Actually, I see it less as "rejection of truth by authority" and more "acceptance of the existence of more than one authority". I'm fine with accepting an authority if that one authority is infallible and willing to keep any pages under their care updated constantly. If not though, I'd appreciate being able to have someone say "actually, section 6.23 is no longer wholly accurate..." and make appropriate corrections.
I'll concede though that wikipedia may not have as good a handle on edit wars as I was thinking when I wrote up the post. I confess I was thinking more about factual articles about relatively non-controversial things. (The chemical properties of Strontium, or biographical details of HP Lovecraft or whatever.) For controversial things, I'll admit, it can be a little spottier.
If you are a young academic, who might spend six months preparing a great article on Thomas Aquinas, you're not going to publish in a place where anyone can come along and change this
For some reason, this line really bugs me. Maybe it depends on what your goal is? If your goal is to provide the most up-to-date, complete reference, then heck yes, I would say, you SHOULD put it somewhere that other people can change it. In case they have anything to add to what you wrote, or in case there are any things you wrote that need correcting. (And assuming that you have at least some degree of trust that they will do so in good faith and not just delete/vandalize your work I guess.)
The only reasons I can think that you would want to write something in a way that DOESN'T allow people to modify it is if you either a) are 100% certain that what you have written is completely accurate and definitive and will require no maintenance, b) are more worried about having "your" version up and public than having the "most correct" version up, or c) don't trust the people who might do edits, or the moderation system.
All of these seem like pretty petty reasons except C though. (a reeks of hubris, and b seems like the wrong goal.) And wikipedia HAS a pretty good handle on C, all things considered. It seems like the biggest danger of this is that the update process becomes too much work (either because you have to wait for 120 people to review it, or because those 120 people get bogged down by review oversight requests) and that the encyclopedia becomes out of date.
It will be interesting to see how this works out for them though. If they find a model that works, then more power to them?
All the EVE advcotes will boast about how they aren't pussies, and how they love risk and a challenge. But they only love risk and challenge when they are heavily favored to win. What do they do when a stronger force shows up? They run away. God forbid they actually fight something that might beat them. Of course, this is the 'intelligent' thing to do in EVE, so you can't fault them.
So you're saying that retreating when you're outmatched, and doing everything you can to make sure you win a conflict before you commit to it, are only "intelligent" in the context of a game that you claim is broken?
Because maybe I'm projecting here, but I think that in the heart of most computer programmer nerds is the memory of how they started programming. So automatically the kid gets some slack, just because most us immediately think "haha, that reminds me of the time I tried to make _____ in BASIC, god my version sucked. Taught me to program though...."
So while I have some trouble imagining a scenario where a budding programmer accidentally violates the GPL or something, I think at the very least that many slashdot readers would be more inclined to say "wow, smart cookie of a kid!" and kindly tell him/her what they did wrong, rather than send a threatening legal letter.
Heh. That reminds me of a story I read once. (glancing around the googles, it looks like it is all over the place in various forms) It is basically the same as the picasso story in your link.
The short version:
Man has boiler problems. Boiler isn't working.
Plumber shows up. Plumber pokes around for about 15 minutes, and finally takes out a hammer, and carefully taps a specific spot in the pipes. Water starts flowing again. Hooray!
Later, the bill shows up. It is several hundred dollars. The person being billed is a little upset at this, since the plumber only spent 15 minutes on it. They say so, and demand to know why 15 minutes of the plumbers time are worth a couple hundred.
The plumber nods, and sends back an updated invoice. It reads:
15 minutes of tapping on pipes: $20 Knowing where to tap: $180
That cuts both ways. Reckless endangerment? I don't see anything about science in the wikipedia article, so one could reasonably make the claim that the storm chasers are endangering the scientists just as much as the other way around. Bottom line is that they're both in a dangerous, yet public environment, for reasons that they see as legitimate.
Also, I take exception with this line:
Anyone else who isn't contributing to the scientific body of knowledge has no right or need to be there
There is a lot wrong with it! For example: Who decides what is a "legitimate" contribution? It also seems to spectacularly fail the "general case" test. I. e. Unless you have a good reason why storms are magic "science only zones", what's your logic for why it wouldn't it apply to non-storm locations? Does it apply to other roads? State parks? Local corner delis?
