outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered
So wouldn't this technically apply mean that smaller churches, where everyone knows everyone else, are exempt? Especially I would think it would apply to the Pastor & family of said church...
IANAL but I think it'd be a valid interpretation ( I also haven't been to church for many years, but in the one I went to when young everyone knew everyone else.)
Visiting every White Castle location would probably result in a long, painful death from excessive razor-blade style flatulence... one would have to space it out some.
Some folks speculate that there's a limit to how useful a big brain is compared to how much energy it consumes (the human brain typically consumes about 40% of the body's total energy). Beyond this limit the increased survival advantage is relatively trivial in comparison to energy consumption, which means that the larger brain is actually a defect in terms of survival.
I think we're dealing with entirely too small of a dataset to determine that for sure - but I think you are right, anyway. Intelligence, once past a certain point, skews evolution. But we won't know sure for perhaps thousands of generations.
Human-level intelligence could very well be a combination of mild defects that occurred during a very forgiving period *snip*
Possibly; but from what I've read, the drive to survive, which also drives intelligent adaptations to environment as well as evolutionary ones is stimulated more by a changing environment, and not a static one. Not that one couldn't argue otherwise; both arguments have merit, and I'd bet that both have contributed.
One source does not a rebuttal make. In Hanegraaff's case, he was playing Socrates; he rebutted the arguments he cared to, and did not (at least in your post) address the more serious evidence.
I've seen similar counter arguments against those who rebut UFO abductions, using almost the same language and exactly the same argument.
All it proves is that there is always someone who can attack the weak points of someone else's argument without addressing the strong points.
Sorry, but IMHO Mr. Hanegraaff was full of it, and the last sentence in that quote reinforces that opinion for me, because there are many adults who act like nothing more than "sophisticated animals" regardless of what, if any, school system they grew up under (or is he saying that rational, well-educated adults can't act like "animals"? If so, he has no friccin' idea what he's talking about and has obviously lost touch with reality.)
I could go on and on but I'm going to drop this now before I start displaying some of those animalistic tendencies he's talking about - like anger.
Perhaps Mr. Hanegraaff should look to his own beliefs before he echoes warnings about being gullible.
It is, however, a peculiar evolution, and most predators have no such gait, relying either on short-term speed, surprise, and/or teamwork to catch faster animals.
Excellent point, and I wonder just how much intelligence is necessary before a predator will deliberately pace itself?
As you noted, wolves also exhibit the "jogging gait" behavior, in addition to the other ones you pointed out in that sentence. Perhaps that balance of energy use and desire to capture prey is due somewhat to intelligence.
Ah, but it's been shown that primates tend to pass on behavior traits within their social groups, and also to other such groups.
What if bipedal behavior gave an advantage to such a social group that enabled them to pass on both the behavior and their genes to their offspring, the former thru environmental factors, the latter thru reproduction? (an advantage such as others have discussed here regarding detecting predators)
Wouldn't the *ability* to 'learn' that behavior be a selection advantage in itself, by enabling those who had the innate intelligence to learn/copy that behavior to have more offspring and therefore alter the genetic pool?
I know I'm reaching somewhat, but it makes sense to me that group behavior, if it was *strongly* advantageous, and if it was passed on from generation to generation thru environmental factors ("copying behavior"), could have at least some impact on genetic selection, thru selection for intelligence. (Chicken and egg, there:)
Excellent points all, but being able to see your prey before they see you certainly conveys advantages WRT to hunting, and having the hands free to carry a stick or rock to use as a weapon does also.
Bipedalism might also have added a selection criteria WRT to the diets, by being able to pick fruit that was higher than could be reached by competitors.
I'd be willing to bet that it was a combination of both factors that contributed to selection (probably also other factors we're not aware of yet.)
