Hey, I have a sure-fire way to prove to you that science doesn't take everything into account, right? Well, science has measured my IQ. Surely it must be a mistake, since I'm apparently so clueless.
Real scientists know that studies do not absolutely completely prove anything. Like I said, there could be other factors. Reference history for a list of scientific theories that had turned out to be false for various reasons.
These attempts to mark me as part of the Christian right astounds me. I'm not sure where it comes from. "Protestant work ethic?" And as far as pointing fingers at the poor and calling them lazy -- I know for a fact this isn't true, and I've even said so in previous posts, so really, I'm not sure why you keep saying it.
I'm not disregarding genetic differences. Everyone STARTS somewhere different. Then, through hard WORK, they END UP somewhere better, and where they END UP is limited only by their DRIVE and BELIEF that they can get there.
I sense undertones. So, let's throw some fuel on the fire: Rush Limbaugh does preach this too. Could this be where your hate for it comes from? Given your logic, because I know that, I'm sure I must be a right-wing conservative Protestant gun-toting nutcase.
I'm sorry you've become so frustrated with yourself. Keep trying. I wouldn't presume to tell you that you're mind is limited. That would be wrong in so many ways.
Listen, perhaps/. is more to you than a diversion, but to me, it cannot be more. Now I see why you've spent so much time on this. If I had the time to write a paper on this, I would. But,/. is a diversional activity for me (I actually spend TOO much time on it as it is) and if not putting in the hours to research my position in a formal matter gives you a sense that you have won some battle, for all that matters, then so be it: who am I to take this from you?
There is plenty of evidence out there to support the human mind's limitless potential. Just watch life itself. If you have a need to think that humans are so limited, perhaps you should explore why. Given that you are almost 70 years old, I'm guessing there is a personal reason that drives you and I pray you resolve it. I can tell you this with conviction, though: if you truly believe you are limited, then you will be limited, so in a way, this proves your point that some human minds are limited -- by themselves.
This is a damaging misconception. Arrogance and egoism is the belief that you have already achieved something you have not. I believe I have the ability to achieve something, but have not yet done so. That is an important difference.
Also, my belief in myself and my limitless potential should not be a concern to you. If it evokes a negative emotion in yourself, the problem is your's, not mine. I keep talking about dark human nature: consider the darkness of needing another person to feel limited. Consider why you would feel that way.
You read my sentence differently than what I intended: I mean, the ability to aquire knowledge, not how much knowledge the person has. I can see how the grammar is off on that one, though.
What is happening here is we're straying from the main idea: that people have unlimited potential for intelligence. It is a matter of attitude in belief in one's self. Things don't happen right away: it takes hard work and time to improve one's intelligence. A person dies over time, yes, and a person has limited time, yes, but their potential itself is boundless.
I guess I'm confused, though, why someone would feel so strongly otherwise. Perhaps the words are getting in the way. Why would you believe that you cannot achieve something? Why would you believe another person cannot achieve something? Isn't this a self-defeating attitude? Isn't it also an excuse not to achieve?
I believe the mind is limitless, but that doesn't make me stupid. Everybody has roadblocks in life that they have to overcome. Some are physical. If I'm too short, well, I'm pretty much out-of-luck. What is great about my mind, however, is that I can become tall because of the special nature of the mind. Even if a part of my brain is broken, my mind can still expand. And so can yours.
Outside of standard troll behavior, why do you feel the belittle me during your arguments? Is there something about this idea that threatens you somehow?
I think I understand where the disconnect is: I don't think our ability to aquire knowledge and apply it is a function of the brain so much as it is a function of the mind. The creativity of Einstein is the result of a highly developed mind. I certainly think that a brain deformity might help develop the mind: it may bring things into more clarity, for some reason, or might perhaps force the rest of the mind to develop more to compensate for some loss of perception. I do not believe, and perhaps all this is just a matter of belief, that Einstein's brain caused his genius. The brain is just another organ. So, if you think that you think with your brain alone, then it makes sense why you would argue that it has limitations.
