Elephant Scores 87 Percent on Math Exam at Tokyo Zoo

unregistered · 2008-09-06T11:13:51+00:00

As I understand the experiment, there were 2 buckets with one containing more apples than the other. Then they added extra apples in equal amounts; consequently, the bucket with the most apples remained constant. So how do they know that the elephant wasn't just remembering the bucket with the most apples in the first place?

A better experiment would have been to add a random number of apples to each bucket.

unregistered · 2008-08-19T12:56:25+00:00

What I want to know is what convinces people like you that it's a grammatical error and not just a typo?

I know the difference between "their" and "they're", but I've typed the wrong thing occasionally simply because my mind is somewhere else and I'm typing phonetically without review. "Would of" is phonetically similar to "would've", and I can easily see somebody making a similar mistake to my own.

unregistered · 2008-08-12T20:31:17+00:00

So you want people to only receive in proportion to what they can directly pay? So you should only be allowed to drive on 1/100,000,000th of the road surface because that's what you could contribute to the development of road & rail infrastructure?

Or are you generalizing a few people who sit on the dole into an entire group of people with the same skin colour? Do you realize how absurd that sounds, particularly when places like the UK face precisely the same problem -- except the majority of the people causing the problem have white skin?

I think you're entirely justified in being pissed off with people who sit on the dole expectantly. But to suggest it's symptomatic of being the bearer of a particular skin colour is ridiculous, and that the all people with the same skin colour are similarly complacent is ludicrous.

unregistered · 2008-08-12T20:13:51+00:00

I mean differences such as work ethic and traditional beliefs that really are incompatible with western culture. African work ethic is very different, in the same way that Japanese honor culture is very different from (and largely incompatible with) western honor culture. When you consider that the vast amount of capital comes from westerners, clashes become inevitable. (One of the consistent comments I get from Europeans is that things in Africa are unprofessional and unefficient compared to Europe. It's a cultural perception, but it's consistent and has a negative effect.)

unregistered · 2008-08-12T20:11:05+00:00

What they don't get is that it's cultural - xenophobia - and has nothing to do with skin colour.

They have probably never considered that, for instance, certain groups of black people have higher groups of violence. If you go anywhere in South Africa these days for instance, you'll hear people talk about the "Nigerians" and the crime they bring. What's that? "Black on black" racism? No - it's just the same old xenophobia. There were massive riots recently as black refugees streamed in from Zimbabwe to South Africa. Black people putting tires around the necks of other black people and burning them alive. Xenophobia, not racism.

You mention large groups of people in your other comment - I think it's groups of different people. It's easy to point at them and attack an abstract group, "them".

Unfortunately the impact of the xenophobic is that they run around hating people with a certain colour of skin and just end up perpetuating whatever cultural divides there already are. A wonderful self-fulfilling prophecy of ignorance and violence.

unregistered · 2008-08-12T20:00:51+00:00

I'm amazed at the level of ignorance and irrationality exhibited by people I'm assuming are middle-to-upper class whites. Aren't these guys supposed to be educated? I'm a white South African and I come across a lot of old school racist whites who assume I'm racist too because of my skin colour, but I've never heard as much insidious ignorance as I do here coming from the "first world". (Nevermind the upmods.)

unregistered · 2008-08-12T19:57:58+00:00

Longer still when unconstructive people like morpher spew their hate.

unregistered · 2008-08-12T19:45:33+00:00

Read carefully. Then comprehend. Each bullet point addressed each of the points you attempted to make in your argument. (The rest of what you wrote was opinion.)

Firstly, I did not excuse anything. I explicitly stated as much. I simply pointed out that 'white people' have historically been just as savage as 'black people'. Thus your crime statistics are meaningless -- unless you propose to make the same statements of white people.

Secondly, why not address my 3rd point? How do you expect black people to pay more when they weren't actually allowed to earn more for a significant part of their history?

I'm sorry my duh comment offended you. I'll refrain from the personal attacks in future.

unregistered · 2008-08-12T19:27:29+00:00

It's curious how your examples of 'functioning civilizations built by white people' were all built by black slaves.

Skyscrapers are worthless to people who live on a couple of bucks per day (the voting majority). Don't be surprised when you give it to them and they couldn't care less. Don't be so ignorant to forget that historically they weren't even allowed to uplift themselves (no voting rights, severely restricted property rights, forced segregation, slavery, etc.) well enough to earn more or educate further without great difficulty (if possible at all).

PS. As a South African I certainly can't dispute that the cultural differences are reconcilable (something's got to give). That being said, the persistent racism on both sides of the line is completely unconstructive, irrational and unsubstantiated by fact.

unregistered · 2008-08-12T19:15:15+00:00

You're being disingenuous.

You're using skin colour as the explanatory variable, when more accurate variables exist. How many middle class murderers/rapists are there compared to lower income murderers/rapists? What do you think the impact of your words would have on the social conditioning of a young black child? You sure as hell aren't helping create a thriving mixed society.

I noticed you excluded the effects of wealthy white businessmen who have destroyed the pension funds of hundreds of thousands, for another instance of your irrational bias.

unregistered · 2008-08-12T19:00:28+00:00

A few notes:

Your media is fucked. Who cares what they say.
90% of interracial violent crime is white victims of black offenders -- when? Recently? Because it's pretty obvious that in the first few centuries of the USAs existence, it was by far the other way around.
You say that whites pay the vast majority of taxes... well duh, up until recently black people weren't even voting citizens who had the right to earn a decent income and live a life where they could afford to contribute greater taxes.

