But classical gravity varies with the inverse square of the separation, and half of a sphere will be more separated than the other half - hence the tidal force experienced by an orbiting satelite. This effect will only vanish if the two bodies are moving on a straight line through the two centres of gravity of each.
It would be very strange indeed to find an object in space that doesn't rotate at all - any external influence on an irregularly shaped object is likely to result in a change in rotation. In fact, it holds true even for a spherical object in a gravitational field, since that field will vary over the diameter of the object.
There may all sorts of good reasons for why it has happened and why it isn't an evil conspiracy to pollute the minds of young people, but it misses the point, really.
Happily, I don't own a smartphone, but I think I would have been rather annoyed too. It's like being spammed or getting a huge wad of unwanted advertising in garish colours through the door - it's something you never asked for and wouldn't have wanted if you had been asked, it's simply inflicted on you and you now have to do something to get rid of the useless crap. At the root of this lies the feeling that you're not being given a choice, because your opinion doesn't matter, and whoever makes the decisions thinks you are just a mindless automaton who will go out and spend money on whatever the loudest advert tells you.
In the end, it's about respect: you show respect to earn respect. But if producers of eg. music don't respect their potential customers, why should people respect them back? Particularly, why respect the copyright they claim ownership of? I don't condone piracy, but I do understand where it comes from.
Communism isn't the same thing as "whatever some regime calls Communism"; just like Christianity or Islam or Capitalism isn't defined by what they are being used for. Just look back at the horrifying atrocities committed in the name of Christ throughout history; or look at what is called Capitalism in the US today. Is Capitalism really about huge corporations monopolizing the marketplace, buying political influence and bullying anybody who tries to threaten them? Of course not - capitalism at its best is a force for good, because it gives people an incentive to improve their lives, and in the process improving society. In the same way, communism seeks to improve society by sharing resources and caring for everybody. Both principles are necesary, and no society is good if there isn't a good balance between the two.
here, there's no payment involved, therefore there is no contract of sale.
Not true - what happens is a 'payment in kind': the customers pay with their use of Google, and by allowing Google to use their data (emails etc), which is why Google is a business, not a charity. Read about it on Wikipedia:
I wouldn't be surprised to see countries such as BRIC members, EU members, or other countries start trying to woo the best and brightest for economic gains.
You mean like in the European Commission's research projects into things like graphene and the human brain? Europe are investing massively in research, and so are China, who are on a wild shopping spree for hi-tech companies, not least in UK. If they haven't already, they will pass the US so fast, you won't even know it.
Britain is full of savages, who also happen to be Muslims, only they don't call them that, they call them "Asian militants".
It takes two to tango, matey. While I in no way condone extremism, whether they hide behind 'Islam' or 'Christianity' (or your variant of 'morality', whatever that is), there's always at least two sides to a conflict. Comments like yours only serve to stoke the fires and making it more difficult to find a solution. If we want to solve the problems, we need to find common ground with those Muslims who are just as sick and tired as us of the continued problems - how can we do that, if we constantly isult each other over petty differences?
..."have you ever belonged to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government"...
Let me guess - she was young and American during the sixties, seventies or eighties? It would be surprising in those circumstances to be talented and NOT dedicated to the overthrow of the US government. Have you never been young? I would have thought nowadays, with what we know, that parent would be worried if their teenagers did not go through a phase of wanting to overthrow the establishment. It is part of growing up and something that most of us mature away from.
The best possible excuse is that she's just pathologically oblivious, not that the OPM has trumped up charges out of nowhere.
Or perhaps she chose to tell a white lie in a moment of weakness, knowing that there are hostile individuals with a narrow tunnel-vision like yourself everywhere? We all lie when it doesn't seem to matter too much and we think we can get away with it, or if it would feel too embarrassing to admit the truth - or in a million of other circumstances. So we all need to be met with a little bit of tolerance - even you.
