But if you are suggesting brain power as a driving evolutionary force, then this fails to explain that large brains are a fairly "recent" development in evolutionary time. Look at all the variability in size, shape and color. All that came about by evolutionary forces. Brains have been around for a long, long time, however. And while the brain has developed, and I am sure behavior has advanced, there are still some pretty stupid creatures around that seem to be doing just fine.
So human populations that are wiped out by disease or natural disaster are not smart enough to survive and if we look hard enough humans who have survived have bigger brains? There are plenty of variables that go into determining whether a species becomes extinct or not. Quite a few of them are exogenous to the species. It doesn't matter how smart a fish you are when your lake dries up. Behaviour does not solve all problems or guarantee survival.
I'm not arguing that point. It makes sense that you need a complex brain to be able to solve new problems, and the more complicated the brain the more neurons and synapses you need, which affects size. But the conclusion that animals with a larger "brain to body" ratio are necessarily "smarter" cannot be supported beyond wild speculation, meaning that this "study" is not really good science. First prove to me that a brain/body ratio is always correlated to higher "intelligence", and then we can argue that "high brain/body animals survive better BECAUSE of intelligence".
Agreed, I had a 4MHz 286 AT that could be stuck in turbo mode for a screaming 8MHz, and it was one of the best machines on the market in its day. But now they just suck. Guess that they couldn't hold the quality when they dropped the prices, and their failure/return rates show it.
And here you have a peek into the mind of the Apple customer. 2048x1536 oooo shiny! 10" ooo shiny!!! $499 oooooo expensive, I can REALLY show off to the neighbours/coworkers/family now... Not posted as anonymous because, fuck you.
Well I have an icon that only appears on my screen when I press my middle mouse button, and I can scroll up and down when this icon is visible and I hold down the button. Patent please.
Yep I find it is amazing just how much crap people will put up with before they rise up. And it also makes you wonder about historical revoultions, and current revolutions, and get some insight as to just how bad life can be or could have been in those places. I think that in the case of the "West" it still has a long way to go, and can get much, much worse before people vote with their fists and pitchforks.
I wasn't quite finished. Saying "it's brain chemistry" is not an answer. Lots of things change brain chemistry. Age. Food. Stress. Trauma. "It's brain chemistry" gets you the how, but it does not get you the why. And you need to understand "why" if you ever want to understand that Person A and Person B can both be exposed to something and have compeltely different outcomes. Therefore the answer doesn't only lie in the "thing", but also in Person A and Person B.
I've always maintained that the problem is the person, not the substance. Those who abuse drugs (of any kind) are usually carrying emotional or mental health issues they are trying to mask or self medicate through the use of those substances. Alcohol can turn people into assholes, but not everyone turns into an asshole with alcohol. The same goes for other drugs. In fact, people who become sociopaths or who ruin their (or others') lives through substance abuse are the exception and not the rule. There are a lot of people who have smoked pot in their teens and who have never touched it again. There are many, many people who drink regularly and don't beat their wives and children. But there will always be some element of society that loves to hop on one or two unfortunate examples to use them to bully others - because they like telling people what to do. These are the ones who think you should live the way they live because, of course, they are the ones who are right.
You first. I like it here. Not to the point of clicking little widgets and setting "friends" and "enemies" of course, but why bother reading my posts if they offend you so much?
is actually watching the road and aware of their surroundings.
If you think that's a substitute for safe driving at moderate speeds with ample stopping distances, I encourage you to watch more Russian dashcam videos...
Let's see, the test was a 1.4 megaton device at an altitude of 400km. While it had some impressive effects 900km away, it didn't destroy all civilization as we know it in the Pacific rim. Yet you claim that a much smaller device at 10,000 feet (3km?) would wipe out an entire continent. Methinks you are full of shit.
And what if you have made a movie that everyone thinks is awesome, and by such have "convinced some idiots for pay it"... but they simply won't as they can get it for free as a torrent?
This has never happened. Has it happened? No. It's up to you to prove that it happens because as far as I know, you can't find a single example.
that the cable has either monthly fee or advertisements, through which the movie is financed.
Irrelevant. The cable company will not charge less for ads when I watched "The Matrix".. They base their rates on numbers that companies like Nielsen (quite a monopoly by the way, and I don't mean that in a good way) generally pull out of their asses. These are not based on "copies downloaded" but rather the amount of "viewers". In fact if the company was charging less because of downloads, then they should be charging as little as possible today. That is not the case however. The advertising business is as healthy as ever. My sister in law is vice-CEO for a global ad company and she's always being jetted off to exotic locations for "business trips" on the dime of companies like Discovery, Turner, etc. No shortage of money there.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not even that - it's politics.
No. They can ask nicely that the citizen turn in his recording. But they can't demand anything. Except a search warrant from a judge.
But if you are suggesting brain power as a driving evolutionary force, then this fails to explain that large brains are a fairly "recent" development in evolutionary time. Look at all the variability in size, shape and color. All that came about by evolutionary forces. Brains have been around for a long, long time, however. And while the brain has developed, and I am sure behavior has advanced, there are still some pretty stupid creatures around that seem to be doing just fine.