Cheers, and thanks for a seriously thought provoking post. SB
PS - perhaps the thicker skulls of neanderthals developed after the discovery that a thick branch makes a good weapon to knock your neighbor over the head with:)
The flag was stiffened with wires to keep it unfurled. Not sure whether the "wavy" effect was intentional or not (I'd imagine it was fairly difficult to straighten the flag properly with those clumsy suit gloves.)
Being a scientist does not mean you have to kill the hydra. Being a scientist just means you have to fight it. The Zen of biochemistry. Heh.
Monkey curiosity, y.:)
Put another way, there is no end to learning. None, not ever. From birth to death. When an organism stops learning, it's on the spiral to death. The only real difference that intelligence makes, is that it expands that spiral unto the species in general, and groups within in it specifically. Quit learning, quit adapting, you die, end of story. Ours, basically. It's a fine line, as we recently learned wrt to nuclear weapons.
Good luck with your grad studies. Give 'em hell & logic.
Along those lines, perhaps one could approximate an eon by estimating the amount of time it'll take the vi vs. emacs argument to be resolved.
*ducks*
SB
Re:This is a person who knows how to have a good t
on
Black Hat
·
· Score: 1
Because going through life in perpetual fear is always the best way to deal with it.
Perpetual vigilance, on the other hand...
Wouldn't say that I'm paranoid - but back in my windows days - and to some extent even now running Linux - I treat(ed) every email attachment as a potential virus. Probably why I never got infected via email (infected just once, thru other computers at a LAN game.)
I do know some windows users who *are* afraid of viruses - and I'm not sure they are all that wrong to be, either - not when you have to call a tech and pay $ if your computer gets hosed.
The risk isn't even in the same ballpark, my friend. It's not just the fire risk, either; theft, company, carelessness.... come on, now, you know that's a BS argument (at least I hope you do!;)
If what you were thinking were true, than people would trust their wills and other important paper/legal info to friends more than they would a vault, eh? After all, banks aren't rich enough to *afford* really decent protection...are they...
Comparing a home fire safe (even an expensive one) to a typical bank vault is like comparing a home-built bomb shelter to Cheyenne Mountain.
(concrete and steel isolated by enormously thick security doors is quite a bit safer than a couple inches of steel that can be exposed directly to a fire)
It's become more or less modus operandi - let's charge everyone for the costs incurred by a few.
Of *course* the RIAA will find a way to profit off it more and more in the future. That's their modus op, and they've pursued it as aggressively as the market (and the law) has allowed, for many decades. Universities, containing as they do many young folk, are a prime target (the RIAA doesn't seem to realize that most college students simply can't afford to buy their overpriced product, and this latest is just another way of offering discounts to expand their lock-in market share, just like Microsoft does. It's their strategic answer - nevermind that it's essentially extortion, they don't care because it's unlikely they'll be called on it.)
What makes me sad is that this is just another chapter in the continuing gradual destruction of our higher centers of learning via litigation. Not that making universities immune to civil lawsuits is a good idea, either, but the whole situation is so out of hand that I find it sickening.
If they haven't (and I've been unable to find any good info about this thru google, but it's late and I'm tired) then maybe the universities should 'outsource' their network provider to one run by the same people (employees and students) but under a private charter.
Wouldn't that essentially give the provider CC status? I would think that would be maybe the best way of doing it, provided the university's charter allows for it. Might also be a nice way to provide real-world employment for students.
Perhaps university network providers (the internal ones, even) should have the same protections as common carriers do? Or do they already (and if they do, why are they knuckling under so easily?)
(sorry I can't expand on this, it's late here and I'm beat, and ignorant enough to know I can't argue it properly, but anyone with more knowledge than I have, please post as to why it may or may not be a good idea.)
Agreed, but I'd love to see them attempt, say, Harvard:) Watching even the RIAA's lawyers go up against the Harvard law school students, I'd pay to watch that:)
(My lawyer and some others I've known personally over the years are Harvard grads, and they are exceptionally talented IMO. Not necessarily ethical, mind you... but that's not really a handicap in this hypothetical situation, lol)
The days of claiming the record labels aren't embracing these technologies is over.
