Yeh it's about 3 times our murder rate. Looks far lower when it's a percentage. Wonder if firearm laws make a difference. We don't have the second ammendment like you and firearms laws became strict after the Port Arthur Massacre. So theres no legal ownership of semi-automatic or automatic weapons i think. Farmers and sports shooters can register shotguns and rifles though.
It's interesting to note that hand guns are the weapon of choice for murder in America. Whereas in Australia only 16% of murders are commited with firearms. Australians tend to use knives as the weapon of choice followed by physical force.
I'd have to agree (even if sarcasm:)). They are far more preferable time wasters than the Microsoft games. And they have quite good AI players which is the important part. Nothing is more frustrating than owning the AI after a few games and finding there is no more challenging setting. I played reversi on the last aeroplane I was on and the AI was bad enough that the only fun way to play it was try to win outright by running the AI player out of pieces. In linux from memory I think beating the hardest level of AI borders on impossible.
funny...but I can't believe the number of murders you guys have each year.
Over here in Australia you'd probably make the news if you killed anyone. There's only about 300 cases a year. And most of them are non-premeditated domestics.
"The live streaming media service of the Council of the European Union supports Internet Explorer 5 and higher, Netscape Navigator 6 and higher. If you encounter problems with a lower version of your browser, the browser should be updated to facilitate the live streaming media service. Firefox and Opera will be supported with a minimal of functionalities."
This is the market share for browsers as of Nov 2006:
Microsoft Internet Explorer, 80.56% Firefox, 13.50% Safari, 4.03% Netscape, 0.83% Opera, 0.67%
This is the market share for Operating Systems as of Nov 2006:
Windows XP, 84.95% Windows 2000, 5.46% Mac OS, 4.10% Windows 98, 1.90% MacIntel, 1.29% Windows ME, 0.91% Windows NT, 0.76% Linux, 0.37%
You could argue for better firefox support, but as much as we love linux, I suppose they have no obligation to make it work for something that is that small minority among desktop users.
Never know, it might work the other way. We are at a certain distance from a relatively normal star. At this distance from a similar size star a similar planet composition may occur. If we are going to assume that we are the normal way life exists, we may as well assume that our solar system is a pretty normal one too, seeing we haven't really got much details of planets in others.
Water doesn't seem to be that rare in our solar system. They're suggesting Mars has it but it's frozen. On closer planets it would obviously be steam. The main factor affecting the amount of liquid water on a planet might be temperature. We dont know enough about the processes beyond Earth to know what we are looking for. So they go for Earth sized at similar distance. It seems like a reasonable starting point.
The thing I'm wondering is how scramjets do in the upper atmosphere where there is less oxygen? Though there's also less drag up there so might do the acceleration lower in the atmosphere.
Yep Ubuntu, and if the standard Gnome version seems too heavy, I've found xubuntu is a joy to use and almost more user friendly out of the box.
Actually I'd probably recommend beginners at least give xubuntu a try. Especially if they are finding the Gnome or KDE version not to be what they wanted. I found xubuntu far less troublesome than the Gnome version, and very no fuss. A very well put together user friendly package.
Hmmm... Down here in Australia if you guys lost Manhattan it would make interesting television for a few days, and probably raise our dollar value against the US. Might improve some of our exports by removing competition also.
I'm not in the area of psychology, but I'd say bipolar isn't really a personality disorder because it is genetic. And it is a far less harmful to people around you than some other personality disorders.
In terms of locking up people with personality disorders, it's a bit extreme. But it would be nice if society was more aware of them and treated the people. It wouldn't be an easy thing to enforce because people with a lot of personality disorders will refuse to acknowledge there is a problem. But it could actually prevent prisons from filling up with people who were left untreated.
Some types of personality disorders would be preferential to watch or treat because they are more likely to commit crimes or cause social unrest. Like I'm sure Antisocial Personality Disorder has a far higher correlation with street crime than most. And Narcissistic Personality Disorder is probably rampant in business crime and positions of power. The problem is that once you start this sort of crap, people normally don't know where to stop. And if you actually end up with someone with one of these personality disorders controlling these sort of open laws, then it might not be pretty.
The other thing is there has to be definite diagnosis and distinctions between what is harmful and what is not. There are some relatively harmless personality disorders like obsessive-compulsive. And things like Asperger's can be misdiagnosed as personality disorders.
I am definitely for higher awareness of personality disorders though, to improve treatment of the person with the disorder and the mental state of people around them.