Again though - if they want to say "your app shall not consume more than ## battery units per ## time unit" then fine. if that outlaws most flash apps, that's fine too.
then a) it should also outlaw things that aren't flash that have the same problem b) if I DO make a flash/java/unity/whatever program that doesn't have this problem, then apple should be fine with it.
It's not that Flash in particular is a right...
on
Flash Is Not a Right
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I don't think the problem is that apple is trampling someone's "rights". I think it is more that apple is just continuing to act like a dick. (Whcih shouldn't be a surprise, since the dickery of Steve Jobs is well documented.)
I can't speak for others, but my personal beef is that apple is putting restrictions on the development process instead of the result.
I have ZERO problem if they want to put restrictions on the result. "Your binary must adhere to these rules, and behave thusly." That's fine.
I take great exception if they say how I can make it though. Saying "you can't use these tools" is silly. They shouldn't care what tools are used. To me, saying "you can't submit anything that was written in flash" makes exactly as much sense as saying "You can't submit anything that wasn't written by someone with blond hair."
(And yes, I'm equally insensed about Java, Unity, or anything else, as I am about Flash.)
Also I'm mostly annoyed by the obvious hippocracy that it shows on the part of apple. (Which again, really shouldn't surprise me by now, but meh.) Because as countless people have already pointed out, it basically outlaws a very large percentage of stuff that is already in the app store. No one REALLY expects apple to come down too hard on the non-flash things here. They are basically just issuing a law that makes it so EVERYONE who uses any kind of middleware is illegal, so they can pick and choose their enforcement to suit their whims. The app store approval process already has a wide reputation for capriousness. They already pick and choose apps to ban inconsistently, frequently refuse to provide reasons, and refuse to provide any real recourse, or point of contact. This is only going to make this problem worse.
So yeah. I don't get mad at apple because I feel I have some "right" to use flash in particular. But I do feel that I have a "right" to develop using whatever tools I see fit, whether they be Adobe's products, or blond-haired employees, and that apple should get out of my business, and only concern themselves with my product.
"He was later forced to apologise. The animal was not a cat, the incident happened at another location and bikies weren't involved."
Wait, what?!
"Oops, my bad, it was a cow, not a cat. And it wasn't at my house, it was at the local Burger King. And I guess it was just a family of 4, not bikers. But it looked so delicious that I was understandably confused!"
If your editor supports elastic tabstops, then you can use them, but then your code will look weird in something like viewvc or any editor that doesn't. This is why our coding conventions say you should use tabs for indenting and spaces for alignment. A tab is a semantic 'indent by one level' character, while a space is an 'advance the cursor by one character width' character. To have this work in a proportional font, you'd need to redefine space to mean 'advance the cursor by the width of the character directly above'. This is not impossible, but it would require a bit of hacking in the layout engine.
Of course if you did that, the code would look REALLY REALLY WEIRD when viewed on anyone else's computer. If you're going for readable, maintainable code, this is probably not that great an idea. If your goal is code that is only easy to read on your computer in your specific editor though, then this is probably a great start.
Actually, it [rightfully claimed land] means, "someone who makes use of land that no other has claimed, and claims it as his own." A right is not a deed of ownership, but a freedom of action. Your right to a piece of land is indicated by your utilization of that land - for living, for growing food, whatever. So a small group of people can't claim, "We own Antarctica!", just because they happened to land there. They can justifiably claim to own the section of the continent on which they inhabit and grow food.
Wait, so you're saying that I can own land (even if other people are using it) if I just show up and start farming it? So whoever farmed it last (or "uses" it) rightfully owns it?
A couple of obvious problems jump out with this definition...
#1 - What if I want to use the land for something other than farming. Can't I use it as a park or nature preserve? If so, how would you "know"?
#2 - What's to stop me from showing up on land you think you own, and farming/mining it? If I show up on your doorstep with a packet of seeds, do I now own your house?
Your idea of "rightful ownership" seems to have some problems...
Silverlight doesn't have any reported issues since not enough people use it for the bad guys to bother investing resources in finding its vulnerabilities. It's related to the same "macs don't get viruses" argument that was floated around right up until the point that macs became popular enough for virus writers to bother with them.
This is actually a really really good suggestion. Nearly every professional game designer I know is a board gamer. And board games are a GREAT place to learn a lot about design. You have a minimal barrier to entry (all you need are some notecards and pens, and a few patient friends) and fewer crutches to lean on. (In video games its easy to dress a crappy game up with sparkly particle effects and glitter to distract from the fact that it's a crappy game. It's a lot harder to disguise a crappy board game.)
