Emergency medication (epi-pens, rescue inhalers, etc.) should be kept by the teacher.
I stopped having class in one room in the third grade. How can "the" teacher hold the emergency meds when the student has ten different teachers spread across four different buildings in a given week?
Emergency meds belong with the kid who will die without them.
I remember taking an Amtrak one from Florida up to Virginia once. Dinner, a private bedroom with a shower for the night, wake up the next morning, have breakfast and arrive.
It takes longer than both flying or driving, but if you've got the time to spare, it is a much nicer way to travel.
And, I'd love to see some of you Floridians deal with an actual winter -- you know, one with large amounts of snow and -40 (doesn't matter Fahrenheit or Celcius, at -40 it's the same). Then we'd see who is too stupid to live.;-)
Hell, I'd never survive, that's why my ass stays down here *grin*
Using has SAK, he would scrape some rust off the late-model vehicle he always drives, file off some magnesium from the mountain bike strapped to the roof, combine it together to form a primitive thermite torch, ignite it and cut the spike off just nanoseconds before the impact. And he would do all of this in under 7 seconds (stretched out to two minutes by forcing the universe into a slow-motion montage repeatedly alternating between him and the car skidding). At the end of the scene, we discover that the driver of the skidding vehicle is none other than Murdoc. Murdoc's vehicle then explodes for no logical reason, and we all assume he is dead. Next season, Murdoc reappears and tries to kill Mac with another overly complex scheme.
Riiiight. Because in the real world, there are only 5 other vehicles on the road at any time. Roads are way too congested to actually leave enough room to change lanes in a case like this.
Nevermind the time requirement. Safely changing lanes safely in a short distance on sub-optimal road conditions requires a nontrivial amount of time. Which you may/may not have depending on when the vehicle behind you begins to skid.
You can takes steps to *minimize* the risk, but some accidents simply cannot be avoided.
Hmm, so everyone who lives north of Georgia and actually has to leave their basement is too stupid to live. Actually, I kinda like that *evil grin*
But then, I live in Florida, where I run the risk of hydroplaning during an afternoon rainstorm 8 months out of the year. So maybe I'm too stupid to live for not being smart enough to call in sick 120 days a year because I might have to drive home in the rain =)
You are at a stop light in the middle lane, with a vehicle in front of you and vehicles on both sides of you. It is winter time, and the roads are slick. A vehicle coming up behind you skids on the ice and cannot stop in time. You are boxed in by all the other cars on the road and cannot go anywhere.
Kindly explain how you are going to "avoid" this collision.
I used to play with an "oldtimers" group at the local Lockheed-Martin facility when I was in college. Playing with the younger crowd was always the same: long throw to the 6' 4" track star who chases it down to the end zone. Hammer throw to the 6' 5" basketball star who outjumps everyone else to make the grab. Repeat to 15. Much more physical, too. I've sprained ankles, cracked ribs, and broken my nose in those games.
The oldtimers game (mostly guys in their 40's and 50's, a couple wives/gfs, and a few of us young turks) was much more about timing and precision (you can't count on the guy in a knee brace chasing down your errant throw). More enjoyable, in my estimation. I'm still young (twenties), but I've done enough damage to my body in various sports to appreciate the value of a more laid-back game.
I take the same approach to weight training. More laid back (casual runs in the woods instead of intense sprints, a good bodyweight routine to maintain health instead of killing myself with heavy weights) and focused on health instead of looks. My body is what it is. I'd rather be healthy and skinny (my "natural" shape) than bulked up and falling apart.
This is the situation I've found myself in after damaging my ankle last year. It put me out of commission for a significant amount of time, and I've been pretty much sedentary for the past 12 months. I'm not obviously fat, and in fact my weight has dropped as I've lost muscle mass (I'm thin to start with, making this weight loss a *bad* thing). I also eat healthy, so I'm not gaining a lot of fat, but my fat/lean ratio has definitely gotten worse.
After having lived in a house (20+ years ago) that was built by a guy in his spare time, I know exactly what you mean. Even though the builder was himself a carpenter, he didn't know squat about electrical work or plumbing. Our wiring was, I think, the inspiration for the Douglas's house in Green Acres. You actually could not brew coffee in the kitchen or use a hair drier in the bathroom at the same time. And the plumbing looked like something out a WWII submarine. (The guy was so cheap, he wouldn't spring for a trap but made one out of spare bits of pipe he cut to size and threaded himself and a bunch of unions. There were so many connections it was a miracle that any water made it out the other end.