Here in Australia it's likely that the government will get pressured until the cure goes onto the PBS(pharmaceutical benefits scheme) which will make it affordable. Still I can see people getting annoyed if it is overpriced and unnecissarily wasting government funds. But in terms of cost that isn't as bad as some medicines that have been released.
Yes, I think creationists in general have totally misunderstood the point of science. As much as all scientists would love to know the absolute truths in the universe, wouldn't anyone, the point of science is to find explanations that fit the observations and use them to our gain. Darwinism and evolution isn't there to compete with religion or prove creationists wrong, it is there to help us understand the progression of life, which might then be used to perhaps improve our own genetics, find other planets that can harbor life, save animal species, etc. Science helps us do things on Earth. Removing evolution from schools because it doesn't feel right is like making the hunter hunt without a weapon and with a blindfold on. All it does is slow the process and make it more random, more dangerous and less effective.
No one makes you teach evolution in church. Because evolution belongs in a science curriculum. Just like creationism belongs a long way away from a science curriculum. There is no point mixing the two. Evolution is a scientific theory, like everything taught in science. It is based on observations, and used by people. Like you know the sun will come up in the morning because you observed that process occured on previous mornings. You can't guarentee that it will come up in the morning, but it is better to use the knowledge that you have than be shocked every morning when it rises and never learn the process.
Maybe the number of birds meant that mammals never got settled and reached no reasonable stage of evolution. Rather than the other way around.
There are other possible ways of it getting there also, like on driftwood. Maybe mice used to ride pterodactyls or something. Never know...
I thought exactly the same when I read it. All you have to do is look at the thing to know it has clouds. And we've always known. The lander had to make its way through clouds when they put it down.
The fact it is mentioned as the more important finding was amusing. My first thought was how long ago is this recycled from.
Is there one person listed on that page that doesn't work in US or Canada? Is this a case of wiki mainly acknowledging people in North America, or is there a distinct bias in the amount of educated skeptics in the countries that need them?
Yeh was thinking the same. If we could break down carbon and sulphur compounds in the air, it would be a big step forward in fixing global warming. And also in atmospheric engineering, which we might need if we decide to create an atmosphere on Mars.
Imagine if photosynthesis could work with whatever compound we wanted. We could have it on space ships to break the CO2 breathed out back into O2 to rebreath also. Might also work for divers.
I'm not quoting cos i don't know how to use the quote function properly and it's slow:). Don't take any complement from it.
I stand by exactly by what I said. Everything is in place to deal with these things. If people need help through welfare they get it. You don't need 'black' listed on the form. If an country has higher terrorist or higher risk activity, be it white or black, it should be screened. If an area in the city is causing more trouble in society, it should be looked at, but with the common sense you would use with anything else. Not the George Bush way of not finding what the problem is and blaming a group. Black is not a valid answer. And if people need help in society, take into account their background and everything you normally would. This in no way contradicts anything. Just uses some passages that your mind doesn't naturally follow. Group in a slightly different way. There is nothing racist or fascist or anything about taking into account where a certain group has come from in discussing a situation. It's just your perception of their race and their brain size should not be the first things on the table. History of oppression, former environment they lived in and their ability to adapt from that to the new one, etc. should be what you look at. Human psychology doesn't differ much around the globe. I don't know how much you've travelled, but if you'd travelled and met more groups rather than read articles about them you would know this. And discussing problems with the groups probably helps too. Rather than 'caring' and putting things in place that we would view helps them. Many of the places you mentioned like Southern U.S. don't have a good history of accepting people who are different either. So are not the best examples for arguing they cause social instability.
I don't think either of us is going to convince the other differently. And I'm okay with having a different view to you. It's called diversity:). Think this has gone long enough though, and is starting to get boringly tedious and maybe become a flamewar.
Think we've both stated our views. I'll give you the chance to have the last comment. Thanks for the discussion.
There are 6 billion people on earth at the moment. There is around 400 billion stars in our galaxy. I'm guessing exploration would be quite dangerous and not really something you would be doing while bringing up chldren. Or something everyone would want to do. So the question of whether a group could have enough population growth under exploration circumstances to colonise that many planets is probably also one to ask. Obviously they would be better off if one in a million could house life. But if the probability is high, they wouldn't spread as far as you think. Just because of the sheer man power needed to colonise and the basic reluctance to move that the average intelligent lifeform on Earth seems to have. Who says that at that stage cable TV wouldn't be so good that the other colonies wouldnt leave the couch.