Without having gone into much detail, it looks to me like Tibet hasn't been much of an independent nation for the last 800 years or so. They were part of the last empire of China (Qing dynasty), then left to itself from 1912 to 1950, when the modern China re-asserted its power. Until then, Tibet was a feudal society with a ruling elite and large numbers of serfs - to my mind that is the real evil in the case of Tibet and the reason why Dalai Lama can't return to power. China is not the evil party in this - they did what any civilised nation should have done.
The guy making said claim is an idiot, and I'll offer evidence to prove it.
I think you are being needlessly hostile; let me offer another view of what he says.
I don't think the OP is right in its analysis, but I think where it goes wrong is in proposing just two, rather crude categories. As you say, there is no clear way of distinguishing workstations from servers; on the other hand, the idea is not without merits - there is a smallish number of typical use-categories that most computers would fit into, and which could be a good starting point for an installaion; eg. workstation, game-station, database server, etc.
It would probably not make a lot of sense to make such a large number of specialised distributions, but it isn't impossible, or even difficult, to implement the concept. Take my favourite distro, Debian: you install a minimal system, and then you use an installer to download new packages and their dependencies according to your needs and preferences. Some of these packages are 'meta-packages' - like KDE, which is not a real package in itself, but has been defined to depend on a large number of application-packages that are typical for the KDE desktop; so, by selecting the kde package, you select all the aplications that are useful in the KDE environment, in effect. It would be very easy to create other meta-packages that define other typical sets of functionality - one could even call them things like 'work station', 'server', etc if one likes.
I think what would make this process better would be if users could easily define these meta-packages before installation and then select them from the installation menu. This would address both the concerns of the OP as well as the points you raise.
What's surprising, based on this article, is the minimal checks that the BBC's geolocation blocking uses
Perhaps it isn't really too surprising - BBC being a public service organisation are probably not intrinsically in favour of blocking out viewers, and they have only introduced DRM because they are under constant pressure to do so, especially from commercial channels. This is just one example of how the influence of large, private corporations are hurting the interests of ordinary people; another example would be the way even BBC have felt they have to pander to the lowest common denominator by running repetitive crap like Eastenders and "talent" shows every bloody day. The BBC used to produce high quality, cutting edge television and pioneering concepts that might not always appeal to a broad audience, but now it's mostly soap operas and "reality" shows.
I just don't put much weight in claims like "just cutting out sweet drinks does the trick".
I didn't really make any such claim - I just wanted to share the personal observation that after stopping to consume so much sugar, I actually stopped liking it. I think a very large part of learning to eat better is learning to like better food. Along the same lines, I used to think that I couln't feel satisfied without eating a large portion of meat every day; now I don't eat meat very often - it just doesn't taste as good any more. It started with me exploring things like bean curries (thus making a strong contribution to global warming) because I felt bored with the usual stuff, and I sort of got hooked.
I think the main take away from this is that we can learn to genuinely like new foods - all kinds of new foods. And as we do so, we can unlearn our preference for things that are bad for our health. I don't think I am particularly healthy - I certainly don't feel like I am trying to be healthy - however, I am convinced I can steadily improve my habits, not by restricting myself, but by enjoying new things. Eating moderately doesn't enter into it either, but I think, when I want to exercise, it just doesn't work if I eat large meals, so I have got used to less, I suppose.
What kind of diet did they start from? If the participants were typical Americans, it was probably something that was very heavy in sugar and other refined carbohydrates; more so that in fat, if I'm not mistaken, so cutting down on carbohydrates is no doubt the most important improvement to the diet one could make. Cutting back on fat would probably be the next, big step.
It is sometimes hard to remember just how extreme the typical Western diet is; it is perhaps particularly visible to me, because I have completely stopped drinking sweet drinks (including fruit juices and artificially sweetened drinks). Now I find I can't get through a whole glass of Coke - it's just too much, but only a few years ago I could drink whole liters of the crap.
As others have remarked, there is no need to follow any special diet, just stop eating and drinking crap. Of course, with the selection available, that in itself is actually not easy.
