It wouldn't be too surprising if dancing were common to the group of "higher apes" that includes us humans.
...except that the notable absence of sound-based rhythmic coordination among other apes is exactly what led to these researchers' theory that vocal mimicry is the key: it requires the ability to match the timing of an auditory cue, which is their definition of the difference between dancing and other motive displays.
The conclusion wasn't that you have to be a mimic to match a beat, but precisely the opposite: that having time sense opens the door for mimicry. When cart and horse are properly arranged, the selective benefits become more apparent.
Heh! Actually I live in rural Northern California, where we have mountain lions who would just knock the fences down, so that honestly didn't occur to me. If that's the actual reason for them being there in the first place, I can understand it.
My girlfriend (cue +5 Funny reply) told me about her home state of Virginia moving the fences along the freeways back to 50 feet, because they were concerned about kids climbing over them on a dare. Since they didn't figure they could stop this behavior, they decided to make it safe ("over the fence" is no longer a traffic zone).
Then and now, I don't see why they have fences in the first place. Without fences, a kid will die... and then everyone will know the story about the kid who died, and the idiocy will be stopped cold for at least five years (i.e. one high school rotation).
With fences in place, in the public eye it's the fault of the fence-builders for building insecure fences, not the kid for winning a Darwin. It's an outrage, not a lesson. And due to a false sense of safety, people get just as hurt just as often.
You're putting the philosophical cart before the scientific horse. It comes down to definitions, I suppose. As I'm using the term, philosophy is very explicitly defined as the superset of all pursuits to understand the natures of things. Likewise, literature is defined as the superset of all forms of storytelling. Epic fits within literature. Science fits within philosophy. Your analogy commits an inversion of scale, at least according to my understanding of the terms (which I contend is well-informed, but at the same time the terms have gotten rather muddied through the centuries).
Basically, what you say holds true if philosophy is simply a primitive form of science. Those of us arguing against you don't believe it is.:)
Science as we know it today was pretty much invented by Sir Francis Bacon, a philosopher. It unifies large swaths of epistemology and ontology, thereby rendering much of the field of philosophy entirely obsolete. That the vast majority of so-called philosophers haven't figured this out after 400+ years is one of my largest peeves with academia because, as a direct result of their masturbatory inertia, philosophy has been pushed into an intellectual corner.
So I don't blame you for not understanding that all science is properly a subset of philosophy. Most philosophy professors I've met don't really understand that either.:(
Please be sure to use the entire quote from Franklin. This entire quote is "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." These adjectives change the meaning of the quote entirely.
How much Franklin have you read? Those adjectives strike me as descriptive of the basic natures of liberty (always essential) and security (always temporary), not subjective qualifiers which imply Franklin's OK with giving up luxurious liberty for permanent security. Do you also read the Second Amendment as only requiring that States be allowed to form well-organized militias in representation of the people?
They made a movie of Lolita, and they used an actress who was an adult to play Lolita. The actress was an adult, but she played the role of someone who was a child. Does that mean the movie is illegal? Should we decide legality based on the age of the role played, or based on the age of the person playing the role?
Err... I recall watching a "making of" in which they revealed that Jeremy Irons had to have a pillow on his lap to legally make out with the actress, who was IIRC 15. (Just FYI, not an argument.)
Ah, so it's more options you want to make good use of your hard-earned cash? Sundry snide snarking...
Ron Paul was a candidate in the primaries. An enormous plank of his personal platform was "eliminate the federal income tax." Sounds like your personal beef was addressed. Did you vote?
Now you might be a jaded cynic and just think that it doesn't matter what they're offering, all you'll get is more of the same; or you might have decided that that particular baby wasn't worth tolerating the bathwater. If so, I personally double-dog-dare you to get your ass into politics and provide an alternative.
The thing is, the problem doesn't even begin with clueless voters. The problem begins with the fact that all the choices you have to vote on are bad. I mean really, a choice between 2 candidates that are both going to take the country even further into the crapper?
Where were you in the primary season? There was a choice between half a dozen candidates in each of the major parties, and I can name three Democrats and one Republican I would have been content or even happy to see in office. When mentioning any of them, the #1 reason I heard cited against voting for them was "He's not electable." If every person who'd used that vapid reasoning had voted to represent themselves instead of trying to pick a winning horse I think we'd see a very different political environment. And let's not even talk about all the people who don't bother to vote in primaries because they're "not as important."
So yeah, I'm going with clueless voters. The options were there.
"Recession" is also not formally defined, and the rule of thumb you quote has little meaning when GDP is measured in a currency which can be inflated by the same individuals deciding whether or not we're "in a recession."
Truly horrid... it died for lack of Windows compatibility. And it lacked Windows compatibility because Microsoft was able to convince a judge that Windows 95 was a new and unique product, not covered under the settlement order requiring Microsoft to hand over their API code (enforced through WFW3.11, including win32s).
Except for the "starving children" scams that prey on a person's honesty. Lots of those, and they like praying on religious communities.
There's a big difference between honesty and altruism. For that matter, there's a big difference between proper altruism and "aww, poor kid" emotional responses.