I believe that your mind has infinte potential. A mentally retarded person has a perception problem which may get into the way of them reaching high potentials, but that doesn't mean that potential isn't there.
If you believe that you cannot match or exceed the intellecutal feats of Einstein by sheer force of will (the will to develop one's intelligence, in this context), then you won't. The brain can develop these materials you speak of, but only if the brain bearer wants to.
I happen to believe, if I work hard enough, that I can exceed Einstein, Hawking, Newton; all of them, combined. The question is, who are you, sir, to tell me or anyone that they cannot?
I'm sure there are also people in that study who's IQ increased with time as well. Those people are the ones who kept up their development. These studies show the results of people's IQ's who are not necessarily interested in the goal of developing their mind. Perhaps they have been convinced they can't?
Good point -- so, you're statement, "Despite what we learned on Sesame Street, some people really are better than others," only means that some people are really better than others at some things, but not all things. That's what you mean, right? You have certainly shown how "better" is hard to define.
What initial comparison? You mean that we can develop our brains? Yes, that is what I'm arguing. We can't develop ourselves into being physically taller, though.
Politically, all people are born with equal rights. They are not born equal in other ways. The declaration that all men are created equal never intended to go beyond rights, which is evident by the rest of the document, which has to do with rights -- and rights alone.
As far as political correctness goes, really, I don't know what that means and never did. If it is correct to be political, then does it not follow that the code that describes what is correct would be the code of the strongest political power? And, since the Republicans have more power, and they are conservative, isn't it politically correct to be conservative? Yet, we all know it is the opposite. So, I choose to have no truck with political correctness. Perhaps you can explain what political correctness is to me?
Generally, science has shown that the effects of `applying themselves' and `believing they can do it' on intelligence is relatively small, especially as one becomes an adult.
Where on Earth is such science? Intelligence is the capacity to aquire and apply knowledge. Does it not make sense, then, that practicing both the acquiring and applying knowledge will lead to becoming better at doing so and, as a result, becoming more intelligent? As far as alien brain boosts, I'm shocked you brought up such a thing and expect to be taken seriously.
If I understand the term correctly, "Musclehead" means to favor one's muscles so much over using their head that the implication is that their head is made up of nothing but muscles. An interesting play on words, but I'm not sure how it applies to the discussion.
As far as mixing my terms, consider this: intelligence is made up of two major factors, and I don't think these are in dispute: 1. acquision of knowledge, and 2. application of knowledge. It takes an ability to acquire knowledge. It also takes an ability to apply knowlege. Both are mental abilities. IQ is a measure of those two mental abilities. Perhaps you dispute that these are not factors of IQ? Or, perhaps you claim that there are other factors? I still do not see your explanation of how those four definitions are different. Those might be subtle differences, but are they too subtle for you to describe?
I never made any claim regarding age and IQ. I'm 32 years old and in Graduate school, and I'm clearly not alone, so there is ample evidence that the educational system supports people of all ages. You will need to provide proof that IQ is fixed as an adult for me to accept it. I can directly observe that I get better at both aquiring and applying knowledge after my education, and I see this improvement in other people as well, so I'm relatively sure I'm not entirely a freak of nature.
Aha! So, it follows: most people are not handicapped. So, if we only relate to people like us, and we are not handicapped, wouldn't we gravitate towards movies about normal people achiving great heights instead of handicapped people? But, we don't, do we? We don't want to see someone like us achieving great heights, even though we would relate to them more. Why? We've peeled one layer. Let's keep going. There is an answer, and the answer is, indeed, dark.
I should have been more specific: I mean, we are all capable of any level of MENTAL potential. Physical potential is a completely different topic. That is one of the reasons why people with unfortunate physical attributes tend to work on their mental attributes instead. The dirty little secret is, people with fantastic physical attributes can also attain the same potential. This terrifies the physically inferior, so they spend a lot of effort trying to claim that mental prowess is a gift, for the dark reason of holding back others who may threaten their ego.