The prevalance of the informal (untaxed) economy is a symptom, not a cause. Cracking down on it misses the point and makes things worse.
Just like the financial crisis was not caused by corrupt bankers being given far too much freedom, but instead by 'too-much-regulation', as the mantra goes? I really would have hoped that the banking crisis at least would have put an end to the anti-regulation ideology.
It really is quite simple: the sort of freedom that means nothing more than 'anti-regulation', favours the strong, ruthless and un-conscientious at the cost of everybody else, particularly the most vulnerable. This is not just speculation - we have seen it over and over throughout history in all societies; it leads to massively corrupt gangster-rule. Much like what you have seen in, eg. Nigeria. Things like freedom and democracy only work if everybody involved is willing to live by the agreed rules, and voluntarily restrict their own freedom to some extent.
Even the vikings - those hariy, brutish barbarians - knew this; to quote from Codex Holmiensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Holmiensis):
With law shall land [nation] be built. [...] And if all men would keep [be content with] what is theirs, and let others enjoy the same rights, there would be no need of [a] law. [...] If the land had no law, then he would have the most who could grab [by force] the most
I'm not sure what your point it, but as far as I know ALL scientists are skeptics; that's why they keep probing the edges of their chosen discipline all the time, in order to improve their theories.
What real scientists are not is closed-minded deniers of any and all facts they don't like, like in 'climate-skeptic' or 'evolution-skeptic', and I suspect you are trying to imply that Feynman is a 'skeptic' like that. Knowing his work, I doubt it.
I can think of three technologies I still can't let go of:
1. Fire. It's easy and convenient, it warms me and it helps me cook food etc. Cooking helps us dramatically increase the amount of things we can actually eat, which would otherwise be inedible to us.
2. The hammer. Not just the stick with a lump of iron on; in the form of a stone to open nuts with, it works like a replaceable, external 'tooth' that can be applied with great force, and which allows you to look at the object you work on, unlike the teeth in your jaw. When your hammer stone breaks, it may become a knife, which gives you a whole new class of powers.
3. Writing. Leaving marks on a surface was probably the first, external storage technology. Some of those early communications are still available some 3030 - 40 kyears later.
A very reasonable sentiment. Although I'm not a believer myself, it seems to me that if you truly believe in God, then you are not afraid of what science can teach you, since God created all of reality. Being a Bible (or other scripture) fundamentatlist is simply an expression of lack of faith.
How your comment got modded Insightful is a mystery. You don't give any arguments, you just postulate.
Humans can't even make it rain or change the weather locally
Really? Just one example: the notorious London smog. Most major cities used to be covered in the filthy stuff until burning coal in cities was largely banned; does that not qualify as weather? It certainly changed the atmosphere in large, local areas.
Anyone who thinks they can affect the whole world this much is a moron or shill for some environmental group
Hmm, right. Another example: man-made plastic pollution is now found everywhere - with the possible exception of Antarctica. You find it everywhere, even in the middle of the Pacific, and it does in fact affect wildlife. Or how about the fact that manmade chemicals can now be measured in just about every sample of water you can come about? The truth is that mankind does in fact influence every environment on the planet; the good news is that this also means that we can choose to use our influence to make things better.
But it's certainly not manmade
You know that, do you? How? Evidence, please.
correlation does not equal causation
However, it does equal correlation - and correlation means there is some sort of connection. Climatologists have come up with some very likely explanations, unlike you.
How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed?
That one is brought forth all the time, but it is a nonsense argument. The only thing it proves is that climate change can be caused by other things than human activity; nobody has ever denied that, and in fact, for many years the preferred theory was that we didn't affect climate, but we have had to abandon that idea, because the observable facts speak against it.
I rest my case before the nuts here censor my message
As you already knew, nobody was going to 'censor' your opinions. In fact, you have been modded up - strange as it seems. But you just had to try to milk the 'freedom of speech' card for what it was worth, didn't you? You should be ashamed.