I've seen a few like that. Over the years, I've remodeled (extensively, in some cases) a few houses, and seen some truly mind-boggling setups. I remember one house, a ceiling fan in the second bedroom was wired in with the kitchen, on the opposite end of the house. Some genius literally *spliced* the wiring in. My current place has the most brain-dead cable setup. The TV in the living room is behind a good 150 feet of El Cheapo coax and three Y-splitters. It starts at the front door, into the coat closet, up the wall into the bedroom, through a Y-splitter, around the bedroom under the carpet into the hall, into another Y-splitter, down the stair wall, into the pantry and into the living room. There are *four* coax outlets in the living room, and only that one works.
My favorite was an office building. An A/C compressor was rigged to a 30-amp breaker. The problem? The compressor needed a 60-amp breaker, so the breaker tripped any time it kicked on. Even the wiring was substandard, and we had to run new wiring out to the compressor. Same place, the kitchen bathrooms and half of the cubicles were wired onto the wrong meter (office had three suites). When we shut off power to the back two unoccupied suites, we lost power to those rooms as well.
The part that really scares me, as someone currently shopping for a new home and who knows enough about this kind of thing, is all these structures actually passed their inspections.
Even better is when the folks doing this cookbook approach deviate from the recipe and don't document their changes. I've run into this after inheriting systems from departments that had manage their own systems until things were centralized. One system, in particular, had been configured by a consultant (primarily a Java developer) who was never adequately supervised or required to supply documentation as to how he set up applications and utilities he installed on the system. You might be able to see the way things were configured but you'll never be able to figure out why they're that way. I seem to recall my boss mentioning that, had we known it had been slapped together the way it was, we would never have allowed them to turn that system over to the infrastructure team to manage. Too late for us. The consulant was already in his next high-paying gig, probably sowing more seeds of confusion.
My favorite was during a migration to a new office, the VPN tunnel to the branch office had to be reconfigured to reflect the new IP address. When I asked about the current setup during the prep phase, the phrase "performed some magic" was uttered to describe how my predecessor got the tunnel working. After seeing the configuration, it truly was magic. Not the good kind of magic, but the "binding the souls of the damned to do your bidding" kind.
Yeah, any idiot can read a manual online and set up . And judging from the setups I've seen, many idiots have. And I don't see it as being at all unique to IT. Thanks to Google, I can find step-by-step guides and full videos on how to repair my transmission, rewire a house, make millions by starting up crappy blogs. Want to pour a new driveway, build a retaining wall, blow up a whale with TNT? There's a site for that.
But would you buy a house if you knew that it was wired by whatever random jackass lived there before you? No, you buy a house that was wired by a qualified electrician. Would you buy a car built from scratch in someone's garage? No, you buy a car designed and assembled by professionals. I've seen servers that were set up by software devs masquerading as IT who followed online guides. Did they work? Yes, sort of. They were tough to maintain, performed poorly, had *no* extensibility, and if anything went wrong you were royally screwed.
The difference is that when a system designed by an amateur goes down, it goes down HARD. When a pro designs the system, it goes down softly. Failovers, replication, redundant power, etc. The cost of recovering from one of these amateur-induced catastrophic failures is usually more than it would cost to have the system handled by a pro.
As automation increases, you see a shift, but not the type you expect. When systems can handle common issues gracefully, you wind up needing fewer people, but they need *more* knowledge and ability because the remaining problems are the really complex ones.
Does a swap function really need any comments? Yes, I know we have std::swap, but I still see people rolling their own anyway.
Okay, if you're doing some fancy XOR'ing to avoid creating a temp variable, maybe. But your basic t=a, a=b, b=t function shouldn't require any comments, even at the function level.
Undocumented code is only a problem if the code does something that isn't obvious to any second-year CS student. Some code simply doesn't require comments because the code is obvious to anyone reading it.
Get/Set methods: do they *really* need comments? Basic assignment loops? List traversal loops? Swap function? etc, etc
That being said, poorly or incorrectly documented code is truly evil, I'd rather see no comments than incorrect comments.
I was on a project a few years ago that required *every* non-whitespaced line of code to be documented. We would have functions that looked like this (in pseudocode)
#Function Name: FindEntryID #Author: John Smith #Modified Date: 03/17/2006 #Description: Find matching entry in the list and return the entry ID def FindEntryID(entry, list) #Function Declaration { #Begin Function
for item in list #Loop through list
{ #Begin Loop
if item.data == entry #If item data matches the desired entry
return item.id #return the ID
} #End Loop } #End Function
After a while, the entire team rebelled and gave management two choices: change the policy to something sensible or we *all* walk.