Not to say that all board games map nicely onto video games, (the interactive and realtime nature of video games does give them a few extra possibilities) but if you can design board games that your friends will play willingly, without prompting, then you probably have learned a fair bit about game design in general, (player motivation, reward structure, etc) and will probably find a lot of those skills translate pretty well.
So yeah, if you want to learn about game design, or start getting into it, making board games, while perhaps not as sexy as making quake mods, is still not a terrible place to start.
I've been Sony free since around 2000, when the DMCA convinced me (a programmer) that Sony was actively attacking my beliefs. (Code is free speech, etc.)
Not that any of their later debacles (CD rootkits, etc) made me like them much more.
So yeah. I second that! Screw Sony, if you don't like what they're doing, vote with your wallet.
Is this really the problem? Are there too many games that have good story and bad gameplay? It seems to me that (even among 'top ranked games') bad stories seem to outnumber the good stories by a pretty absurd margin.
Heck, I'd even put the venerable halflife on the side of "good gameplay, bad story." Seriously - the story was just 'oops, we made a teleporter and now aliens are coming out.' That's basically the same story as DOOM... The only reason it was so awesome story-wise is because they TOLD their crappy story in an extremely well-done way.
Games that actually have GOOD stories seem pretty few and far between, as far as I can tell. Not saying that they are automatically good games, it just seems funny to me that we're worrying that people are spending too much time on stories, considering how the majority of the current stories suck so hard...
Well, morality might factor in if you are someone who, say, benefits from the things that taxes are spent on, and so feels that it's only fair that you help pay for the things that are helping you? For example, if you are a person who...
Likes not being shot to death or mugged, and enjoys the stability brought about by general rule of law.
Feels safer knowing that if your house catches fire, someone will come try to put it out.
Feels safer knowing that if your NEIGHBOR'S house catches fire, someone will come try to make sure it doesn't spread and burn down your house too.
Likes having drinking water that is safe to drink.
Enjoys the knowledge that most things purchased in stores as food are not poisonous.
Travels on roads or public transit.
Ever visits parks or libraries.
These are things that cost money. These are things that most people benefit from. So yeah, I can see how a certain sort of person might say "Gee, I sure am getting a good deal here. Now that I can afford it, paying my share seems like a good thing." Heck, some people might even go so far as to say "And heck, now that I can afford it, why don't I pay MORE than my share, to help make up for the time when I was paying less than my share? Or to help cover people who aren't as lucky as I am to be able to?"
So yeah, while I'm not the original poster, and so can't speak for him/her, these are some ways in which I can imagine feelings of morality entering in to the equation?
Not saying it isn't sometimes true, but it's clearly a fallacy to assume that is always the case:
Mom: Here boys, have some cake! Dennis: Cool, let's split it 50/50! Richard: No, I think I should get it all! Mom: You're both going to extremes. Richard gets 75% and Billy 25%.
Empathy and positivity are wrong in IT/Security. However they might give you a bit of good time now and then, they *will* backfire.
What if your own empathy makes you feel the dissatisfaction and troublesome mood of the boss? And that of many other colleagues, one day things are not working? You 're gonna be wishing to help, get very stressed, then fry.
What if the worst case scenario happens, despite how good your consultant was. He'll soon find himself quite sued, unless he has carefully weighted all negative scenarios, lots of cynicism.
10 years in IT: it sucks to be there. I rather go sell newspapers could I afford it.
This is an incredibly weak argument. Empathy is just one more channel to gain information through. Saying "Empathy is bad, because what if you feel someone else's dissatisfaction?" makes about as much sense as saying "security cameras are bad, because what if you see something on them that depresses you?"
Also, what-ifs work both ways. What if your lack of empathy makes you miss social cues that someone is trying to lie to you? What if you miss noticing that a co-worker is having a rough time in their personal life, and is not at the top of their game?
So. Summary: Your argument = silly. Empathy = useful channel of information.
Hasn't it been fairly well established that more intelligent people are less likely to be happy in general?