I don't remember how many times I have come across the idea that evolution has somehow stopped dead in its tracks for humanity; and here we see it again. It is perhaps an easy mistake to make - after all, we haven't seen much, obvious change in our species with our own eyes, and we also like to think of ourselves at the epitome of evolution, so how could we possibly become better?
The truth of the matter is that our species changes all the time, and we are very complex creatures. One part of what a human is, has only really been recognised recently: the community of micro-organisms that live in our bodies, which interacts with and even modifies us, affecting our moods and influencing our metabolisms etc. This community of micro-organisms changes very rapidly with diet, and it has a huge influence on what is the optimal diet, which is lucky, because it helps us deal with new kinds of food. We might not be able to live on the kind of crap we eat in the West if not for that.
So, the more intelligent question to ask ourselves is, what kind microbes would it be best to encourage to live in our guts, and what kind of food should we eat to do that?
You'll never be able to convince people that toasters don't cause suicidal tendencies in teenagers.
Depends on the toaster, wouldn't you agree? I have had toasters that made me want to kill whoever sold it to me.
I think, if we take away the hype and the misunderstandins on the part of the article, that what we have here is an interesting observation that does support the theory that brain-growth may be one of the factors determining when we become adults. I don't think it is true, though; it seems to me that the biggest evolutionary advantage we have is, in fact, the prolonged period of brain development and plasticity and the evolution of the family unit that supports a long childhood; this, incidentally, includes the fact that we, as the only species I know of, also live long after reproduction. Having grand-parents who can pass their experience on to the youngest, seems like a huge advantage to me.
Slashdot Mirror
But classical gravity varies with the inverse square of the separation, and half of a sphere will be more separated than the other half - hence the tidal force experienced by an orbiting satelite. This effect will only vanish if the two bodies are moving on a straight line through the two centres of gravity of each.
It would be very strange indeed to find an object in space that doesn't rotate at all - any external influence on an irregularly shaped object is likely to result in a change in rotation. In fact, it holds true even for a spherical object in a gravitational field, since that field will vary over the diameter of the object.
There may all sorts of good reasons for why it has happened and why it isn't an evil conspiracy to pollute the minds of young people, but it misses the point, really.
Happily, I don't own a smartphone, but I think I would have been rather annoyed too. It's like being spammed or getting a huge wad of unwanted advertising in garish colours through the door - it's something you never asked for and wouldn't have wanted if you had been asked, it's simply inflicted on you and you now have to do something to get rid of the useless crap. At the root of this lies the feeling that you're not being given a choice, because your opinion doesn't matter, and whoever makes the decisions thinks you are just a mindless automaton who will go out and spend money on whatever the loudest advert tells you.
In the end, it's about respect: you show respect to earn respect. But if producers of eg. music don't respect their potential customers, why should people respect them back? Particularly, why respect the copyright they claim ownership of? I don't condone piracy, but I do understand where it comes from.
Full blown communism requires tyrants
Full blown anything requires tyrants.
Communism isn't the same thing as "whatever some regime calls Communism"; just like Christianity or Islam or Capitalism isn't defined by what they are being used for. Just look back at the horrifying atrocities committed in the name of Christ throughout history; or look at what is called Capitalism in the US today. Is Capitalism really about huge corporations monopolizing the marketplace, buying political influence and bullying anybody who tries to threaten them? Of course not - capitalism at its best is a force for good, because it gives people an incentive to improve their lives, and in the process improving society. In the same way, communism seeks to improve society by sharing resources and caring for everybody. Both principles are necesary, and no society is good if there isn't a good balance between the two.
We are talking about EXCITED atoms here - what they say is 'Wheeeee'.
here, there's no payment involved, therefore there is no contract of sale.
Not true - what happens is a 'payment in kind': the customers pay with their use of Google, and by allowing Google to use their data (emails etc), which is why Google is a business, not a charity. Read about it on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Another tip: you can improve the legibility of your postings by using upper case at the beginning of sentences.