Exactly the answer I expected. Why am I not better than you? If, what you say is true, that people can be better than other people, why not I, specifically, better than you? Or, is there something keeping you from coming to that conclusion? Search that something. I think you'll see my point, although I doubt you'll admit it.
Speed, quickness, strentgh, muscle mass -- all physical attributes. The brain does not follow those same rules. Apples and oranges. The brain is a neural network that has a wonderous -- miraculous, even -- ability to adapt. Unlike muscle.
Again, I say, the brain can be as tall is it desires to be.
But, we can develop muscles to any level our will allows us to.
If you say some people are really better than others, I will say this: I am better than you. Your reactions to such a statement will lead you to understand why your statement isn't true.
Don't confuse physical ability with mental ability. While there is a physical aspect to mental development, it doesn't play as much as a role because of the brain's unique ability to adapt. A short brain can become tall, so to speak!
I would like to know where you live, because in America, intelligence gives you social/disadvantage/, and I'm looking for a plane trip to anywhere this isn't true. If you value knowledge, you're a nerd and people hate you for what you achieve because it makes them feel bad about themselves. Financial gains aren't based on intelligence here either: they are based on the willingness to hurt others. Some people confuse this with intelligence, though. For example, people will often, at first, consider the unethical behavior of Bill Gates negatively, and then switch when they say the words, "But, see how rich he is?" In America, money is morality.
Intelligence is just as attainable as knowledge, through practice.
We are all capable of any level of potential. The only thing limiting us is what we believe we can do. What we believe we can do is often limited by people who have a vested emotional interest in ensuring you do not believe you are capable of more than they. From that simple need, a vast array of fascinating behaviors emerge.
You can observe many of these behaviors from/. users. All behavior emerges from basic needs and a lot of/. user's needs are pretty strong.
I agree that there is always a genetic component that affects where we start in life. We all come into this world with differing levels of gifts. It is what makes us so interesting. However, my point is that those only describe where we start, not where we end up. The rest is up to us. A person without the genetic gift of increased intelligence may become more intelligent than the gifted person if they apply themselves and believe they can do it.
The American Heritage Dictionary uses this definition for intelligence: "The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." There are aspects of initial capacity that genetics dictate: short and long term memory capacity, for example. Through excercises, we can increase the capacity (this is demonstratable). Also, our ability to apply knowledge developes because of our/need/ to apply knowledge. If we do not put ourselves in a challenging environment, the need to apply knowledge isn't there, so we do not develop that aspect of intelligence in such a situation.
Of course, you're right: the brain isn't a muscle, it is technically an organ. But, people often refer to it as a muscle because, like a muscle, they can develop it. There is ample evidence of this. In fact, the evidence that we can develop our mental abilities is one of the founding reasons for our educational system.
Now to something darker. Consider these two possibilities: a movie about a non-handicapped person who achieves amazing things in life and a movie about a handicapped person who also achieves amazing things. Both worked just as hard. Which movie makes the non-handicapped feel better about themselves? Why? Consider the moral aspect of this. This question has layers, so don't jump right away at an answer until you've chewed it up a bit.
And, to state that fat people do not live as long does not belittle them. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Hey, this explains my GPA then. Of course, none of my lobes got bigger to compensate, but, at least now I have an excuse!
Seriously, these kind of things disturb me when I read them (what the quote said, not what the poster said). It implies that intelligence cannot be achieved through hard work, which is totally wrong. The brain is like any other muscle and the brain bearer can develop it, just like any other muscle. They don't need a genetic defect to outdo Einstein, they need courage and the willingness to sweat to build it up.
When people turn around and then say, "Well, you're smart because you're defective," then it diminishes both the person and the journey to become a more intelligent person. Some people use this excuse to explain away their own laziness or they'll take the smart person's flaws and blow them out of proportion until the smarter person is just bad enough to no longer be superior.