Pfft. They are *way* late to the party, and trying to force the party to follow their whims, rather than adapting.
It's the pirates who aren't embracing these technologies.
That's nonsense. It's the "pirates" (mostly millions of people doing it with home computers with internet connections and CD burners and some hundreds of software designers) who have MADE THIS TECHNOLOGY POPULAR to the point where the record labels finally had to wake up to what was going on; and let's not forget the inevitable march of progress in the form of broadband (maybe we should ban that!)
So what did they do? Did they really try to adapt and use the new medium? Nope. First they tried to sue everyone they could using tracking methods that are extremely suspect, and also they tried to introduce legislation that often was draconian to the point of infringing on constitutional rights. They hemmed and hawed and whinged and tried to force the technology to submit to their marketing methods, and when it wouldn't (and it never will, legislation notwithstanding) they are trying, half-heartedly and all too late to compete in a market they tried to deny existence to in the first place. Meanwhile, those music artists and studios (indie bands) who realized the potential are gaining ground on them - and the RIAA execs are scared. Good. They should be.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the RIAA. They made their bed, they can damned well sleep in it. Every other form of opposition to technological change has eventually bitten the dust, they won't be an exception.
Slashdot Mirror
outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered
So wouldn't this technically apply mean that smaller churches, where everyone knows everyone else, are exempt? Especially I would think it would apply to the Pastor & family of said church...
IANAL but I think it'd be a valid interpretation ( I also haven't been to church for many years, but in the one I went to when young everyone knew everyone else.)
SB
Visiting every White Castle location would probably result in a long, painful death from excessive razor-blade style flatulence... one would have to space it out some.
Like once a lifetime. *shudders*
SB
Sure. Hey, Neutron Star Armor would make me *very* attractive!
Call me when it's available. The phone number at my AntiGrav Flying City is 1-888-sar-casm.
SB
Some folks speculate that there's a limit to how useful a big brain is compared to how much energy it consumes (the human brain typically consumes about 40% of the body's total energy). Beyond this limit the increased survival advantage is relatively trivial in comparison to energy consumption, which means that the larger brain is actually a defect in terms of survival.
I think we're dealing with entirely too small of a dataset to determine that for sure - but I think you are right, anyway. Intelligence, once past a certain point, skews evolution. But we won't know sure for perhaps thousands of generations.
Human-level intelligence could very well be a combination of mild defects that occurred during a very forgiving period *snip*
Possibly; but from what I've read, the drive to survive, which also drives intelligent adaptations to environment as well as evolutionary ones is stimulated more by a changing environment, and not a static one. Not that one couldn't argue otherwise; both arguments have merit, and I'd bet that both have contributed.
Cheers,
SB
LOL
NICE rebuttal! Bet the irony flew completely over his head, tho.
Earned a friend for that one, even if I do disagree with you at times...
SB
One source does not a rebuttal make. In Hanegraaff's case, he was playing Socrates; he rebutted the arguments he cared to, and did not (at least in your post) address the more serious evidence.
I've seen similar counter arguments against those who rebut UFO abductions, using almost the same language and exactly the same argument.
All it proves is that there is always someone who can attack the weak points of someone else's argument without addressing the strong points.
Sorry, but IMHO Mr. Hanegraaff was full of it, and the last sentence in that quote reinforces that opinion for me, because there are many adults who act like nothing more than "sophisticated animals" regardless of what, if any, school system they grew up under (or is he saying that rational, well-educated adults can't act like "animals"? If so, he has no friccin' idea what he's talking about and has obviously lost touch with reality.)
I could go on and on but I'm going to drop this now before I start displaying some of those animalistic tendencies he's talking about - like anger.
Perhaps Mr. Hanegraaff should look to his own beliefs before he echoes warnings about being gullible.