Is that actually established? And for what kind of definition of "Smart"? I think you could probably make a pretty good argument that if someone were smart enough, they could figure out ways to avoid/escape being unhappy...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I see it less as "rejection of truth by authority" and more "acceptance of the existence of more than one authority". I'm fine with accepting an authority if that one authority is infallible and willing to keep any pages under their care updated constantly. If not though, I'd appreciate being able to have someone say "actually, section 6.23 is no longer wholly accurate..." and make appropriate corrections.
I'll concede though that wikipedia may not have as good a handle on edit wars as I was thinking when I wrote up the post. I confess I was thinking more about factual articles about relatively non-controversial things. (The chemical properties of Strontium, or biographical details of HP Lovecraft or whatever.) For controversial things, I'll admit, it can be a little spottier.
If you are a young academic, who might spend six months preparing a great article on Thomas Aquinas, you're not going to publish in a place where anyone can come along and change this
For some reason, this line really bugs me. Maybe it depends on what your goal is? If your goal is to provide the most up-to-date, complete reference, then heck yes, I would say, you SHOULD put it somewhere that other people can change it. In case they have anything to add to what you wrote, or in case there are any things you wrote that need correcting. (And assuming that you have at least some degree of trust that they will do so in good faith and not just delete/vandalize your work I guess.)
The only reasons I can think that you would want to write something in a way that DOESN'T allow people to modify it is if you either a) are 100% certain that what you have written is completely accurate and definitive and will require no maintenance, b) are more worried about having "your" version up and public than having the "most correct" version up, or c) don't trust the people who might do edits, or the moderation system.
All of these seem like pretty petty reasons except C though. (a reeks of hubris, and b seems like the wrong goal.) And wikipedia HAS a pretty good handle on C, all things considered. It seems like the biggest danger of this is that the update process becomes too much work (either because you have to wait for 120 people to review it, or because those 120 people get bogged down by review oversight requests) and that the encyclopedia becomes out of date.
It will be interesting to see how this works out for them though. If they find a model that works, then more power to them?
All the EVE advcotes will boast about how they aren't pussies, and how they love risk and a challenge. But they only love risk and challenge when they are heavily favored to win. What do they do when a stronger force shows up? They run away. God forbid they actually fight something that might beat them. Of course, this is the 'intelligent' thing to do in EVE, so you can't fault them.
So you're saying that retreating when you're outmatched, and doing everything you can to make sure you win a conflict before you commit to it, are only "intelligent" in the context of a game that you claim is broken?
Out of curiosity, how would you rate this guy?
I would argue yes, actually!
Because maybe I'm projecting here, but I think that in the heart of most computer programmer nerds is the memory of how they started programming. So automatically the kid gets some slack, just because most us immediately think "haha, that reminds me of the time I tried to make _____ in BASIC, god my version sucked. Taught me to program though...."
So while I have some trouble imagining a scenario where a budding programmer accidentally violates the GPL or something, I think at the very least that many slashdot readers would be more inclined to say "wow, smart cookie of a kid!" and kindly tell him/her what they did wrong, rather than send a threatening legal letter.
Or at least that's how I hope it would go down?
Heh. That reminds me of a story I read once. (glancing around the googles, it looks like it is all over the place in various forms) It is basically the same as the picasso story in your link.
The short version:
Man has boiler problems. Boiler isn't working.
Plumber shows up. Plumber pokes around for about 15 minutes, and finally takes out a hammer, and carefully taps a specific spot in the pipes. Water starts flowing again. Hooray!
Later, the bill shows up. It is several hundred dollars. The person being billed is a little upset at this, since the plumber only spent 15 minutes on it. They say so, and demand to know why 15 minutes of the plumbers time are worth a couple hundred.
The plumber nods, and sends back an updated invoice. It reads:
15 minutes of tapping on pipes: $20
Knowing where to tap: $180
That cuts both ways. Reckless endangerment? I don't see anything about science in the wikipedia article, so one could reasonably make the claim that the storm chasers are endangering the scientists just as much as the other way around. Bottom line is that they're both in a dangerous, yet public environment, for reasons that they see as legitimate.
Also, I take exception with this line:
Anyone else who isn't contributing to the scientific body of knowledge has no right or need to be there
There is a lot wrong with it! For example: Who decides what is a "legitimate" contribution? It also seems to spectacularly fail the "general case" test. I. e. Unless you have a good reason why storms are magic "science only zones", what's your logic for why it wouldn't it apply to non-storm locations? Does it apply to other roads? State parks? Local corner delis?