I wouldn't be surprised to see countries such as BRIC members, EU members, or other countries start trying to woo the best and brightest for economic gains.
You mean like in the European Commission's research projects into things like graphene and the human brain? Europe are investing massively in research, and so are China, who are on a wild shopping spree for hi-tech companies, not least in UK. If they haven't already, they will pass the US so fast, you won't even know it.
Britain is full of savages, who also happen to be Muslims, only they don't call them that, they call them "Asian militants".
It takes two to tango, matey. While I in no way condone extremism, whether they hide behind 'Islam' or 'Christianity' (or your variant of 'morality', whatever that is), there's always at least two sides to a conflict. Comments like yours only serve to stoke the fires and making it more difficult to find a solution. If we want to solve the problems, we need to find common ground with those Muslims who are just as sick and tired as us of the continued problems - how can we do that, if we constantly isult each other over petty differences?
..."have you ever belonged to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government"...
Let me guess - she was young and American during the sixties, seventies or eighties? It would be surprising in those circumstances to be talented and NOT dedicated to the overthrow of the US government. Have you never been young? I would have thought nowadays, with what we know, that parent would be worried if their teenagers did not go through a phase of wanting to overthrow the establishment. It is part of growing up and something that most of us mature away from.
The best possible excuse is that she's just pathologically oblivious, not that the OPM has trumped up charges out of nowhere.
Or perhaps she chose to tell a white lie in a moment of weakness, knowing that there are hostile individuals with a narrow tunnel-vision like yourself everywhere? We all lie when it doesn't seem to matter too much and we think we can get away with it, or if it would feel too embarrassing to admit the truth - or in a million of other circumstances. So we all need to be met with a little bit of tolerance - even you.
A brief history of Tibet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Without having gone into much detail, it looks to me like Tibet hasn't been much of an independent nation for the last 800 years or so. They were part of the last empire of China (Qing dynasty), then left to itself from 1912 to 1950, when the modern China re-asserted its power. Until then, Tibet was a feudal society with a ruling elite and large numbers of serfs - to my mind that is the real evil in the case of Tibet and the reason why Dalai Lama can't return to power. China is not the evil party in this - they did what any civilised nation should have done.
The guy making said claim is an idiot, and I'll offer evidence to prove it.
I think you are being needlessly hostile; let me offer another view of what he says.
I don't think the OP is right in its analysis, but I think where it goes wrong is in proposing just two, rather crude categories. As you say, there is no clear way of distinguishing workstations from servers; on the other hand, the idea is not without merits - there is a smallish number of typical use-categories that most computers would fit into, and which could be a good starting point for an installaion; eg. workstation, game-station, database server, etc.
It would probably not make a lot of sense to make such a large number of specialised distributions, but it isn't impossible, or even difficult, to implement the concept. Take my favourite distro, Debian: you install a minimal system, and then you use an installer to download new packages and their dependencies according to your needs and preferences. Some of these packages are 'meta-packages' - like KDE, which is not a real package in itself, but has been defined to depend on a large number of application-packages that are typical for the KDE desktop; so, by selecting the kde package, you select all the aplications that are useful in the KDE environment, in effect. It would be very easy to create other meta-packages that define other typical sets of functionality - one could even call them things like 'work station', 'server', etc if one likes.
I think what would make this process better would be if users could easily define these meta-packages before installation and then select them from the installation menu. This would address both the concerns of the OP as well as the points you raise.
What's surprising, based on this article, is the minimal checks that the BBC's geolocation blocking uses
Perhaps it isn't really too surprising - BBC being a public service organisation are probably not intrinsically in favour of blocking out viewers, and they have only introduced DRM because they are under constant pressure to do so, especially from commercial channels. This is just one example of how the influence of large, private corporations are hurting the interests of ordinary people; another example would be the way even BBC have felt they have to pander to the lowest common denominator by running repetitive crap like Eastenders and "talent" shows every bloody day. The BBC used to produce high quality, cutting edge television and pioneering concepts that might not always appeal to a broad audience, but now it's mostly soap operas and "reality" shows.