SB
Deserves at least the score the GP post had.
SB
It is, however, a peculiar evolution, and most predators have no such gait, relying either on short-term speed, surprise, and/or teamwork to catch faster animals.
Excellent point, and I wonder just how much intelligence is necessary before a predator will deliberately pace itself?
As you noted, wolves also exhibit the "jogging gait" behavior, in addition to the other ones you pointed out in that sentence. Perhaps that balance of energy use and desire to capture prey is due somewhat to intelligence.
Interesting question.
Thanks for the thought provoking post!
SB
Ah, but it's been shown that primates tend to pass on behavior traits within their social groups, and also to other such groups.
:)
What if bipedal behavior gave an advantage to such a social group that enabled them to pass on both the behavior and their genes to their offspring, the former thru environmental factors, the latter thru reproduction? (an advantage such as others have discussed here regarding detecting predators)
Wouldn't the *ability* to 'learn' that behavior be a selection advantage in itself, by enabling those who had the innate intelligence to learn/copy that behavior to have more offspring and therefore alter the genetic pool?
I know I'm reaching somewhat, but it makes sense to me that group behavior, if it was *strongly* advantageous, and if it was passed on from generation to generation thru environmental factors ("copying behavior"), could have at least some impact on genetic selection, thru selection for intelligence. (Chicken and egg, there
I'd love to discuss this more...
Cheers!
SB
Excellent points all, but being able to see your prey before they see you certainly conveys advantages WRT to hunting, and having the hands free to carry a stick or rock to use as a weapon does also.
Bipedalism might also have added a selection criteria WRT to the diets, by being able to pick fruit that was higher than could be reached by competitors.
I'd be willing to bet that it was a combination of both factors that contributed to selection (probably also other factors we're not aware of yet.)
Cheers, and thanks for a seriously thought provoking post.
SB
PS - perhaps the thicker skulls of neanderthals developed after the discovery that a thick branch makes a good weapon to knock your neighbor over the head with
And it is driving evolutionists mad...
:)
Nope, it's providing them with interesting and productive employment.
SB
When Star Trek:TOS was still going.
It's been a long, long time since Roddenberry tweaked the public mores...
SB
But don't kill your tv.
:)
Letting your tv die of terminal loneliness is much better.
SB
The flag was stiffened with wires to keep it unfurled. Not sure whether the "wavy" effect was intentional or not (I'd imagine it was fairly difficult to straighten the flag properly with those clumsy suit gloves.)
Cheers,
SB
3) Moderation is BROKEN. BADLY.
Yup, I'll agree there.
From what I've seen, it seems to me that the moderator pool is becoming a bit too shallow. Maybe a total reset is in order. I don't know.
SB
Being a scientist does not mean you have to kill the hydra. Being a scientist just means you have to fight it. The Zen of biochemistry. Heh.
Monkey curiosity, y.
Put another way, there is no end to learning. None, not ever. From birth to death. When an organism stops learning, it's on the spiral to death. The only real difference that intelligence makes, is that it expands that spiral unto the species in general, and groups within in it specifically. Quit learning, quit adapting, you die, end of story. Ours, basically. It's a fine line, as we recently learned wrt to nuclear weapons.
Good luck with your grad studies. Give 'em hell & logic.
Cheers,
SB
That *would* be a coup, wouldn't it? *grin*
Happy Lunar Landing Day. Now, let's do it again - but this time to stay.
SB
Along those lines, perhaps one could approximate an eon by estimating the amount of time it'll take the vi vs. emacs argument to be resolved.
*ducks*
SB
Because going through life in perpetual fear is always the best way to deal with it.
Perpetual vigilance, on the other hand...
Wouldn't say that I'm paranoid - but back in my windows days - and to some extent even now running Linux - I treat(ed) every email attachment as a potential virus. Probably why I never got infected via email (infected just once, thru other computers at a LAN game.)