I agree. Our view of what causes life is very limited so far. We don't know much at all.
So far we are on the way to modelling one type of lifeform, which is Earth based carbon lifeforms. We are getting better knowledge of how they evolved, we have ideas about how life on Earth started, but that is about it.
In terms of studying other planets in detail we have done a localised study of Mars from ground level and landed a lander on Titan. Beyond our solar system we know very little about other planets. We can estimate their mass and guess what elements they are made from, and guess how warm they are from their distance from the star, the rest is speculation.
Going by what we know the probability can be argued to be high because the only planet we've studied is covered in advanced lifeforms. Though the opposite can be argued by saying we see it because we exist on the planet where it worked.
In terms of religion I think it comes down to would God be enough of a prick to put it all out there and put nothing in it. To let us see all this stuff and never reach it. And every time in the past that we have answered this question with yes, it has just slowed progress for a while until we found we were wrong.
I would more say my approach is productive and yours is just delaying the inevitable out of the fear of what 'might' happen. You obviously seem to have the view that I'm some radical leftist which may be why I have totally misinterpreted you and given you little credit. There is no Utopia except for the one you try to create. But you will find that addressing social problems in the long term usually ends better than throwing around stats and closing the borders. Closing the borders usually coincides with closing of minds and ending of freedom of speech. If I'm a radical leftist for valuing these things please tell me. Or am I one because I would enter a black area and say hi rather than hide under the table. If you viewed me like that I wouldn't like you regardless of what colour your skin is. That's the beauty of it. It's not special consideration for them. You don't need to give a shit about them any more than any white person. Just give them the same rights and same basic respect in society. I have no problem with you saying some of them are worse in some areas. They are. You get that with lots of races. Like if I said there are a large amount of italians in high profit drug trade. There are. But that doesn't mean we close the border to the rest of the italians. It's the generalising to all of them I have the problem with. I also have no problem with them screening certain areas more in immigration, because some areas are worse and have more crime. It is common sense to screen these areas and groups. The stats are there, if there's more danger, there's more screening. But to write them all of and not let in any because they are black or african is a massive generalisation. I don't compare you to the French because you are both European. And I don't write of one Austrian because of another. Most Austrians I've met are great people. But when you use stats to draw conclusions which obivously show a lot of naivity, I have to disagree. Have you actually seen the amount of work that goes into daily life in the average african country. And have you lived in a properly multicultural city where different races intermix. You use a million numbers here off paper and call it a reality. But you don't need stats and news articles to see the other side of it. If it is there, it is there. There is crime, there are places that have issues, but count what percentage they are of the normal city life here, and it isn't much. If someone get's murdered it is rare enough to make the news as the big story for the year. And what I said earlier about intermixing rather than segregation means you end up living in a mixed area not a black area. Remove the segregation and ghettos in a multicultural city and you'll find you don't have that problem.
And where do you think these smart people came from? Unless you seriously believe that they spontaneously appeared on slashdot fully-formed, they must have evolved from something;)
"A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% of slashdotters gaining intelligence through evolution is incorrect."
Nah, I was just bored with the argument and couldn't be bothered typing more.
I wasn't debating the facts I was debating your conclusion that you and your view hold some form of superiority. I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing if I left you in the middle of Australia without food or transport and with no roads in sight, the Aboriginal would be far superior to you. You were basing your 'facts' on a test designed for our form of society and deciding that other forms were a problem because they didn't fit the test. The view that society can't coexist in many forms is quite naive. Cultures mix quite well when they aren't taking a narcissistic approach to it. In Australia you'll find a lot of the time you don't know that someone is unless they tell you. Some of them still live in tribes, some are caught part way between western and tribal in places that are more redneck and don't accept them. But saying the can't integrate in these situations because of their brain size is like saying you won't see a black with money in New York because the government didn't give a shit about the people in New Orleans. It makes no sense. If you put people in a situation where they are likely to end up f**ked, they usually do.
So as I said, it is the approach to the people, not the people that is the problem. And that is why I said that Melbourne is a long way ahead of these other places you decided are on the way to disaster. We have no Austrian superiority complex. We have tonnes of Africans already, we have aboriginals already, what will change if we have a few more?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeh it's about 3 times our murder rate. Looks far lower when it's a percentage. Wonder if firearm laws make a difference. We don't have the second ammendment like you and firearms laws became strict after the Port Arthur Massacre. So theres no legal ownership of semi-automatic or automatic weapons i think. Farmers and sports shooters can register shotguns and rifles though.
