusual situation but I am sure that old equipment that is still good but unused still has worth to someone.
Did I get this right? They wanted to prevent rainfall in Beijing? In recent weeks, after every rainfall the air quality actually improved. You would think they would want some rainfall just before the games to improve the air quality.
By "rapid decompression" I mean what happened to the airliner that went down over Lockerbie Scotland. Yes, it was caused by a bomb but it was relatively small. Most of the damage happened as a result of rapid decompression. Also in the late 50's several Comets went down because stress cracks in window frames caused the windows to blow out, resulting in rapid decompression. Yes, I know about the recent Quantas airliner incident and also the airliner that lost a large portion of the roof near Hawaii. These incidents could just as easily resulted in the plane going down. Rapid loss of pressurization is a very serious incident and often even heroic effort by the pilots is not enough. Now imagine trying that under the already chaotic circumstances of a hijack. Moreover, going down becomes an almost certainty if the hijackers are at the controls as they were on 9/11.
While I agree on many of the points you make, you are wrong about the ease of shooting down airliners. Look at KAL 007. The fuel carried by an airliner alone would make for a BIG explosion. Even if the fuel did not explode, do you know what rapid decompression of the pressurized cabin would do? There are some cases where an airliner survived rapid decompression of the cabin but this is relatively uncommon.
I'm wondering what the effects of dirt and oil from cars would be. Wouldn't these items dramatically reduce the effectiveness of the titanium dioxide? Still, titanium dioxide is a relatively harmless substance so I guess that it wouldn't hurt to try.
I had the early signs of a stroke which presented as a case of vertigo. The neurologist was not quite sure and requested a MRI. My health insurance insurance stalled for two weeks before giving the OK for the MRI. While waiting, I had a massive stroke. All the medical experts said that a timely (say in 5 days) could have detected it coming. If they knew the stroke was coming they probably could have treated it without the damage it eventually caused. When someone talks about rationing and long wait times, it really infuriates me because we have this right now. (By the way, this is nothing new! I had the stroke 10 years ago.)
It doesn't require a computer to mess up a translation. A few examples come to mind even before computer use became common.
1. General Motors couldn't figure out why one of their car models sold so poorly in Spanish speaking nations. The model was the Nova, which very loosely translated into Spanish means "doesn't go".
2. Coke decided to bring use "Coke, brings life" advertising slogan to some oriental nation. (I'm not sure which one it was but Japan or China is probable.) It was translated as "Coke brings your ancestors back to life."
3. Jimmy Carter on a trip to Poland said something like "Americans love the Polish people". The translator translated the phrase as something akin to "Americans have carnal desires for the Polish people."
I was thinking that as well. Even is it was economically possible (magic?) to transport the ethane to earth, where would we get the oxygen to burn it? Free oxygen is relatively uncommon in the universe. Surely we don't want to deplete what oxygen we have on earth. After all, we need a certain amount in the atmosphere to live.
Part of the success of any leader (president, CEO or what ever) is in the condition the organization will be in long after you leave. If the organization does good while you are at the helm and chaos ensues after you leave, it means that that in least one area, you are deficient. The whole story has to be considered not just when you are in charge but also what happens after you leave.
I'm too old to verify this but recently on the news I heard that drinks such as Red Bull are being mixed with alcoholic beverages. It was pointed out that this is very dangerous. The point is that drinking something like Red Bull doesn't exclude the consumption of alcohol and sometimes doing so simultaneously.
Absolutely! Part of the genius of Franklin Roosevelt was his ability to try new things when the old things weren't working. There is nothing worse than trying more of the same when it is obvious that it isn't working.
Changing ones mind isn't bad, it indicates that you have an open mind which is good. The only thing is that you must have a good reason to change your mind. It can be a bad sign if you change your mind just because the way the political wind is blowing changed.
I don't know. While I am in favor of environmental regulations, the fact that the courts threw out the entire mess might be a blessing in disguise. It will be back to the drawing board and the Bush administration will not have enough time to put new ones into effect. The regulation that the courts threw out probably was filled with loopholes that would let polluters off the hook. Maybe a new (and hopefully environmentally friendly) administration will do it correctly.