I just don't put much weight in claims like "just cutting out sweet drinks does the trick".
I didn't really make any such claim - I just wanted to share the personal observation that after stopping to consume so much sugar, I actually stopped liking it. I think a very large part of learning to eat better is learning to like better food. Along the same lines, I used to think that I couln't feel satisfied without eating a large portion of meat every day; now I don't eat meat very often - it just doesn't taste as good any more. It started with me exploring things like bean curries (thus making a strong contribution to global warming) because I felt bored with the usual stuff, and I sort of got hooked.
I think the main take away from this is that we can learn to genuinely like new foods - all kinds of new foods. And as we do so, we can unlearn our preference for things that are bad for our health. I don't think I am particularly healthy - I certainly don't feel like I am trying to be healthy - however, I am convinced I can steadily improve my habits, not by restricting myself, but by enjoying new things. Eating moderately doesn't enter into it either, but I think, when I want to exercise, it just doesn't work if I eat large meals, so I have got used to less, I suppose.
PS: You asked for an age reference - I'm 56.
What kind of diet did they start from? If the participants were typical Americans, it was probably something that was very heavy in sugar and other refined carbohydrates; more so that in fat, if I'm not mistaken, so cutting down on carbohydrates is no doubt the most important improvement to the diet one could make. Cutting back on fat would probably be the next, big step.
It is sometimes hard to remember just how extreme the typical Western diet is; it is perhaps particularly visible to me, because I have completely stopped drinking sweet drinks (including fruit juices and artificially sweetened drinks). Now I find I can't get through a whole glass of Coke - it's just too much, but only a few years ago I could drink whole liters of the crap.
As others have remarked, there is no need to follow any special diet, just stop eating and drinking crap. Of course, with the selection available, that in itself is actually not easy.
So, in a word: a low fad diet?
What nonsense is this? This is clearly part of a hash-tag: '# ...'
The prevalance of the informal (untaxed) economy is a symptom, not a cause. Cracking down on it misses the point and makes things worse.
Just like the financial crisis was not caused by corrupt bankers being given far too much freedom, but instead by 'too-much-regulation', as the mantra goes? I really would have hoped that the banking crisis at least would have put an end to the anti-regulation ideology.
It really is quite simple: the sort of freedom that means nothing more than 'anti-regulation', favours the strong, ruthless and un-conscientious at the cost of everybody else, particularly the most vulnerable. This is not just speculation - we have seen it over and over throughout history in all societies; it leads to massively corrupt gangster-rule. Much like what you have seen in, eg. Nigeria. Things like freedom and democracy only work if everybody involved is willing to live by the agreed rules, and voluntarily restrict their own freedom to some extent.
Even the vikings - those hariy, brutish barbarians - knew this; to quote from Codex Holmiensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Holmiensis):
With law shall land [nation] be built. [...] And if all men would keep [be content with] what is theirs, and let others enjoy the same rights, there would be no need of [a] law. [...] If the land had no law, then he would have the most who could grab [by force] the most
Feynman was a Skeptic.
I'm not sure what your point it, but as far as I know ALL scientists are skeptics; that's why they keep probing the edges of their chosen discipline all the time, in order to improve their theories.
What real scientists are not is closed-minded deniers of any and all facts they don't like, like in 'climate-skeptic' or 'evolution-skeptic', and I suspect you are trying to imply that Feynman is a 'skeptic' like that. Knowing his work, I doubt it.
...most of my parents...
- so, ho any parent do you have? I ask out of interest ... ;-)
I looked him upo in Wikipedia and ironically, he is in fact quite thin and has a big, round head...
I can think of three technologies I still can't let go of:
1. Fire. It's easy and convenient, it warms me and it helps me cook food etc. Cooking helps us dramatically increase the amount of things we can actually eat, which would otherwise be inedible to us.