I'm convinced this tendency in people also creates an expectation from people who are intelligent that affects the intelligent's person behavior. "All the world's a stage. And all the men and women merely players", Shakespeare observed. What role we play is often the role we think other expect us to play. So, if a person is intelligent, people expect that person has no social skills, and they live up to expectations because they are looking for clues for how to play their role.
It is still "politically correct" to belittle both intelligent and fat people in today's society too.
I run a PowerMac G5 running Mac OS X 10.3.9 without a single bit of M$ software and I get so much done I barely know what to do with the extra time. You bet there's competition!:-)
The best thing about this is that they will be forced to make their code more efficient to work on slower PC's. They'll integrate that code into future versions of the OS and we'll feel that efficiency and increased quality. This will also force the competition to do the same thing, building a culture that leads to more efficient OS's. Best news I've read all day.
From RIAA's point-of-view, downloading music is indirect stealing; you are stealing money they would have made. Hey, I don't agree with RIAA on that one -- I think they're cowards who aren't clever enough to adapt. Whew, this waft of hate coming my way; it's based on assumptions that arose from a single sentence. Fascinating.
Hak, sheez, I better add this before somebody goes nuts: there are some definitions of copyright infringement that include copying material without authorization. However, that is more considered theft or piracy, not copyright infringement. It is a misuse of the word to include theft and piracy in copyright infringement; just like it is a misuse of the word "hacker" when referring to people who break into systems when they should use the word "cracker".
They are downloading music to their drive that RIAA thinks they would have bought in the store if they didn't have the opportunity. So, in RIAA's mind, it is stealing.
Copyright infringement is using a substantial part of the music and redistributing it as your own.
Call of your dogs; I'm not saying it is immoral to download music.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I have a sure-fire way to prove to you that science doesn't take everything into account, right? Well, science has measured my IQ. Surely it must be a mistake, since I'm apparently so clueless.
Real scientists know that studies do not absolutely completely prove anything. Like I said, there could be other factors. Reference history for a list of scientific theories that had turned out to be false for various reasons.
You know we're talking about mental abilities, not physical abilities.
These attempts to mark me as part of the Christian right astounds me. I'm not sure where it comes from. "Protestant work ethic?" And as far as pointing fingers at the poor and calling them lazy -- I know for a fact this isn't true, and I've even said so in previous posts, so really, I'm not sure why you keep saying it.
I'm not disregarding genetic differences. Everyone STARTS somewhere different. Then, through hard WORK, they END UP somewhere better, and where they END UP is limited only by their DRIVE and BELIEF that they can get there.
I sense undertones. So, let's throw some fuel on the fire: Rush Limbaugh does preach this too. Could this be where your hate for it comes from? Given your logic, because I know that, I'm sure I must be a right-wing conservative Protestant gun-toting nutcase.
And I'm the one not being scientific.
I'm sorry you've become so frustrated with yourself. Keep trying. I wouldn't presume to tell you that you're mind is limited. That would be wrong in so many ways.
Listen, perhaps /. is more to you than a diversion, but to me, it cannot be more. Now I see why you've spent so much time on this. If I had the time to write a paper on this, I would. But, /. is a diversional activity for me (I actually spend TOO much time on it as it is) and if not putting in the hours to research my position in a formal matter gives you a sense that you have won some battle, for all that matters, then so be it: who am I to take this from you?
There is plenty of evidence out there to support the human mind's limitless potential. Just watch life itself. If you have a need to think that humans are so limited, perhaps you should explore why. Given that you are almost 70 years old, I'm guessing there is a personal reason that drives you and I pray you resolve it. I can tell you this with conviction, though: if you truly believe you are limited, then you will be limited, so in a way, this proves your point that some human minds are limited -- by themselves.
There it is -- I was waiting for this to pop up.
This is a damaging misconception. Arrogance and egoism is the belief that you have already achieved something you have not. I believe I have the ability to achieve something, but have not yet done so. That is an important difference.