So human populations that are wiped out by disease or natural disaster are not smart enough to survive and if we look hard enough humans who have survived have bigger brains? There are plenty of variables that go into determining whether a species becomes extinct or not. Quite a few of them are exogenous to the species. It doesn't matter how smart a fish you are when your lake dries up. Behaviour does not solve all problems or guarantee survival.
I'm not arguing that point. It makes sense that you need a complex brain to be able to solve new problems, and the more complicated the brain the more neurons and synapses you need, which affects size. But the conclusion that animals with a larger "brain to body" ratio are necessarily "smarter" cannot be supported beyond wild speculation, meaning that this "study" is not really good science. First prove to me that a brain/body ratio is always correlated to higher "intelligence", and then we can argue that "high brain/body animals survive better BECAUSE of intelligence".
Yeah, because brain size alone is directly equivalent to intelligence. I would venture that the authors of this study have rather small brains.
Idiot
Agreed, I had a 4MHz 286 AT that could be stuck in turbo mode for a screaming 8MHz, and it was one of the best machines on the market in its day. But now they just suck. Guess that they couldn't hold the quality when they dropped the prices, and their failure/return rates show it.
And here you have a peek into the mind of the Apple customer. 2048x1536 oooo shiny! 10" ooo shiny!!! $499 oooooo expensive, I can REALLY show off to the neighbours/coworkers/family now... Not posted as anonymous because, fuck you.
Well I have an icon that only appears on my screen when I press my middle mouse button, and I can scroll up and down when this icon is visible and I hold down the button. Patent please.
Cue the Hawthorne effect. The model will stop being effective if it ever, well, becomes effective.
Yep I find it is amazing just how much crap people will put up with before they rise up. And it also makes you wonder about historical revoultions, and current revolutions, and get some insight as to just how bad life can be or could have been in those places. I think that in the case of the "West" it still has a long way to go, and can get much, much worse before people vote with their fists and pitchforks.
I wasn't quite finished. Saying "it's brain chemistry" is not an answer. Lots of things change brain chemistry. Age. Food. Stress. Trauma. "It's brain chemistry" gets you the how, but it does not get you the why. And you need to understand "why" if you ever want to understand that Person A and Person B can both be exposed to something and have compeltely different outcomes. Therefore the answer doesn't only lie in the "thing", but also in Person A and Person B.
The fact that ex crack users do exist seems to refute your "theory".
I've always maintained that the problem is the person, not the substance. Those who abuse drugs (of any kind) are usually carrying emotional or mental health issues they are trying to mask or self medicate through the use of those substances. Alcohol can turn people into assholes, but not everyone turns into an asshole with alcohol. The same goes for other drugs. In fact, people who become sociopaths or who ruin their (or others') lives through substance abuse are the exception and not the rule. There are a lot of people who have smoked pot in their teens and who have never touched it again. There are many, many people who drink regularly and don't beat their wives and children. But there will always be some element of society that loves to hop on one or two unfortunate examples to use them to bully others - because they like telling people what to do. These are the ones who think you should live the way they live because, of course, they are the ones who are right.
Or businesses would kick them in the ass, by saying "you want to charge me HOW much for advertising again?"
You first. I like it here. Not to the point of clicking little widgets and setting "friends" and "enemies" of course, but why bother reading my posts if they offend you so much?
Why? It's all shit anyway. I certainly don't come here to get educated.
Lo Jack. Shit works. My dad had his car returned to him 2 hours later, and the thieves got busted.
is actually watching the road and aware of their surroundings.
If you think that's a substitute for safe driving at moderate speeds with ample stopping distances, I encourage you to watch more Russian dashcam videos...
"wait, did I drop my Luna bar under the passenger seat again? Oh, there it is! Hoooonnk screeeech!"
I'm assuming that this is spoken to a friend over a cell phone held between chin and shoulder, in which case it would be a correct depiction.
Let's see, the test was a 1.4 megaton device at an altitude of 400km. While it had some impressive effects 900km away, it didn't destroy all civilization as we know it in the Pacific rim. Yet you claim that a much smaller device at 10,000 feet (3km?) would wipe out an entire continent. Methinks you are full of shit.
What does the "Lon" stand for then? The answer is "London", because it was "discovered" there as well.
And what if you have made a movie that everyone thinks is awesome, and by such have "convinced some idiots for pay it"... but they simply won't as they can get it for free as a torrent?
This has never happened. Has it happened? No. It's up to you to prove that it happens because as far as I know, you can't find a single example.
that the cable has either monthly fee or advertisements, through which the movie is financed.
Irrelevant. The cable company will not charge less for ads when I watched "The Matrix".. They base their rates on numbers that companies like Nielsen (quite a monopoly by the way, and I don't mean that in a good way) generally pull out of their asses. These are not based on "copies downloaded" but rather the amount of "viewers". In fact if the company was charging less because of downloads, then they should be charging as little as possible today. That is not the case however. The advertising business is as healthy as ever. My sister in law is vice-CEO for a global ad company and she's always being jetted off to exotic locations for "business trips" on the dime of companies like Discovery, Turner, etc. No shortage of money there.
Doesn't get away from the fact that you are using a rare, extreme case as an argument to try to justify your position.