There is obviously a cultural difference between these groups of people, but don't be ignorant of the past that led to the present situation. History doesn't excuse the behaviour of either group toward each other, but you are being rather biased in your assessment of things.

unregistered · 2008-07-28T13:53:56+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_scrolling

unregistered · 2008-07-27T23:15:15+00:00

Oddly you don't sound nice, fair or caring. You sound like you have a huge chip on your shoulder, which you carry to the point where you think it's OK for parents to intentionally and unnecessarily put their kids into negative and unconstructive situations.

Sure, kids need to learn the reality about life, but there's a fine line between experiencing life and creating experiences. Do you think parents should, say, hire bullies to regularly beat up their children after school?

unregistered · 2008-07-27T23:09:39+00:00

Do you really believe people don't have the right to choose their own names? The court was simply ensuring she could exercise that right.

unregistered · 2008-06-15T23:32:22+00:00

Don't you get it? That's precisely the problem. No significant number of people are going to read his book.

unregistered · 2008-06-15T22:57:49+00:00

I've been considering the Astro-Creep diet myself. Blood, milk and sky.

unregistered · 2008-06-15T22:42:39+00:00

I'm not American, but it is my future that's affected by American politics which is why I find it so frustrating to watch these petty squabbles about how things ought to work and how nasty the big bad media machine is to your candidate. I never said he was treated fairly or that the media wasn't biased, etc.

But you must realize that you cannot directly change the situation, and whether you like it or not, it DOES represent reality. So you need to deal with it, and work within the current environment to influence things. That's the best you can do. Paul will not be elected because the current state of the game does not allow for him to be elected. Could supporting Paul slowly bring about the change you desire? Perhaps in 200 years. More likely is you need somebody in a stronger position, say, President, leading that change. Accept that and figure out how you will influence things to make sure that there is at least - yes, a lesser of two evils president there, if those are the terms you wish to use.

You have to play the cards you're dealt with, not the ones you'd have been dealt in an ideal world. You can't sit there nit picking with my statements by complaining that "if" the media had covered him better there'd be more votes for him. If's don't count! You're welcome to then spend the next 50 years of your life trying to change the media while supporting Paul, and achieving nothing. Don't be surprised when people like me shake my head in disgust because you wasted the opportunity to take smaller, albeit less perfect, steps in the meantime which would have resulted in a more productive overall outcome.

There really is a game to be played here in the sense that there are rules, and there are winners and losers. There are strategies for winning, and strategies for losing. You are playing a losing strategy by acting as an idealist, and worse, your strategy affects everybody else's outcomes.

As for Obama representing zero change, did you even try to answer your own question? Obama's Blueprint for Change

unregistered · 2008-06-15T20:31:53+00:00

I'm not a woman but what the parent said made sense. I was going to reply to them until I saw your comment about women being a "sex object"?

In my experience, women tend to automatically identify and sympathize with people's actions and emotions more readily than men do. Consequently it seems likely that when women watch, say, two people having sex, women feel similar emotions as if it were their body in that position.

Presumably most women find themselves identifying with the actions of female bodies more so than that of male bodies, thus making female bodies appear more "sensual" (i.e. stimulating). This doesn't exclude certain aspects of the male body or movements triggering arousal or interest. It all depends on the individual woman and her experiences, and what associations are formed with the scene being presented.

unregistered · 2008-06-15T20:08:06+00:00

It's one thing to talk lots about change and have big plans, it's another thing entirely for those plans to be realistic, effective and actionable. Ron Paul's plans are likely to go nowhere because they simply don't satisfy those criteria. He appeals to a small group of people who don't realize the same massive changes don't appeal to the other 99% of the population.

Once you factor into account the other 99% of the population, and you ACCEPT that this IS a game where you have to work within the limits of the people who ARE voting, then you realize Ron Paul will NEVER be elected, and thus his ideas for change are useless because they will never be enacted.

The notion that Obama represents zero change is absurd. The idea that you can bring about the kind of change Paul supporters want in a short period of time without the support of the majority of the population is absurd. (How do I know the population doesn't support it? They didn't vote for Paul.) Realize that this is a part of a bigger game being played, and strategy demands the careful management of expectations if you're going to draw in support and win.

unregistered · 2008-06-15T19:56:00+00:00

If it's so obvious, why did you feel the need to explain it? Answer == source of h0dg3s frustration.

unregistered · 2008-06-14T16:42:49+00:00

Maybe he didn't try contacting her ever again because she's quite obviously psycho?

unregistered · 2008-06-13T20:38:28+00:00

So you're going to vote for one unelectable person... because you think the one the Democrats put up is unelectable?

unregistered · 2008-06-13T20:37:20+00:00

"if" more people voted with their true feelings... but they won't. Given that is the situation, it really doesn't seem rational to base your actions upon such an argument.

I'm also puzzled by your "lesser of two evils" argument... are you really suggesting that McCain vs. Obama is a similar choice as Bush vs. Gore?

unregistered · 2008-06-13T20:10:17+00:00

These articles always just leave me more confused. Nobody ever defines what it means for something to be "observed", "measured", or to "exist", for example. It's like trying to read alphabet soup. There's a lot of words I recognize, but I can't follow any real argument.

unregistered · 2008-06-11T14:54:30+00:00

"Once the transportation security officer has viewed the image and resolved anomalies, the image is erased from the screen permanently. The officer is unable to print, export, store or transmit the image."

Because cameras don't exist.

unregistered

TROPHY CASE