Also, my belief in myself and my limitless potential should not be a concern to you. If it evokes a negative emotion in yourself, the problem is your's, not mine. I keep talking about dark human nature: consider the darkness of needing another person to feel limited. Consider why you would feel that way.
You read my sentence differently than what I intended: I mean, the ability to aquire knowledge, not how much knowledge the person has. I can see how the grammar is off on that one, though.
What is happening here is we're straying from the main idea: that people have unlimited potential for intelligence. It is a matter of attitude in belief in one's self. Things don't happen right away: it takes hard work and time to improve one's intelligence. A person dies over time, yes, and a person has limited time, yes, but their potential itself is boundless.
I guess I'm confused, though, why someone would feel so strongly otherwise. Perhaps the words are getting in the way. Why would you believe that you cannot achieve something? Why would you believe another person cannot achieve something? Isn't this a self-defeating attitude? Isn't it also an excuse not to achieve?
I believe the mind is limitless, but that doesn't make me stupid. Everybody has roadblocks in life that they have to overcome. Some are physical. If I'm too short, well, I'm pretty much out-of-luck. What is great about my mind, however, is that I can become tall because of the special nature of the mind. Even if a part of my brain is broken, my mind can still expand. And so can yours.
Outside of standard troll behavior, why do you feel the belittle me during your arguments? Is there something about this idea that threatens you somehow?
I think I understand where the disconnect is: I don't think our ability to aquire knowledge and apply it is a function of the brain so much as it is a function of the mind. The creativity of Einstein is the result of a highly developed mind. I certainly think that a brain deformity might help develop the mind: it may bring things into more clarity, for some reason, or might perhaps force the rest of the mind to develop more to compensate for some loss of perception. I do not believe, and perhaps all this is just a matter of belief, that Einstein's brain caused his genius. The brain is just another organ. So, if you think that you think with your brain alone, then it makes sense why you would argue that it has limitations.
I believe that your mind has infinte potential. A mentally retarded person has a perception problem which may get into the way of them reaching high potentials, but that doesn't mean that potential isn't there.
If you believe that you cannot match or exceed the intellecutal feats of Einstein by sheer force of will (the will to develop one's intelligence, in this context), then you won't. The brain can develop these materials you speak of, but only if the brain bearer wants to.
I happen to believe, if I work hard enough, that I can exceed Einstein, Hawking, Newton; all of them, combined. The question is, who are you, sir, to tell me or anyone that they cannot?
I'm sure there are also people in that study who's IQ increased with time as well. Those people are the ones who kept up their development. These studies show the results of people's IQ's who are not necessarily interested in the goal of developing their mind. Perhaps they have been convinced they can't?
Good point -- so, you're statement, "Despite what we learned on Sesame Street, some people really are better than others," only means that some people are really better than others at some things, but not all things. That's what you mean, right? You have certainly shown how "better" is hard to define.
What initial comparison? You mean that we can develop our brains? Yes, that is what I'm arguing. We can't develop ourselves into being physically taller, though.
Politically, all people are born with equal rights. They are not born equal in other ways. The declaration that all men are created equal never intended to go beyond rights, which is evident by the rest of the document, which has to do with rights -- and rights alone.
As far as political correctness goes, really, I don't know what that means and never did. If it is correct to be political, then does it not follow that the code that describes what is correct would be the code of the strongest political power? And, since the Republicans have more power, and they are conservative, isn't it politically correct to be conservative? Yet, we all know it is the opposite. So, I choose to have no truck with political correctness. Perhaps you can explain what political correctness is to me?
Generally, science has shown that the effects of `applying themselves' and `believing they can do it' on intelligence is relatively small, especially as one becomes an adult.
Where on Earth is such science? Intelligence is the capacity to aquire and apply knowledge. Does it not make sense, then, that practicing both the acquiring and applying knowledge will lead to becoming better at doing so and, as a result, becoming more intelligent? As far as alien brain boosts, I'm shocked you brought up such a thing and expect to be taken seriously.