Again though - if they want to say "your app shall not consume more than ## battery units per ## time unit" then fine. if that outlaws most flash apps, that's fine too.
then
a) it should also outlaw things that aren't flash that have the same problem
b) if I DO make a flash/java/unity/whatever program that doesn't have this problem, then apple should be fine with it.
I don't think the problem is that apple is trampling someone's "rights". I think it is more that apple is just continuing to act like a dick. (Whcih shouldn't be a surprise, since the dickery of Steve Jobs is well documented.)
I can't speak for others, but my personal beef is that apple is putting restrictions on the development process instead of the result.
I have ZERO problem if they want to put restrictions on the result. "Your binary must adhere to these rules, and behave thusly." That's fine.
I take great exception if they say how I can make it though. Saying "you can't use these tools" is silly. They shouldn't care what tools are used. To me, saying "you can't submit anything that was written in flash" makes exactly as much sense as saying "You can't submit anything that wasn't written by someone with blond hair."
(And yes, I'm equally insensed about Java, Unity, or anything else, as I am about Flash.)
Also I'm mostly annoyed by the obvious hippocracy that it shows on the part of apple. (Which again, really shouldn't surprise me by now, but meh.) Because as countless people have already pointed out, it basically outlaws a very large percentage of stuff that is already in the app store. No one REALLY expects apple to come down too hard on the non-flash things here. They are basically just issuing a law that makes it so EVERYONE who uses any kind of middleware is illegal, so they can pick and choose their enforcement to suit their whims. The app store approval process already has a wide reputation for capriousness. They already pick and choose apps to ban inconsistently, frequently refuse to provide reasons, and refuse to provide any real recourse, or point of contact. This is only going to make this problem worse.
So yeah. I don't get mad at apple because I feel I have some "right" to use flash in particular. But I do feel that I have a "right" to develop using whatever tools I see fit, whether they be Adobe's products, or blond-haired employees, and that apple should get out of my business, and only concern themselves with my product.
"He was later forced to apologise. The animal was not a cat, the incident happened at another location and bikies weren't involved."
Wait, what?!
"Oops, my bad, it was a cow, not a cat. And it wasn't at my house, it was at the local Burger King. And I guess it was just a family of 4, not bikers. But it looked so delicious that I was understandably confused!"
If your editor supports elastic tabstops, then you can use them, but then your code will look weird in something like viewvc or any editor that doesn't. This is why our coding conventions say you should use tabs for indenting and spaces for alignment. A tab is a semantic 'indent by one level' character, while a space is an 'advance the cursor by one character width' character. To have this work in a proportional font, you'd need to redefine space to mean 'advance the cursor by the width of the character directly above'. This is not impossible, but it would require a bit of hacking in the layout engine.
Of course if you did that, the code would look REALLY REALLY WEIRD when viewed on anyone else's computer. If you're going for readable, maintainable code, this is probably not that great an idea. If your goal is code that is only easy to read on your computer in your specific editor though, then this is probably a great start.
Wait, you're suggesting that people who like national parks are fringe environmentalists?
Erm.
I guess I have nothing to add to that then.
Actually, it [rightfully claimed land] means, "someone who makes use of land that no other has claimed, and claims it as his own." A right is not a deed of ownership, but a freedom of action. Your right to a piece of land is indicated by your utilization of that land - for living, for growing food, whatever. So a small group of people can't claim, "We own Antarctica!", just because they happened to land there. They can justifiably claim to own the section of the continent on which they inhabit and grow food.
Wait, so you're saying that I can own land (even if other people are using it) if I just show up and start farming it? So whoever farmed it last (or "uses" it) rightfully owns it?
A couple of obvious problems jump out with this definition...
#1 - What if I want to use the land for something other than farming. Can't I use it as a park or nature preserve? If so, how would you "know"?
#2 - What's to stop me from showing up on land you think you own, and farming/mining it? If I show up on your doorstep with a packet of seeds, do I now own your house?
Your idea of "rightful ownership" seems to have some problems...
By extension, then, wouldn't life be better if there were no privacy?
Hmm.
Silverlight doesn't have any reported issues since not enough people use it for the bad guys to bother investing resources in finding its vulnerabilities. It's related to the same "macs don't get viruses" argument that was floated around right up until the point that macs became popular enough for virus writers to bother with them.