Excessive documentation doesn't help anyone. Document fixes, document weird quirks, document the mission-critical stuff. But for god's sake, don't document basic loops, get/set methods, etc.
You need to recognize the difference between a primary and a tertiary source.
Tertiary sources are normally only used when professors require you to document how you *found* your primary sources. Encyclopedias and the like are so heavily distilled that you'll never find good data, you'll only find sources. In this instance, it doesn't matter if the material changes, because you didn't take any data from the material, you took a link to the source. That source is still accessible and valid (and documented as a primary) regardless of whether the link changes. This is no different than citing a bibliography as a tertiary source. You aren't taking information directly from it, you are taking a *link* to the information.
Interestingly, your historical argument became invalid the moment encyclopedias became digital. Most cases of citing encyclopedias are now referencing the encyclopedia's website, which is subject to change as well. It doesn't always line up with printed versions (if they even exist).
IQ is just a flawed attempt at quantifying something that can't be quantified. The whole field of psychometrics seems highly suspect to me.
My comment on raising was meant to be more along the lines of: take two 100% identical clones, place them in two different families with different "styles" of raising children. Years later, would they show similar scores on an IQ test? If not, how much of the test is natural ability?
The prepping comment was always one of the things that annoyed me most in high school. When the FCAT rolled around, we spent over a month prepping for it. How reliable can the data be when we are spoon-fed details in advance on what to write and how to write it?
I had a few devices growing up that were essentially pocket PCs. I might be mixing up the model numbers, but I think they were the Zaurus ZR-5800 and the Sharp PC-E500. Never did find much for them, honestly. I think I programmed a few BASIC games on the Sharp, but they really were quite useless for me.
My eyes are taking enough of a pounding from working with PCs all day, the last thing they need is to spend all night staring at a 4-inch display on a phone.
For *primary* sources this is true. And I explicitly stated that they are only acceptable when *not* used as a primary source. There are times where you are expected to cite secondary and tertiary sources as well. These articles are suitable as tertiary sources (generally a source that you did not directly take data from).
Which opens an even more interesting question to be addressed in another future study: How much does the "raising" part affect their IQ? And we're back to the classic nature-vs-nurture debate.
Typically the only time I've cited either is when I encountered a professor who really wanted the works cited to be a roadmap. For those professors, If I looked at an encyclopedia article and used sources cited in it, I included the article as a tertiary source. Same for Wikipedia.
I much preferred to find sources directly in journals, but for really obscure topics it can be helpful to start with an existing article that provides a nice list of sources.
The challenge there is that a familial study isn't easily extended.
Factoring out the outliers (the mentally retarded, the extremely gifted), most Homo sapiens will have more or less the same internal structure. To get meaningful comparisons, you really need to dissect the brains of both species and compare the internal structure. The most any IQ study could say is that brain size correlates to IQ within the species, where many factors remain relatively unchanged across the sample. Even in these cases, the correlation coefficient is usually 0.4, implying a weak correlation.
If both species had similar neuron density, interconnections, etc, then it would be reasonable to assume this species was more intelligent. On the other hand, if a significant difference was observed (be it through natural evolution, external forces such as dietary deficiencies, etc), they might not have been any more intelligent.
I remember seeing a few studies on this back when I took Physical Anthropology, but I can't recall offhand any of the authors. The basic conclusion amongst the physical anthropology crowd is that brain size does loosely predict intelligence, if you hold the internal structure to be constant. To get a *true* picture of the difference, though, you need to know the differences internally as well, as these are considered to be more strongly correlated.
Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers.
[Citation needed]
Had to do it. For large projects, most professors I've had were fine with citing Wikipedia, provided you did not cite it as a *primary* source. It is usually safe to cite as a tertiary source (the same way you'd cite an encyclopedia in any decent paper), or as a secondary source depending on the professor.
Slashdot Mirror
Emergency medication (epi-pens, rescue inhalers, etc.) should be kept by the teacher.
I stopped having class in one room in the third grade. How can "the" teacher hold the emergency meds when the student has ten different teachers spread across four different buildings in a given week?
Emergency meds belong with the kid who will die without them.
I rather like the sleeper trains.