If I understand the term correctly, "Musclehead" means to favor one's muscles so much over using their head that the implication is that their head is made up of nothing but muscles. An interesting play on words, but I'm not sure how it applies to the discussion.
As far as mixing my terms, consider this: intelligence is made up of two major factors, and I don't think these are in dispute: 1. acquision of knowledge, and 2. application of knowledge. It takes an ability to acquire knowledge. It also takes an ability to apply knowlege. Both are mental abilities. IQ is a measure of those two mental abilities. Perhaps you dispute that these are not factors of IQ? Or, perhaps you claim that there are other factors? I still do not see your explanation of how those four definitions are different. Those might be subtle differences, but are they too subtle for you to describe?
I never made any claim regarding age and IQ. I'm 32 years old and in Graduate school, and I'm clearly not alone, so there is ample evidence that the educational system supports people of all ages. You will need to provide proof that IQ is fixed as an adult for me to accept it. I can directly observe that I get better at both aquiring and applying knowledge after my education, and I see this improvement in other people as well, so I'm relatively sure I'm not entirely a freak of nature.
Aha! So, it follows: most people are not handicapped. So, if we only relate to people like us, and we are not handicapped, wouldn't we gravitate towards movies about normal people achiving great heights instead of handicapped people? But, we don't, do we? We don't want to see someone like us achieving great heights, even though we would relate to them more. Why? We've peeled one layer. Let's keep going. There is an answer, and the answer is, indeed, dark.
There are many resources to develop your brain. The following has some resources:
E WCATS&Category=48
http://www.luxevivant.com/index.asp?PageAction=VI
Of course, the local library has plenty of workout equipment, so to speak.
To say my belief is misguided, you must have a better guide. So, quid pro quo: lead me to a better guide.
I should have been more specific: I mean, we are all capable of any level of MENTAL potential. Physical potential is a completely different topic. That is one of the reasons why people with unfortunate physical attributes tend to work on their mental attributes instead. The dirty little secret is, people with fantastic physical attributes can also attain the same potential. This terrifies the physically inferior, so they spend a lot of effort trying to claim that mental prowess is a gift, for the dark reason of holding back others who may threaten their ego.
Exactly the answer I expected. Why am I not better than you? If, what you say is true, that people can be better than other people, why not I, specifically, better than you? Or, is there something keeping you from coming to that conclusion? Search that something. I think you'll see my point, although I doubt you'll admit it.
Speed, quickness, strentgh, muscle mass -- all physical attributes. The brain does not follow those same rules. Apples and oranges. The brain is a neural network that has a wonderous -- miraculous, even -- ability to adapt. Unlike muscle.
Again, I say, the brain can be as tall is it desires to be.
But, we can develop muscles to any level our will allows us to.
If you say some people are really better than others, I will say this: I am better than you. Your reactions to such a statement will lead you to understand why your statement isn't true.
Don't confuse physical ability with mental ability. While there is a physical aspect to mental development, it doesn't play as much as a role because of the brain's unique ability to adapt. A short brain can become tall, so to speak!
/disadvantage/, and I'm looking for a plane trip to anywhere this isn't true. If you value knowledge, you're a nerd and people hate you for what you achieve because it makes them feel bad about themselves. Financial gains aren't based on intelligence here either: they are based on the willingness to hurt others. Some people confuse this with intelligence, though. For example, people will often, at first, consider the unethical behavior of Bill Gates negatively, and then switch when they say the words, "But, see how rich he is?" In America, money is morality.
I would like to know where you live, because in America, intelligence gives you social
Intelligence is just as attainable as knowledge, through practice.
/. users. All behavior emerges from basic needs and a lot of /. user's needs are pretty strong.
We are all capable of any level of potential. The only thing limiting us is what we believe we can do. What we believe we can do is often limited by people who have a vested emotional interest in ensuring you do not believe you are capable of more than they. From that simple need, a vast array of fascinating behaviors emerge.