Why a law? That one is easy! It's not for the sake of the idiot texting while driving. It's to protect the rest of the drivers on the road from this idiot. It provides another reason for the cop to pull him over if he does not have another reason. (Yes a good cop can always find a reason to make a stop but why burden him?) Furthermore, if he crashes injuring others, it provides another reason for locking him up.
Granted, hijacked airplanes and boats have been used in the past, but what's with the fixation on these modes of attack? If history about terrorist attacks is any guide, one should guess that they will opt for an easier but just as damaging form of attack. One such easy target is oil refineries or big chemical plants. Why not do something about the "low hanging fruit"?
"... the City Attorney is seeking $2,500 in civil penalties for each violation of the Unfair Competition law"
WTF These fines are laughable. In fact we have to rethink our policy on fines. They should be based on a percentage of your gross annual income. This should be for individuals, organizations and corporations. I would be in favor of doing this for something as simple as a parking ticket. The way it is now, the corporate board just treats it as a cost of doing business.
I have been thinking of what * YOU * and 11 other people did and I came up with several unflattering conclusions.
1. You actually believe that you did justice in this case. I think you are wrong if this is the case! Unfortunately, the world is filled with cretins that think this way.
2. You didn't think the law was just and voted for conviction anyways. This is actually worse because you didn't have the courage of your convictions (no pun intended) to hold out and hang the jury. - Or even worse still. - You just wanted to get jury duty over and voted to convict because it was easier and quicker than holding out. The problem here is that you voted to suspend the life of someone just to get on with your own life.
For the sake of argument, lets say that there was a way to become immortal. Statistical studies say that the actual lifespan of such a person would be about 500 years because in that period of time we would become a victim of some sort of fatal accident. That having been stated, can you imagine a world where "immortality" would be possible?
There are many implications to society as a whole. 1. If it was not cheap, would we want to let anyone with the money to take the treatment? What about geniuses that couldn't afford it.
2. If it was readily affordable, and everyone was treated. What about overpopulation. One of the promises of most religions that you would attain immortality in the afterlife would loose its appeal. After all, why die when you have immortality right now.
The list of changes in society is very long. I think that I would not like to live in a world where everyone or just a few people could live forever. Can you imagine a world where Rupert Murdock, Dick Cheney, Bill Gates and a host of others could lord it over others forever?
I read somewhere, I think it was the BBC, that a study an aging revealed the following surprising results. Anti-oxidants taken to extend your lifespan or at least extend your healthy years, actually didn't help. As a matter of fact, there was some evidence that they actually shortened the life span. We know so little about the aging process at this time. In my opinion it's probably best not to make yourself a human guinea pig in the hope that something might help.
If what you say is true, then we need some regulations that state how much over-subscription is permissible. Yes, some level is acceptable but lately it has gotten way out of line. I'm not going to pretend to know what is acceptable but there has to be some limit.
Slashdot Mirror
There is more to estimating intelligence than just measuring the brain size. There is the question of what parts of the brain are larger. A creature that depends on its sense of smell has more of the brain devoted to smelling. The same goes for the other senses and body parts. Another example is modern man where a large parts of the brain are devoted to the sense of sight and the thumb. One has to look at the whole picture including such intangible things such as culture when estimating intelligence.
Also there is the question of what exactly is intelligence. I know many very smart people as measured by "book learning" that do not have a bit of "street smarts" (and vice versa).
If this is true that they don't murder in the area near to where they live, doesn't this run counter to the basic idea behind offender lists? Maybe the people living in the immediate area near where an offender is living are aware of the situation. However if this study is true, then they people not in the surrounding area are the ones at risk. The entire idea of offender lists is filled with flaws.
You are probably right, but often management doesn't make a wise decision. As they say, "penny wise and pound foolish".