I remember taking an Amtrak one from Florida up to Virginia once. Dinner, a private bedroom with a shower for the night, wake up the next morning, have breakfast and arrive.
It takes longer than both flying or driving, but if you've got the time to spare, it is a much nicer way to travel.
And, I'd love to see some of you Floridians deal with an actual winter -- you know, one with large amounts of snow and -40 (doesn't matter Fahrenheit or Celcius, at -40 it's the same). Then we'd see who is too stupid to live. ;-)
Hell, I'd never survive, that's why my ass stays down here *grin*
Using has SAK, he would scrape some rust off the late-model vehicle he always drives, file off some magnesium from the mountain bike strapped to the roof, combine it together to form a primitive thermite torch, ignite it and cut the spike off just nanoseconds before the impact. And he would do all of this in under 7 seconds (stretched out to two minutes by forcing the universe into a slow-motion montage repeatedly alternating between him and the car skidding). At the end of the scene, we discover that the driver of the skidding vehicle is none other than Murdoc. Murdoc's vehicle then explodes for no logical reason, and we all assume he is dead. Next season, Murdoc reappears and tries to kill Mac with another overly complex scheme.
You mean like if I come to a stop 1 car length behind the person in front of me, and then four vehicles come up on either side?
My control over being boxed in pretty much ends the moment I come to a stop. I can't control how the vehicles coming up behind me arrange themselves.
Riiiight. Because in the real world, there are only 5 other vehicles on the road at any time. Roads are way too congested to actually leave enough room to change lanes in a case like this.
Nevermind the time requirement. Safely changing lanes safely in a short distance on sub-optimal road conditions requires a nontrivial amount of time. Which you may/may not have depending on when the vehicle behind you begins to skid.
You can takes steps to *minimize* the risk, but some accidents simply cannot be avoided.
Hmm, so everyone who lives north of Georgia and actually has to leave their basement is too stupid to live. Actually, I kinda like that *evil grin*
But then, I live in Florida, where I run the risk of hydroplaning during an afternoon rainstorm 8 months out of the year. So maybe I'm too stupid to live for not being smart enough to call in sick 120 days a year because I might have to drive home in the rain =)
Maybe we're all too stupid to live.
Okay, let's play out a scenario here.
You are at a stop light in the middle lane, with a vehicle in front of you and vehicles on both sides of you. It is winter time, and the roads are slick. A vehicle coming up behind you skids on the ice and cannot stop in time. You are boxed in by all the other cars on the road and cannot go anywhere.
Kindly explain how you are going to "avoid" this collision.
I used to play with an "oldtimers" group at the local Lockheed-Martin facility when I was in college. Playing with the younger crowd was always the same: long throw to the 6' 4" track star who chases it down to the end zone. Hammer throw to the 6' 5" basketball star who outjumps everyone else to make the grab. Repeat to 15. Much more physical, too. I've sprained ankles, cracked ribs, and broken my nose in those games.
The oldtimers game (mostly guys in their 40's and 50's, a couple wives/gfs, and a few of us young turks) was much more about timing and precision (you can't count on the guy in a knee brace chasing down your errant throw). More enjoyable, in my estimation. I'm still young (twenties), but I've done enough damage to my body in various sports to appreciate the value of a more laid-back game.
I take the same approach to weight training. More laid back (casual runs in the woods instead of intense sprints, a good bodyweight routine to maintain health instead of killing myself with heavy weights) and focused on health instead of looks. My body is what it is. I'd rather be healthy and skinny (my "natural" shape) than bulked up and falling apart.
This is the situation I've found myself in after damaging my ankle last year. It put me out of commission for a significant amount of time, and I've been pretty much sedentary for the past 12 months. I'm not obviously fat, and in fact my weight has dropped as I've lost muscle mass (I'm thin to start with, making this weight loss a *bad* thing). I also eat healthy, so I'm not gaining a lot of fat, but my fat/lean ratio has definitely gotten worse.
After having lived in a house (20+ years ago) that was built by a guy in his spare time, I know exactly what you mean. Even though the builder was himself a carpenter, he didn't know squat about electrical work or plumbing. Our wiring was, I think, the inspiration for the Douglas's house in Green Acres. You actually could not brew coffee in the kitchen or use a hair drier in the bathroom at the same time. And the plumbing looked like something out a WWII submarine. (The guy was so cheap, he wouldn't spring for a trap but made one out of spare bits of pipe he cut to size and threaded himself and a bunch of unions. There were so many connections it was a miracle that any water made it out the other end.