This is actually a really really good suggestion. Nearly every professional game designer I know is a board gamer. And board games are a GREAT place to learn a lot about design. You have a minimal barrier to entry (all you need are some notecards and pens, and a few patient friends) and fewer crutches to lean on. (In video games its easy to dress a crappy game up with sparkly particle effects and glitter to distract from the fact that it's a crappy game. It's a lot harder to disguise a crappy board game.)
Not to say that all board games map nicely onto video games, (the interactive and realtime nature of video games does give them a few extra possibilities) but if you can design board games that your friends will play willingly, without prompting, then you probably have learned a fair bit about game design in general, (player motivation, reward structure, etc) and will probably find a lot of those skills translate pretty well.
So yeah, if you want to learn about game design, or start getting into it, making board games, while perhaps not as sexy as making quake mods, is still not a terrible place to start.
Hear hear!
I've been Sony free since around 2000, when the DMCA convinced me (a programmer) that Sony was actively attacking my beliefs. (Code is free speech, etc.)
Not that any of their later debacles (CD rootkits, etc) made me like them much more.
So yeah. I second that! Screw Sony, if you don't like what they're doing, vote with your wallet.
Is this really the problem? Are there too many games that have good story and bad gameplay? It seems to me that (even among 'top ranked games') bad stories seem to outnumber the good stories by a pretty absurd margin.
Heck, I'd even put the venerable halflife on the side of "good gameplay, bad story." Seriously - the story was just 'oops, we made a teleporter and now aliens are coming out.' That's basically the same story as DOOM... The only reason it was so awesome story-wise is because they TOLD their crappy story in an extremely well-done way.
Games that actually have GOOD stories seem pretty few and far between, as far as I can tell. Not saying that they are automatically good games, it just seems funny to me that we're worrying that people are spending too much time on stories, considering how the majority of the current stories suck so hard...
Well, morality might factor in if you are someone who, say, benefits from the things that taxes are spent on, and so feels that it's only fair that you help pay for the things that are helping you? For example, if you are a person who...
These are things that cost money. These are things that most people benefit from. So yeah, I can see how a certain sort of person might say "Gee, I sure am getting a good deal here. Now that I can afford it, paying my share seems like a good thing." Heck, some people might even go so far as to say "And heck, now that I can afford it, why don't I pay MORE than my share, to help make up for the time when I was paying less than my share? Or to help cover people who aren't as lucky as I am to be able to?"
So yeah, while I'm not the original poster, and so can't speak for him/her, these are some ways in which I can imagine feelings of morality entering in to the equation?
Well, and Florida.
And a Nobel prize.
Laugh. Nice.
Took me a moment.
Not saying it isn't sometimes true, but it's clearly a fallacy to assume that is always the case:
Mom: Here boys, have some cake!
Dennis: Cool, let's split it 50/50!
Richard: No, I think I should get it all!
Mom: You're both going to extremes. Richard gets 75% and Billy 25%.
Empathy and positivity are wrong in IT/Security. However they might give you a bit of good time now and then, they *will* backfire.
What if your own empathy makes you feel the dissatisfaction and troublesome mood of the boss? And that of many other colleagues, one day things are not working? You 're gonna be wishing to help, get very stressed, then fry.
What if the worst case scenario happens, despite how good your consultant was. He'll soon find himself quite sued, unless he has carefully weighted all negative scenarios, lots of cynicism.
10 years in IT: it sucks to be there. I rather go sell newspapers could I afford it.
This is an incredibly weak argument. Empathy is just one more channel to gain information through. Saying "Empathy is bad, because what if you feel someone else's dissatisfaction?" makes about as much sense as saying "security cameras are bad, because what if you see something on them that depresses you?"
Also, what-ifs work both ways. What if your lack of empathy makes you miss social cues that someone is trying to lie to you? What if you miss noticing that a co-worker is having a rough time in their personal life, and is not at the top of their game?
So. Summary: Your argument = silly. Empathy = useful channel of information.
Hasn't it been fairly well established that more intelligent people are less likely to be happy in general?
Is that actually established? And for what kind of definition of "Smart"? I think you could probably make a pretty good argument that if someone were smart enough, they could figure out ways to avoid/escape being unhappy...
Muscle cells are rich in mitochondria
Woah! Does that mean people with muscles are more likely to be sensitive to the force?!???
Up hill, both ways! In the snow!