I do know some windows users who *are* afraid of viruses - and I'm not sure they are all that wrong to be, either - not when you have to call a tech and pay $ if your computer gets hosed.
SB
The risk isn't even in the same ballpark, my friend. It's not just the fire risk, either; theft, company, carelessness.... come on, now, you know that's a BS argument (at least I hope you do! ;)
If what you were thinking were true, than people would trust their wills and other important paper/legal info to friends more than they would a vault, eh? After all, banks aren't rich enough to *afford* really decent protection...are they...
Comparing a home fire safe (even an expensive one) to a typical bank vault is like comparing a home-built bomb shelter to Cheyenne Mountain.
(concrete and steel isolated by enormously thick security doors is quite a bit safer than a couple inches of steel that can be exposed directly to a fire)
Sheese.
SB
Yeah.
It's become more or less modus operandi - let's charge everyone for the costs incurred by a few.
Of *course* the RIAA will find a way to profit off it more and more in the future. That's their modus op, and they've pursued it as aggressively as the market (and the law) has allowed, for many decades. Universities, containing as they do many young folk, are a prime target (the RIAA doesn't seem to realize that most college students simply can't afford to buy their overpriced product, and this latest is just another way of offering discounts to expand their lock-in market share, just like Microsoft does. It's their strategic answer - nevermind that it's essentially extortion, they don't care because it's unlikely they'll be called on it.)
What makes me sad is that this is just another chapter in the continuing gradual destruction of our higher centers of learning via litigation. Not that making universities immune to civil lawsuits is a good idea, either, but the whole situation is so out of hand that I find it sickening.
Sigh,
SB
If they haven't (and I've been unable to find any good info about this thru google, but it's late and I'm tired) then maybe the universities should 'outsource' their network provider to one run by the same people (employees and students) but under a private charter.
Wouldn't that essentially give the provider CC status? I would think that would be maybe the best way of doing it, provided the university's charter allows for it. Might also be a nice way to provide real-world employment for students.
Dunno...am I entirely off the mark here?
SB
*who should be emitting Z's*
Perhaps university network providers (the internal ones, even) should have the same protections as common carriers do? Or do they already (and if they do, why are they knuckling under so easily?)
(sorry I can't expand on this, it's late here and I'm beat, and ignorant enough to know I can't argue it properly, but anyone with more knowledge than I have, please post as to why it may or may not be a good idea.)
SB
Agreed, but I'd love to see them attempt, say, Harvard
(My lawyer and some others I've known personally over the years are Harvard grads, and they are exceptionally talented IMO. Not necessarily ethical, mind you... but that's not really a handicap in this hypothetical situation, lol)
Cheers,
SB
The days of claiming the record labels aren't embracing these technologies is over.
Pfft. They are *way* late to the party, and trying to force the party to follow their whims, rather than adapting.
It's the pirates who aren't embracing these technologies.
That's nonsense. It's the "pirates" (mostly millions of people doing it with home computers with internet connections and CD burners and some hundreds of software designers) who have MADE THIS TECHNOLOGY POPULAR to the point where the record labels finally had to wake up to what was going on; and let's not forget the inevitable march of progress in the form of broadband (maybe we should ban that!)
So what did they do? Did they really try to adapt and use the new medium? Nope. First they tried to sue everyone they could using tracking methods that are extremely suspect, and also they tried to introduce legislation that often was draconian to the point of infringing on constitutional rights. They hemmed and hawed and whinged and tried to force the technology to submit to their marketing methods, and when it wouldn't (and it never will, legislation notwithstanding) they are trying, half-heartedly and all too late to compete in a market they tried to deny existence to in the first place. Meanwhile, those music artists and studios (indie bands) who realized the potential are gaining ground on them - and the RIAA execs are scared. Good. They should be.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the RIAA. They made their bed, they can damned well sleep in it. Every other form of opposition to technological change has eventually bitten the dust, they won't be an exception.
SB