Darn it, there's some correlations here! And it also ties into our favorite stereotypes of good and evil...
Probably ties into that odd belief that children are innocent, (yeah, right! They're just smaller, and less dangerous) and the weird mental association between big eyes and kids. I mean, when was the last time YOU saw a 'Bambi-eyed' villain?
The space shuttle gets to hit the thinnest parts of the atmosphere first. And you still need to avoid certain re-entry angles...
The track-length problem is pretty easy (1/2 v^2 = a * d), but I would like to ask- What kind of materials could withstand escape velocity, straight up, at 14,494 ft? The straight up is to simplify the problem (less time in nasty thick atmosphere), the 14,494 ft is the height of Mount Whitney, (CA), tallest mountain in the continental US.
I ask this problem 'cause it requires knowledge of aerodynamics, pressure variation with altitude, heat dissipation, and more stuff I don't know... Mt. Whitney I found via search engine, the rest sounds like work...
But at a guess, this 'almost-best-case' unassisted lift off will still fry 'ya, even with modern ceramics....rockets will probably be used for some time yet, even if we have assisted launch systems that work.
I mean, unless someone learns how to set fire to smog, how are you gonna do it? Will China use ALL its nukes? And get some friends to help? Hmmm...
If you gave us enough time to evacuate, Angelinos might ask if the US itself could help out with this innovative urban renewal. I can see it now - proposition 3..2..1..
The more I think about this, the better I like it. Great weather, lousy city not-planning. Throw a couple extra on the downtown, and we even solve the cable & pipe problems the subway's having! And once the LA freeways are gone, who knows how much national oil consumption will drop!
Yeah, we'd lose Hollywood and a large portion of the entertainment industry, but...no, never mind, that's not a negative. I guess there are no real downsides...
Man, this could be the greatest urban renewal program of the century! Let's pick a fight with China before they realize they'd be doing us a favor!
Is to revive brain cells that think they themselves are dead. Boy, wouldn't that be a surprise! One minute you're in heaven, the next you're on someone's countertop! I can't help but think of poor Erwin (of Userfriendly) in this context, somehow...
How are the neural grafting ideas coming along? Anyone trying for cyborg tamagochis soon?
Disclaimer: the following is all wild-assed guesses and speculation. Please don't flame
Now, assuming we use that definition, what other cool insights might we get?
The most interesting speculation I have, comes from info from IQ studies: male_avg == female_avg, male_std_dev > female_std_dev;/* i.e. males are both smarter AND stupider than females, on avg. */
From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense if you view males as expendable, (we are not the child bearers) and thus living test labs- if the Y chromosome codes for more extreme expression of genes, than you can select out beneficial stuff faster where it doesn't hurt the species. If half the males die from living this unbalanced way, well, the other half just have to impregnate two females on avg., who aren't affected by the Y chromosome.
So, from the above definition of GEEK, you're gonna get more male geeks than female geeks, just 'cause of the way the Y works. Also, if you're looking at ANY group more than 2 deviations from norm, you're probably going to find other oddities, simply because gets 'stuck' with these traits on the genetic level. Change a bunch of proteins to favor one specific trait, you'll probably get unanticipated side effects.
This doesn't mean that the oddities are the cause of the primary trait, or vice versa. For instance, studies have shown a positive correlation between myopia and high intelligence. Does this mean that whatever made my great^65 grandfather smart also made him see worse? Or vice versa? Nah, it probably means that those of my great^65_grandparents who were both blind AND dumb got themselves killed off, while those who were only one or the other (blind but smart, dumb but 20/20) survived.
So, now that I've put out some weird ideas, what conclusions do I have? 1. The study is not trying to call intelligence a disease -It's just saying THEY found a correlation between certain traits. Whether its because (a.some technophiles are less interested in people, b. genetic intelligence to enjoy technical stuff offsets the evolutionary disadvantage of certain genetic problems, or c. the time spent on cool stuff comes at the opportunity cost of time spent socializing) is a topic for later investigation 2. More investigation is needed -where? see above for some starter ideas, and submit your own 3. We have some new tools -if you have some problems in common with group X, you can consult the literature written/take the meds made/use the W invented for group X. I have some ADHD traits, and yes, the stuff helps me, so I use it. 4. We are not absolutely limited by our genes, but we must take them into consideration -the Y chromosome is the product of millions of years of evolution, but it doesn't work to our benefit all the time. So be aware of tendencies to excess if you're male, but don't embrace them. After all, monogamy works better for humanity than rutting (like deer) does...which is the model the Y chromosome has worked with for most of those years...
And some personal beliefs 5. There's a lot to learn still 6. New knowledge is not threatening 7. I believe in higher purposes, the existence of the soul, a Loving God(dess? both in one?), etc. -a bit of a digression, but SO many people believe #6 is incompatible w/ #7, that I personally feel it must be said. Besides, people often take personal offense at certain ideas, feeling them to be demeaning, insulting, etc., but if #7 isn't incompatible w/ #6, what else is possible?
God gave us both brains and hearts. Let's use 'em.
Well, we've disposed of objections to research per se, so, anyone up for ethics/ practicality discussions? As in, the ethics of methods in research, of applications, and more importantly, the ethics and feasibility of the systems that apply the knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Darn it, there's some correlations here! And it also ties into our favorite stereotypes of good and evil...
Probably ties into that odd belief that children are innocent, (yeah, right! They're just smaller, and less dangerous) and the weird mental association between big eyes and kids. I mean, when was the last time YOU saw a 'Bambi-eyed' villain?