I've seen a few like that. Over the years, I've remodeled (extensively, in some cases) a few houses, and seen some truly mind-boggling setups. I remember one house, a ceiling fan in the second bedroom was wired in with the kitchen, on the opposite end of the house. Some genius literally *spliced* the wiring in. My current place has the most brain-dead cable setup. The TV in the living room is behind a good 150 feet of El Cheapo coax and three Y-splitters. It starts at the front door, into the coat closet, up the wall into the bedroom, through a Y-splitter, around the bedroom under the carpet into the hall, into another Y-splitter, down the stair wall, into the pantry and into the living room. There are *four* coax outlets in the living room, and only that one works.
My favorite was an office building. An A/C compressor was rigged to a 30-amp breaker. The problem? The compressor needed a 60-amp breaker, so the breaker tripped any time it kicked on. Even the wiring was substandard, and we had to run new wiring out to the compressor. Same place, the kitchen bathrooms and half of the cubicles were wired onto the wrong meter (office had three suites). When we shut off power to the back two unoccupied suites, we lost power to those rooms as well.
The part that really scares me, as someone currently shopping for a new home and who knows enough about this kind of thing, is all these structures actually passed their inspections.
Even better is when the folks doing this cookbook approach deviate from the recipe and don't document their changes. I've run into this after inheriting systems from departments that had manage their own systems until things were centralized. One system, in particular, had been configured by a consultant (primarily a Java developer) who was never adequately supervised or required to supply documentation as to how he set up applications and utilities he installed on the system. You might be able to see the way things were configured but you'll never be able to figure out why they're that way. I seem to recall my boss mentioning that, had we known it had been slapped together the way it was, we would never have allowed them to turn that system over to the infrastructure team to manage. Too late for us. The consulant was already in his next high-paying gig, probably sowing more seeds of confusion.
My favorite was during a migration to a new office, the VPN tunnel to the branch office had to be reconfigured to reflect the new IP address. When I asked about the current setup during the prep phase, the phrase "performed some magic" was uttered to describe how my predecessor got the tunnel working. After seeing the configuration, it truly was magic. Not the good kind of magic, but the "binding the souls of the damned to do your bidding" kind.
Nah, MCSE just teaches you the Three R's methodology: Reboot, Repair, Reinstall
Yeah, any idiot can read a manual online and set up . And judging from the setups I've seen, many idiots have. And I don't see it as being at all unique to IT. Thanks to Google, I can find step-by-step guides and full videos on how to repair my transmission, rewire a house, make millions by starting up crappy blogs. Want to pour a new driveway, build a retaining wall, blow up a whale with TNT? There's a site for that.
But would you buy a house if you knew that it was wired by whatever random jackass lived there before you? No, you buy a house that was wired by a qualified electrician. Would you buy a car built from scratch in someone's garage? No, you buy a car designed and assembled by professionals. I've seen servers that were set up by software devs masquerading as IT who followed online guides. Did they work? Yes, sort of. They were tough to maintain, performed poorly, had *no* extensibility, and if anything went wrong you were royally screwed.
The difference is that when a system designed by an amateur goes down, it goes down HARD. When a pro designs the system, it goes down softly. Failovers, replication, redundant power, etc. The cost of recovering from one of these amateur-induced catastrophic failures is usually more than it would cost to have the system handled by a pro.
As automation increases, you see a shift, but not the type you expect. When systems can handle common issues gracefully, you wind up needing fewer people, but they need *more* knowledge and ability because the remaining problems are the really complex ones.
Mirror's Edge was fun, even though no one bought it.
Of course, the PC version was riddled with freezes and core dumps. But for the half a level between everything going wonky, it was enjoyable.
Does a swap function really need any comments? Yes, I know we have std::swap, but I still see people rolling their own anyway.
Okay, if you're doing some fancy XOR'ing to avoid creating a temp variable, maybe. But your basic t=a, a=b, b=t function shouldn't require any comments, even at the function level.
Undocumented code is only a problem if the code does something that isn't obvious to any second-year CS student. Some code simply doesn't require comments because the code is obvious to anyone reading it.
Get/Set methods: do they *really* need comments?
Basic assignment loops?
List traversal loops?
Swap function?
etc, etc
That being said, poorly or incorrectly documented code is truly evil, I'd rather see no comments than incorrect comments.
Suuuure it is.