Often, there is some use for otherwise obsolete equipment. My brother who worked in the IT department of a large company was musing about the print buffer of one printer was continually overflowing. They needed a new printer but there was a new purchasing freeze so a cheap solution had to be found. I then had an idea, I had an old but perfectly good IBM-XT with a 50 Meg hard drive that was not used for 10 years. I told my brother that he could use it for a print server. That is exactly what was done. It was still in use as a print server 4 years later. By the way, this was just after the tech bubble burst.
This is a highly unusual situation but I am sure that old equipment that is still good but unused still has worth to someone.
Did I get this right? They wanted to prevent rainfall in Beijing? In recent weeks, after every rainfall the air quality actually improved. You would think they would want some rainfall just before the games to improve the air quality.
By "rapid decompression" I mean what happened to the airliner that went down over Lockerbie Scotland. Yes, it was caused by a bomb but it was relatively small. Most of the damage happened as a result of rapid decompression. Also in the late 50's several Comets went down because stress cracks in window frames caused the windows to blow out, resulting in rapid decompression. Yes, I know about the recent Quantas airliner incident and also the airliner that lost a large portion of the roof near Hawaii. These incidents could just as easily resulted in the plane going down. Rapid loss of pressurization is a very serious incident and often even heroic effort by the pilots is not enough. Now imagine trying that under the already chaotic circumstances of a hijack. Moreover, going down becomes an almost certainty if the hijackers are at the controls as they were on 9/11.
While I agree on many of the points you make, you are wrong about the ease of shooting down airliners. Look at KAL 007. The fuel carried by an airliner alone would make for a BIG explosion. Even if the fuel did not explode, do you know what rapid decompression of the pressurized cabin would do? There are some cases where an airliner survived rapid decompression of the cabin but this is relatively uncommon.
I'm wondering what the effects of dirt and oil from cars would be. Wouldn't these items dramatically reduce the effectiveness of the titanium dioxide? Still, titanium dioxide is a relatively harmless substance so I guess that it wouldn't hurt to try.
Boy do you have this right!
I had the early signs of a stroke which presented as a case of vertigo. The neurologist was not quite sure and requested a MRI. My health insurance insurance stalled for two weeks before giving the OK for the MRI. While waiting, I had a massive stroke. All the medical experts said that a timely (say in 5 days) could have detected it coming. If they knew the stroke was coming they probably could have treated it without the damage it eventually caused. When someone talks about rationing and long wait times, it really infuriates me because we have this right now. (By the way, this is nothing new! I had the stroke 10 years ago.)
It doesn't require a computer to mess up a translation. A few examples come to mind even before computer use became common.
1. General Motors couldn't figure out why one of their car models sold so poorly in Spanish speaking nations. The model was the Nova, which very loosely translated into Spanish means "doesn't go".
2. Coke decided to bring use "Coke, brings life" advertising slogan to some oriental nation. (I'm not sure which one it was but Japan or China is probable.) It was translated as "Coke brings your ancestors back to life."
3. Jimmy Carter on a trip to Poland said something like "Americans love the Polish people". The translator translated the phrase as something akin to "Americans have carnal desires for the Polish people."
Computers aren't alone in mistranslating things.
The world is filled with
I was thinking that as well. Even is it was economically possible (magic?) to transport the ethane to earth, where would we get the oxygen to burn it? Free oxygen is relatively uncommon in the universe. Surely we don't want to deplete what oxygen we have on earth. After all, we need a certain amount in the atmosphere to live.
Consider this...
Part of the success of any leader (president, CEO or what ever) is in the condition the organization will be in long after you leave. If the organization does good while you are at the helm and chaos ensues after you leave, it means that that in least one area, you are deficient. The whole story has to be considered not just when you are in charge but also what happens after you leave.
I'm too old to verify this but recently on the news I heard that drinks such as Red Bull are being mixed with alcoholic beverages. It was pointed out that this is very dangerous. The point is that drinking something like Red Bull doesn't exclude the consumption of alcohol and sometimes doing so simultaneously.