It's interesting to note that hand guns are the weapon of choice for murder in America. Whereas in Australia only 16% of murders are commited with firearms. Australians tend to use knives as the weapon of choice followed by physical force.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2005/02_s electedCrimeProfiles.html#homicide
oops...if you meant Gnome games were better, same deal applies.
KDE games run in Gnome, you know?
I'd have to agree (even if sarcasm :)). They are far more preferable time wasters than the Microsoft games. And they have quite good AI players which is the important part. Nothing is more frustrating than owning the AI after a few games and finding there is no more challenging setting. I played reversi on the last aeroplane I was on and the AI was bad enough that the only fun way to play it was try to win outright by running the AI player out of pieces. In linux from memory I think beating the hardest level of AI borders on impossible.
funny...but I can't believe the number of murders you guys have each year.
Over here in Australia you'd probably make the news if you killed anyone. There's only about 300 cases a year. And most of them are non-premeditated domestics.
"The live streaming media service of the Council of the European Union supports Internet Explorer 5 and higher, Netscape Navigator 6 and higher. If you encounter problems with a lower version of your browser, the browser should be updated to facilitate the live streaming media service. Firefox and Opera will be supported with a minimal of functionalities."
This is the market share for browsers as of Nov 2006:
Microsoft Internet Explorer, 80.56%
Firefox, 13.50%
Safari, 4.03%
Netscape, 0.83%
Opera, 0.67%
This is the market share for Operating Systems as of Nov 2006:
Windows XP, 84.95%
Windows 2000, 5.46%
Mac OS, 4.10%
Windows 98, 1.90%
MacIntel, 1.29%
Windows ME, 0.91%
Windows NT, 0.76%
Linux, 0.37%
You could argue for better firefox support, but as much as we love linux, I suppose they have no obligation to make it work for something that is that small minority among desktop users.
Never know, it might work the other way. We are at a certain distance from a relatively normal star. At this distance from a similar size star a similar planet composition may occur. If we are going to assume that we are the normal way life exists, we may as well assume that our solar system is a pretty normal one too, seeing we haven't really got much details of planets in others.
Water doesn't seem to be that rare in our solar system. They're suggesting Mars has it but it's frozen. On closer planets it would obviously be steam. The main factor affecting the amount of liquid water on a planet might be temperature. We dont know enough about the processes beyond Earth to know what we are looking for. So they go for Earth sized at similar distance. It seems like a reasonable starting point.
NASA X-43A could do mach 9.6 in 2004 using scramjets. Here's a link...m l
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.ht
The thing I'm wondering is how scramjets do in the upper atmosphere where there is less oxygen? Though there's also less drag up there so might do the acceleration lower in the atmosphere.
Yep Ubuntu, and if the standard Gnome version seems too heavy, I've found xubuntu is a joy to use and almost more user friendly out of the box.
Actually I'd probably recommend beginners at least give xubuntu a try. Especially if they are finding the Gnome or KDE version not to be what they wanted. I found xubuntu far less troublesome than the Gnome version, and very no fuss. A very well put together user friendly package.
Hmmm... Down here in Australia if you guys lost Manhattan it would make interesting television for a few days, and probably raise our dollar value against the US. Might improve some of our exports by removing competition also.
I'm not in the area of psychology, but I'd say bipolar isn't really a personality disorder because it is genetic. And it is a far less harmful to people around you than some other personality disorders.
In terms of locking up people with personality disorders, it's a bit extreme. But it would be nice if society was more aware of them and treated the people. It wouldn't be an easy thing to enforce because people with a lot of personality disorders will refuse to acknowledge there is a problem. But it could actually prevent prisons from filling up with people who were left untreated.
Some types of personality disorders would be preferential to watch or treat because they are more likely to commit crimes or cause social unrest. Like I'm sure Antisocial Personality Disorder has a far higher correlation with street crime than most. And Narcissistic Personality Disorder is probably rampant in business crime and positions of power. The problem is that once you start this sort of crap, people normally don't know where to stop. And if you actually end up with someone with one of these personality disorders controlling these sort of open laws, then it might not be pretty.
The other thing is there has to be definite diagnosis and distinctions between what is harmful and what is not. There are some relatively harmless personality disorders like obsessive-compulsive. And things like Asperger's can be misdiagnosed as personality disorders.