2. The hammer. Not just the stick with a lump of iron on; in the form of a stone to open nuts with, it works like a replaceable, external 'tooth' that can be applied with great force, and which allows you to look at the object you work on, unlike the teeth in your jaw. When your hammer stone breaks, it may become a knife, which gives you a whole new class of powers.
3. Writing. Leaving marks on a surface was probably the first, external storage technology. Some of those early communications are still available some 3030 - 40 kyears later.
A very reasonable sentiment. Although I'm not a believer myself, it seems to me that if you truly believe in God, then you are not afraid of what science can teach you, since God created all of reality. Being a Bible (or other scripture) fundamentatlist is simply an expression of lack of faith.
How your comment got modded Insightful is a mystery. You don't give any arguments, you just postulate.
Humans can't even make it rain or change the weather locally
Really? Just one example: the notorious London smog. Most major cities used to be covered in the filthy stuff until burning coal in cities was largely banned; does that not qualify as weather? It certainly changed the atmosphere in large, local areas.
Anyone who thinks they can affect the whole world this much is a moron or shill for some environmental group
Hmm, right. Another example: man-made plastic pollution is now found everywhere - with the possible exception of Antarctica. You find it everywhere, even in the middle of the Pacific, and it does in fact affect wildlife. Or how about the fact that manmade chemicals can now be measured in just about every sample of water you can come about? The truth is that mankind does in fact influence every environment on the planet; the good news is that this also means that we can choose to use our influence to make things better.
But it's certainly not manmade
You know that, do you? How? Evidence, please.
correlation does not equal causation
However, it does equal correlation - and correlation means there is some sort of connection. Climatologists have come up with some very likely explanations, unlike you.
How else do you explain the many periods of warming and cooling in the past long before humans even existed?
That one is brought forth all the time, but it is a nonsense argument. The only thing it proves is that climate change can be caused by other things than human activity; nobody has ever denied that, and in fact, for many years the preferred theory was that we didn't affect climate, but we have had to abandon that idea, because the observable facts speak against it.
I rest my case before the nuts here censor my message
As you already knew, nobody was going to 'censor' your opinions. In fact, you have been modded up - strange as it seems. But you just had to try to milk the 'freedom of speech' card for what it was worth, didn't you? You should be ashamed.
I don't remember how many times I have come across the idea that evolution has somehow stopped dead in its tracks for humanity; and here we see it again. It is perhaps an easy mistake to make - after all, we haven't seen much, obvious change in our species with our own eyes, and we also like to think of ourselves at the epitome of evolution, so how could we possibly become better?
The truth of the matter is that our species changes all the time, and we are very complex creatures. One part of what a human is, has only really been recognised recently: the community of micro-organisms that live in our bodies, which interacts with and even modifies us, affecting our moods and influencing our metabolisms etc. This community of micro-organisms changes very rapidly with diet, and it has a huge influence on what is the optimal diet, which is lucky, because it helps us deal with new kinds of food. We might not be able to live on the kind of crap we eat in the West if not for that.
So, the more intelligent question to ask ourselves is, what kind microbes would it be best to encourage to live in our guts, and what kind of food should we eat to do that?
You'll never be able to convince people that toasters don't cause suicidal tendencies in teenagers.
Depends on the toaster, wouldn't you agree? I have had toasters that made me want to kill whoever sold it to me.
I think, if we take away the hype and the misunderstandins on the part of the article, that what we have here is an interesting observation that does support the theory that brain-growth may be one of the factors determining when we become adults. I don't think it is true, though; it seems to me that the biggest evolutionary advantage we have is, in fact, the prolonged period of brain development and plasticity and the evolution of the family unit that supports a long childhood; this, incidentally, includes the fact that we, as the only species I know of, also live long after reproduction. Having grand-parents who can pass their experience on to the youngest, seems like a huge advantage to me.