Slashdot Mirror
The conclusion wasn't that you have to be a mimic to match a beat, but precisely the opposite: that having time sense opens the door for mimicry. When cart and horse are properly arranged, the selective benefits become more apparent.
Parent is currently modded Insightful. I'd do something about this, but the authoritarian regime won't let me.
Ayn Rand.
No-CD cracks are a particularly common reason for this, thankfully fading in the face of more convenient (and IMO far fairer) DRM like Steam.
Heh! Actually I live in rural Northern California, where we have mountain lions who would just knock the fences down, so that honestly didn't occur to me. If that's the actual reason for them being there in the first place, I can understand it.
My girlfriend (cue +5 Funny reply) told me about her home state of Virginia moving the fences along the freeways back to 50 feet, because they were concerned about kids climbing over them on a dare. Since they didn't figure they could stop this behavior, they decided to make it safe ("over the fence" is no longer a traffic zone).
Then and now, I don't see why they have fences in the first place. Without fences, a kid will die... and then everyone will know the story about the kid who died, and the idiocy will be stopped cold for at least five years (i.e. one high school rotation).
With fences in place, in the public eye it's the fault of the fence-builders for building insecure fences, not the kid for winning a Darwin. It's an outrage, not a lesson. And due to a false sense of safety, people get just as hurt just as often.
Ehh, JC's good for the cash, but engineering is the best way to carry a joke too far.
...it's a good pun, do not rant about Descartes. It's a GOOD pun, do NOT...
You're putting the philosophical cart before the scientific horse. It comes down to definitions, I suppose. As I'm using the term, philosophy is very explicitly defined as the superset of all pursuits to understand the natures of things. Likewise, literature is defined as the superset of all forms of storytelling. Epic fits within literature. Science fits within philosophy. Your analogy commits an inversion of scale, at least according to my understanding of the terms (which I contend is well-informed, but at the same time the terms have gotten rather muddied through the centuries).
Basically, what you say holds true if philosophy is simply a primitive form of science. Those of us arguing against you don't believe it is. :)
Science as we know it today was pretty much invented by Sir Francis Bacon, a philosopher. It unifies large swaths of epistemology and ontology, thereby rendering much of the field of philosophy entirely obsolete. That the vast majority of so-called philosophers haven't figured this out after 400+ years is one of my largest peeves with academia because, as a direct result of their masturbatory inertia, philosophy has been pushed into an intellectual corner.
So I don't blame you for not understanding that all science is properly a subset of philosophy. Most philosophy professors I've met don't really understand that either. :(
How much Franklin have you read? Those adjectives strike me as descriptive of the basic natures of liberty (always essential) and security (always temporary), not subjective qualifiers which imply Franklin's OK with giving up luxurious liberty for permanent security. Do you also read the Second Amendment as only requiring that States be allowed to form well-organized militias in representation of the people?
Wait. +4 Insightful? Where's my -1 Didn't Get It option?
You bastard, I just laughed very loudly at work.
Good thing we're closed in one minute.
Err... I recall watching a "making of" in which they revealed that Jeremy Irons had to have a pillow on his lap to legally make out with the actress, who was IIRC 15. (Just FYI, not an argument.)
Ron Paul was a candidate in the primaries. An enormous plank of his personal platform was "eliminate the federal income tax." Sounds like your personal beef was addressed. Did you vote?
Now you might be a jaded cynic and just think that it doesn't matter what they're offering, all you'll get is more of the same; or you might have decided that that particular baby wasn't worth tolerating the bathwater. If so, I personally double-dog-dare you to get your ass into politics and provide an alternative.
Where were you in the primary season? There was a choice between half a dozen candidates in each of the major parties, and I can name three Democrats and one Republican I would have been content or even happy to see in office. When mentioning any of them, the #1 reason I heard cited against voting for them was "He's not electable." If every person who'd used that vapid reasoning had voted to represent themselves instead of trying to pick a winning horse I think we'd see a very different political environment. And let's not even talk about all the people who don't bother to vote in primaries because they're "not as important."
So yeah, I'm going with clueless voters. The options were there.
Oh come on, this deserves +P Funny.
Yeah, it was mostly an excuse to use that. Hadn't gotten to yet. :D
A succinct explanation.
Um... I'm not sure you understood what GP said. Rather, I'm sure you didn't. He asked if anyone was downloading it from you.
"Recession" is also not formally defined, and the rule of thumb you quote has little meaning when GDP is measured in a currency which can be inflated by the same individuals deciding whether or not we're "in a recession."
Parent is currently modded Insightful. While this is not inaccurate, it turns the joke a little sour. :(
Truly horrid... it died for lack of Windows compatibility. And it lacked Windows compatibility because Microsoft was able to convince a judge that Windows 95 was a new and unique product, not covered under the settlement order requiring Microsoft to hand over their API code (enforced through WFW3.11, including win32s).
I might still be using it today, otherwise.
There's a big difference between honesty and altruism. For that matter, there's a big difference between proper altruism and "aww, poor kid" emotional responses.