I am definitely for higher awareness of personality disorders though, to improve treatment of the person with the disorder and the mental state of people around them.
Here in Australia it's likely that the government will get pressured until the cure goes onto the PBS(pharmaceutical benefits scheme) which will make it affordable. Still I can see people getting annoyed if it is overpriced and unnecissarily wasting government funds. But in terms of cost that isn't as bad as some medicines that have been released.
Yes, I think creationists in general have totally misunderstood the point of science. As much as all scientists would love to know the absolute truths in the universe, wouldn't anyone, the point of science is to find explanations that fit the observations and use them to our gain. Darwinism and evolution isn't there to compete with religion or prove creationists wrong, it is there to help us understand the progression of life, which might then be used to perhaps improve our own genetics, find other planets that can harbor life, save animal species, etc. Science helps us do things on Earth. Removing evolution from schools because it doesn't feel right is like making the hunter hunt without a weapon and with a blindfold on. All it does is slow the process and make it more random, more dangerous and less effective.
No one makes you teach evolution in church. Because evolution belongs in a science curriculum. Just like creationism belongs a long way away from a science curriculum. There is no point mixing the two. Evolution is a scientific theory, like everything taught in science. It is based on observations, and used by people. Like you know the sun will come up in the morning because you observed that process occured on previous mornings. You can't guarentee that it will come up in the morning, but it is better to use the knowledge that you have than be shocked every morning when it rises and never learn the process.
Maybe the number of birds meant that mammals never got settled and reached no reasonable stage of evolution. Rather than the other way around. There are other possible ways of it getting there also, like on driftwood. Maybe mice used to ride pterodactyls or something. Never know...
I thought exactly the same when I read it. All you have to do is look at the thing to know it has clouds. And we've always known. The lander had to make its way through clouds when they put it down.
The fact it is mentioned as the more important finding was amusing. My first thought was how long ago is this recycled from.
And Bill's...
Is there one person listed on that page that doesn't work in US or Canada? Is this a case of wiki mainly acknowledging people in North America, or is there a distinct bias in the amount of educated skeptics in the countries that need them?
Yeh was thinking the same. If we could break down carbon and sulphur compounds in the air, it would be a big step forward in fixing global warming. And also in atmospheric engineering, which we might need if we decide to create an atmosphere on Mars.
Imagine if photosynthesis could work with whatever compound we wanted. We could have it on space ships to break the CO2 breathed out back into O2 to rebreath also. Might also work for divers.
I'm not quoting cos i don't know how to use the quote function properly and it's slow :). Don't take any complement from it.
:). Think this has gone long enough though, and is starting to get boringly tedious and maybe become a flamewar.
I stand by exactly by what I said. Everything is in place to deal with these things. If people need help through welfare they get it. You don't need 'black' listed on the form. If an country has higher terrorist or higher risk activity, be it white or black, it should be screened. If an area in the city is causing more trouble in society, it should be looked at, but with the common sense you would use with anything else. Not the George Bush way of not finding what the problem is and blaming a group. Black is not a valid answer. And if people need help in society, take into account their background and everything you normally would. This in no way contradicts anything. Just uses some passages that your mind doesn't naturally follow. Group in a slightly different way. There is nothing racist or fascist or anything about taking into account where a certain group has come from in discussing a situation. It's just your perception of their race and their brain size should not be the first things on the table. History of oppression, former environment they lived in and their ability to adapt from that to the new one, etc. should be what you look at. Human psychology doesn't differ much around the globe. I don't know how much you've travelled, but if you'd travelled and met more groups rather than read articles about them you would know this. And discussing problems with the groups probably helps too. Rather than 'caring' and putting things in place that we would view helps them. Many of the places you mentioned like Southern U.S. don't have a good history of accepting people who are different either. So are not the best examples for arguing they cause social instability.
I don't think either of us is going to convince the other differently. And I'm okay with having a different view to you. It's called diversity
Think we've both stated our views. I'll give you the chance to have the last comment. Thanks for the discussion.
There are 6 billion people on earth at the moment. There is around 400 billion stars in our galaxy. I'm guessing exploration would be quite dangerous and not really something you would be doing while bringing up chldren. Or something everyone would want to do. So the question of whether a group could have enough population growth under exploration circumstances to colonise that many planets is probably also one to ask. Obviously they would be better off if one in a million could house life. But if the probability is high, they wouldn't spread as far as you think. Just because of the sheer man power needed to colonise and the basic reluctance to move that the average intelligent lifeform on Earth seems to have. Who says that at that stage cable TV wouldn't be so good that the other colonies wouldnt leave the couch.