Two words: Heat shielding.
The space shuttle gets to hit the thinnest parts of the atmosphere first. And you still need to avoid certain re-entry angles...
The track-length problem is pretty easy (1/2 v^2 = a * d), but I would like to ask-
What kind of materials could withstand escape velocity, straight up, at 14,494 ft? The straight up is to simplify the problem (less time in nasty thick atmosphere), the 14,494 ft is the height of Mount Whitney, (CA), tallest mountain in the continental US.
I ask this problem 'cause it requires knowledge of aerodynamics, pressure variation with altitude, heat dissipation, and more stuff I don't know... Mt. Whitney I found via search engine, the rest sounds like work...
But at a guess, this 'almost-best-case' unassisted lift off will still fry 'ya, even with modern ceramics....rockets will probably be used for some time yet, even if we have assisted launch systems that work.
I mean, unless someone learns how to set fire to smog, how are you gonna do it? Will China use ALL its nukes? And get some friends to help?
Hmmm...
If you gave us enough time to evacuate, Angelinos might ask if the US itself could help out with this innovative urban renewal. I can see it now - proposition 3..2..1..
The more I think about this, the better I like it. Great weather, lousy city not-planning. Throw a couple extra on the downtown, and we even solve the cable & pipe problems the subway's having! And once the LA freeways are gone, who knows how much national oil consumption will drop!
Yeah, we'd lose Hollywood and a large portion of the entertainment industry, but...no, never mind, that's not a negative. I guess there are no real downsides...
Man, this could be the greatest urban renewal program of the century! Let's pick a fight with China before they realize they'd be doing us a favor!
Is to revive brain cells that think they themselves are dead. Boy, wouldn't that be a surprise! One minute you're in heaven, the next you're on someone's countertop! I can't help but think of poor Erwin (of Userfriendly) in this context, somehow...
How are the neural grafting ideas coming along? Anyone trying for cyborg tamagochis soon?
Anyone know what the average # of Lawyers (per 10k human beings) is in Germany?
;)
It'd be interesting to see how they compare to us goofballs in the US, as we are well known for legal silliness (coffee anyone?)
Come to think of it, what are the figures for the rest of the world?
We Americans don't get out much
Disclaimer: the following is all wild-assed guesses and speculation. Please don't flame
/* i.e. males are both smarter AND stupider than females, on avg. */
:p
Now, assuming we use that definition, what other cool insights might we get?
The most interesting speculation I have, comes from info from IQ studies:
male_avg == female_avg, male_std_dev > female_std_dev;
From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense if you view males as expendable, (we are not the child bearers) and thus living test labs- if the Y chromosome codes for more extreme expression of genes, than you can select out beneficial stuff faster where it doesn't hurt the species. If half the males die from living this unbalanced way, well, the other half just have to impregnate two females on avg., who aren't affected by the Y chromosome.
So, from the above definition of GEEK, you're gonna get more male geeks than female geeks, just 'cause of the way the Y works. Also, if you're looking at ANY group more than 2 deviations from norm, you're probably going to find other oddities, simply because gets 'stuck' with these traits on the genetic level. Change a bunch of proteins to favor one specific trait, you'll probably get unanticipated side effects.
This doesn't mean that the oddities are the cause of the primary trait, or vice versa. For instance, studies have shown a positive correlation between myopia and high intelligence. Does this mean that whatever made my great^65 grandfather smart also made him see worse? Or vice versa? Nah, it probably means that those of my great^65_grandparents who were both blind AND dumb got themselves killed off, while those who were only one or the other (blind but smart, dumb but 20/20) survived.
So, now that I've put out some weird ideas, what conclusions do I have?
1. The study is not trying to call intelligence a disease
-It's just saying THEY found a correlation between certain traits. Whether its because (a.some technophiles are less interested in people, b. genetic intelligence to enjoy technical stuff offsets the evolutionary disadvantage of certain genetic problems, or c. the time spent on cool stuff comes at the opportunity cost of time spent socializing) is a topic for later investigation
2. More investigation is needed
-where? see above for some starter ideas, and submit your own
3. We have some new tools
-if you have some problems in common with group X, you can consult the literature written/take the meds made/use the W invented for group X. I have some ADHD traits, and yes, the stuff helps me, so I use it.
4. We are not absolutely limited by our genes, but we must take them into consideration
-the Y chromosome is the product of millions of years of evolution, but it doesn't work to our benefit all the time. So be aware of tendencies to excess if you're male, but don't embrace them. After all, monogamy works better for humanity than rutting (like deer) does...which is the model the Y chromosome has worked with for most of those years...
And some personal beliefs
5. There's a lot to learn still
6. New knowledge is not threatening
7. I believe in higher purposes, the existence of the soul, a Loving God(dess? both in one?), etc.
-a bit of a digression, but SO many people believe #6 is incompatible w/ #7, that I personally feel it must be said. Besides, people often take personal offense at certain ideas, feeling them to be demeaning, insulting, etc., but if #7 isn't incompatible w/ #6, what else is possible?
God gave us both brains and hearts. Let's use 'em.
Well, we've disposed of objections to research per se, so, anyone up for ethics/ practicality discussions? As in, the ethics of methods in research, of applications, and more importantly, the ethics and feasibility of the systems that apply the knowledge.
Darn, this became too long a post
Amateurs think tactics.
Professionals think logistics.
-Military saying, source unknown (to me)