I was on a project a few years ago that required *every* non-whitespaced line of code to be documented. We would have functions that looked like this (in pseudocode)
#Function Name: FindEntryID
#Author: John Smith
#Modified Date: 03/17/2006
#Description: Find matching entry in the list and return the entry ID
def FindEntryID(entry, list) #Function Declaration
{ #Begin Function
for item in list #Loop through list
{ #Begin Loop
if item.data == entry #If item data matches the desired entry
return item.id #return the ID
} #End Loop
} #End Function
After a while, the entire team rebelled and gave management two choices: change the policy to something sensible or we *all* walk.
Excessive documentation doesn't help anyone. Document fixes, document weird quirks, document the mission-critical stuff. But for god's sake, don't document basic loops, get/set methods, etc.
You need to recognize the difference between a primary and a tertiary source.
Tertiary sources are normally only used when professors require you to document how you *found* your primary sources. Encyclopedias and the like are so heavily distilled that you'll never find good data, you'll only find sources. In this instance, it doesn't matter if the material changes, because you didn't take any data from the material, you took a link to the source. That source is still accessible and valid (and documented as a primary) regardless of whether the link changes. This is no different than citing a bibliography as a tertiary source. You aren't taking information directly from it, you are taking a *link* to the information.
Interestingly, your historical argument became invalid the moment encyclopedias became digital. Most cases of citing encyclopedias are now referencing the encyclopedia's website, which is subject to change as well. It doesn't always line up with printed versions (if they even exist).
IQ is just a flawed attempt at quantifying something that can't be quantified. The whole field of psychometrics seems highly suspect to me.
My comment on raising was meant to be more along the lines of: take two 100% identical clones, place them in two different families with different "styles" of raising children. Years later, would they show similar scores on an IQ test? If not, how much of the test is natural ability?
The prepping comment was always one of the things that annoyed me most in high school. When the FCAT rolled around, we spent over a month prepping for it. How reliable can the data be when we are spoon-fed details in advance on what to write and how to write it?
I had a few devices growing up that were essentially pocket PCs. I might be mixing up the model numbers, but I think they were the Zaurus ZR-5800 and the Sharp PC-E500. Never did find much for them, honestly. I think I programmed a few BASIC games on the Sharp, but they really were quite useless for me.
My eyes are taking enough of a pounding from working with PCs all day, the last thing they need is to spend all night staring at a 4-inch display on a phone.
For *primary* sources this is true. And I explicitly stated that they are only acceptable when *not* used as a primary source. There are times where you are expected to cite secondary and tertiary sources as well. These articles are suitable as tertiary sources (generally a source that you did not directly take data from).
Which opens an even more interesting question to be addressed in another future study: How much does the "raising" part affect their IQ? And we're back to the classic nature-vs-nurture debate.
Typically the only time I've cited either is when I encountered a professor who really wanted the works cited to be a roadmap. For those professors, If I looked at an encyclopedia article and used sources cited in it, I included the article as a tertiary source. Same for Wikipedia.
I much preferred to find sources directly in journals, but for really obscure topics it can be helpful to start with an existing article that provides a nice list of sources.
The challenge there is that a familial study isn't easily extended.
Factoring out the outliers (the mentally retarded, the extremely gifted), most Homo sapiens will have more or less the same internal structure. To get meaningful comparisons, you really need to dissect the brains of both species and compare the internal structure. The most any IQ study could say is that brain size correlates to IQ within the species, where many factors remain relatively unchanged across the sample. Even in these cases, the correlation coefficient is usually 0.4, implying a weak correlation.
If both species had similar neuron density, interconnections, etc, then it would be reasonable to assume this species was more intelligent. On the other hand, if a significant difference was observed (be it through natural evolution, external forces such as dietary deficiencies, etc), they might not have been any more intelligent.
I remember seeing a few studies on this back when I took Physical Anthropology, but I can't recall offhand any of the authors. The basic conclusion amongst the physical anthropology crowd is that brain size does loosely predict intelligence, if you hold the internal structure to be constant. To get a *true* picture of the difference, though, you need to know the differences internally as well, as these are considered to be more strongly correlated.
Nine out of Ten professors give automatic F's to students who cite Wikipedia in their papers.
[Citation needed]
Had to do it. For large projects, most professors I've had were fine with citing Wikipedia, provided you did not cite it as a *primary* source. It is usually safe to cite as a tertiary source (the same way you'd cite an encyclopedia in any decent paper), or as a secondary source depending on the professor.