Absolutely! Part of the genius of Franklin Roosevelt was his ability to try new things when the old things weren't working. There is nothing worse than trying more of the same when it is obvious that it isn't working.
Changing ones mind isn't bad, it indicates that you have an open mind which is good. The only thing is that you must have a good reason to change your mind. It can be a bad sign if you change your mind just because the way the political wind is blowing changed.
Wrong.
It's TWO!
Didn't you read the summary?
I don't know. While I am in favor of environmental regulations, the fact that the courts threw out the entire mess might be a blessing in disguise. It will be back to the drawing board and the Bush administration will not have enough time to put new ones into effect. The regulation that the courts threw out probably was filled with loopholes that would let polluters off the hook. Maybe a new (and hopefully environmentally friendly) administration will do it correctly.
I wholeheartedly agree! Take for example two phrases which are equivalent...
"Eighty seven years ago our ancestors ..."
and
"Four score and seven years ago our forefathers ..."
They say the same thing but what a difference in eloquence.
Why a law? That one is easy! It's not for the sake of the idiot texting while driving. It's to protect the rest of the drivers on the road from this idiot. It provides another reason for the cop to pull him over if he does not have another reason. (Yes a good cop can always find a reason to make a stop but why burden him?) Furthermore, if he crashes injuring others, it provides another reason for locking him up.
This article reminds me of the toaster on Red Dwarf.
Toaster: "Haw do you like your toast"
Lister: "I don't want toast, I don't want muffins. I don't want bagels (etc.)"
Toaster: "Ah I understand! You're a waffles man!."
Granted, hijacked airplanes and boats have been used in the past, but what's with the fixation on these modes of attack? If history about terrorist attacks is any guide, one should guess that they will opt for an easier but just as damaging form of attack. One such easy target is oil refineries or big chemical plants. Why not do something about the "low hanging fruit"?
"... the City Attorney is seeking $2,500 in civil penalties for each violation of the Unfair Competition law"
WTF These fines are laughable. In fact we have to rethink our policy on fines. They should be based on a percentage of your gross annual income. This should be for individuals, organizations and corporations. I would be in favor of doing this for something as simple as a parking ticket. The way it is now, the corporate board just treats it as a cost of doing business.
I have been thinking of what * YOU * and 11 other people did and I came up with several unflattering conclusions. 1. You actually believe that you did justice in this case. I think you are wrong if this is the case! Unfortunately, the world is filled with cretins that think this way. 2. You didn't think the law was just and voted for conviction anyways. This is actually worse because you didn't have the courage of your convictions (no pun intended) to hold out and hang the jury. - Or even worse still. - You just wanted to get jury duty over and voted to convict because it was easier and quicker than holding out. The problem here is that you voted to suspend the life of someone just to get on with your own life.
For the sake of argument, lets say that there was a way to become immortal. Statistical studies say that the actual lifespan of such a person would be about 500 years because in that period of time we would become a victim of some sort of fatal accident. That having been stated, can you imagine a world where "immortality" would be possible? There are many implications to society as a whole. 1. If it was not cheap, would we want to let anyone with the money to take the treatment? What about geniuses that couldn't afford it. 2. If it was readily affordable, and everyone was treated. What about overpopulation. One of the promises of most religions that you would attain immortality in the afterlife would loose its appeal. After all, why die when you have immortality right now. The list of changes in society is very long. I think that I would not like to live in a world where everyone or just a few people could live forever. Can you imagine a world where Rupert Murdock, Dick Cheney, Bill Gates and a host of others could lord it over others forever?
I read somewhere, I think it was the BBC, that a study an aging revealed the following surprising results. Anti-oxidants taken to extend your lifespan or at least extend your healthy years, actually didn't help. As a matter of fact, there was some evidence that they actually shortened the life span. We know so little about the aging process at this time. In my opinion it's probably best not to make yourself a human guinea pig in the hope that something might help.
If what you say is true, then we need some regulations that state how much over-subscription is permissible. Yes, some level is acceptable but lately it has gotten way out of line. I'm not going to pretend to know what is acceptable but there has to be some limit.