You can observe many of these behaviors from
I agree that there is always a genetic component that affects where we start in life. We all come into this world with differing levels of gifts. It is what makes us so interesting. However, my point is that those only describe where we start, not where we end up. The rest is up to us. A person without the genetic gift of increased intelligence may become more intelligent than the gifted person if they apply themselves and believe they can do it.
/need/ to apply knowledge. If we do not put ourselves in a challenging environment, the need to apply knowledge isn't there, so we do not develop that aspect of intelligence in such a situation.
The American Heritage Dictionary uses this definition for intelligence: "The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge." There are aspects of initial capacity that genetics dictate: short and long term memory capacity, for example. Through excercises, we can increase the capacity (this is demonstratable). Also, our ability to apply knowledge developes because of our
Of course, you're right: the brain isn't a muscle, it is technically an organ. But, people often refer to it as a muscle because, like a muscle, they can develop it. There is ample evidence of this. In fact, the evidence that we can develop our mental abilities is one of the founding reasons for our educational system.
Now to something darker. Consider these two possibilities: a movie about a non-handicapped person who achieves amazing things in life and a movie about a handicapped person who also achieves amazing things. Both worked just as hard. Which movie makes the non-handicapped feel better about themselves? Why? Consider the moral aspect of this. This question has layers, so don't jump right away at an answer until you've chewed it up a bit.
And, to state that fat people do not live as long does not belittle them. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Hey, this explains my GPA then. Of course, none of my lobes got bigger to compensate, but, at least now I have an excuse!
Seriously, these kind of things disturb me when I read them (what the quote said, not what the poster said). It implies that intelligence cannot be achieved through hard work, which is totally wrong. The brain is like any other muscle and the brain bearer can develop it, just like any other muscle. They don't need a genetic defect to outdo Einstein, they need courage and the willingness to sweat to build it up.
When people turn around and then say, "Well, you're smart because you're defective," then it diminishes both the person and the journey to become a more intelligent person. Some people use this excuse to explain away their own laziness or they'll take the smart person's flaws and blow them out of proportion until the smarter person is just bad enough to no longer be superior.
I'm convinced this tendency in people also creates an expectation from people who are intelligent that affects the intelligent's person behavior. "All the world's a stage. And all the men and women merely players", Shakespeare observed. What role we play is often the role we think other expect us to play. So, if a person is intelligent, people expect that person has no social skills, and they live up to expectations because they are looking for clues for how to play their role.
It is still "politically correct" to belittle both intelligent and fat people in today's society too.
I run a PowerMac G5 running Mac OS X 10.3.9 without a single bit of M$ software and I get so much done I barely know what to do with the extra time. You bet there's competition! :-)
The best thing about this is that they will be forced to make their code more efficient to work on slower PC's. They'll integrate that code into future versions of the OS and we'll feel that efficiency and increased quality. This will also force the competition to do the same thing, building a culture that leads to more efficient OS's. Best news I've read all day.
From RIAA's point-of-view, downloading music is indirect stealing; you are stealing money they would have made. Hey, I don't agree with RIAA on that one -- I think they're cowards who aren't clever enough to adapt. Whew, this waft of hate coming my way; it's based on assumptions that arose from a single sentence. Fascinating.
Hak, sheez, I better add this before somebody goes nuts: there are some definitions of copyright infringement that include copying material without authorization. However, that is more considered theft or piracy, not copyright infringement. It is a misuse of the word to include theft and piracy in copyright infringement; just like it is a misuse of the word "hacker" when referring to people who break into systems when they should use the word "cracker".
They are downloading music to their drive that RIAA thinks they would have bought in the store if they didn't have the opportunity. So, in RIAA's mind, it is stealing.
Copyright infringement is using a substantial part of the music and redistributing it as your own.
Call of your dogs; I'm not saying it is immoral to download music.