I agree. Our view of what causes life is very limited so far. We don't know much at all.
So far we are on the way to modelling one type of lifeform, which is Earth based carbon lifeforms. We are getting better knowledge of how they evolved, we have ideas about how life on Earth started, but that is about it.
In terms of studying other planets in detail we have done a localised study of Mars from ground level and landed a lander on Titan. Beyond our solar system we know very little about other planets. We can estimate their mass and guess what elements they are made from, and guess how warm they are from their distance from the star, the rest is speculation.
Going by what we know the probability can be argued to be high because the only planet we've studied is covered in advanced lifeforms. Though the opposite can be argued by saying we see it because we exist on the planet where it worked.
In terms of religion I think it comes down to would God be enough of a prick to put it all out there and put nothing in it. To let us see all this stuff and never reach it. And every time in the past that we have answered this question with yes, it has just slowed progress for a while until we found we were wrong.
I would more say my approach is productive and yours is just delaying the inevitable out of the fear of what 'might' happen. You obviously seem to have the view that I'm some radical leftist which may be why I have totally misinterpreted you and given you little credit. There is no Utopia except for the one you try to create. But you will find that addressing social problems in the long term usually ends better than throwing around stats and closing the borders. Closing the borders usually coincides with closing of minds and ending of freedom of speech. If I'm a radical leftist for valuing these things please tell me. Or am I one because I would enter a black area and say hi rather than hide under the table. If you viewed me like that I wouldn't like you regardless of what colour your skin is. That's the beauty of it. It's not special consideration for them. You don't need to give a shit about them any more than any white person. Just give them the same rights and same basic respect in society. I have no problem with you saying some of them are worse in some areas. They are. You get that with lots of races. Like if I said there are a large amount of italians in high profit drug trade. There are. But that doesn't mean we close the border to the rest of the italians. It's the generalising to all of them I have the problem with. I also have no problem with them screening certain areas more in immigration, because some areas are worse and have more crime. It is common sense to screen these areas and groups. The stats are there, if there's more danger, there's more screening. But to write them all of and not let in any because they are black or african is a massive generalisation. I don't compare you to the French because you are both European. And I don't write of one Austrian because of another. Most Austrians I've met are great people. But when you use stats to draw conclusions which obivously show a lot of naivity, I have to disagree. Have you actually seen the amount of work that goes into daily life in the average african country. And have you lived in a properly multicultural city where different races intermix. You use a million numbers here off paper and call it a reality. But you don't need stats and news articles to see the other side of it. If it is there, it is there. There is crime, there are places that have issues, but count what percentage they are of the normal city life here, and it isn't much. If someone get's murdered it is rare enough to make the news as the big story for the year. And what I said earlier about intermixing rather than segregation means you end up living in a mixed area not a black area. Remove the segregation and ghettos in a multicultural city and you'll find you don't have that problem.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
I would also suggest that your evolution theory is a trick and slashdotters are made in six days by the lord Mod Almighty.
Nah, I was just bored with the argument and couldn't be bothered typing more.
I wasn't debating the facts I was debating your conclusion that you and your view hold some form of superiority. I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing if I left you in the middle of Australia without food or transport and with no roads in sight, the Aboriginal would be far superior to you. You were basing your 'facts' on a test designed for our form of society and deciding that other forms were a problem because they didn't fit the test. The view that society can't coexist in many forms is quite naive. Cultures mix quite well when they aren't taking a narcissistic approach to it. In Australia you'll find a lot of the time you don't know that someone is unless they tell you. Some of them still live in tribes, some are caught part way between western and tribal in places that are more redneck and don't accept them. But saying the can't integrate in these situations because of their brain size is like saying you won't see a black with money in New York because the government didn't give a shit about the people in New Orleans. It makes no sense. If you put people in a situation where they are likely to end up f**ked, they usually do.
So as I said, it is the approach to the people, not the people that is the problem. And that is why I said that Melbourne is a long way ahead of these other places you decided are on the way to disaster. We have no Austrian superiority complex. We have tonnes of Africans already, we have aboriginals already, what will change if we have a few more?
Is it possible that this is the beginning of that split in the human race where one part devolves into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures?
1 7/2015231
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/