StrangeSox

Sounds like a DARPA project

Just reverse it now since the good asians and bad asians are flip-flopped!

Uh, steve? I think you might want to talk to your doctor if that's what your dick looks like...

Whole lot of insects (bees, termites, wasps, hornets, ants). Wolves, lions, African Wild Dogs, elephants, herd animals to some extent (the herd sticks together to not present a lone weak target). Chimps, gorillas. Birds will shout out warning calls when a predator is seen that other birds and animals understand. Whales group-hunt.

So now the Congressional Republicans are straight-up lying about #BENGHAZI #neverforget, not just spinning nonsense theory after nonsense theory. edit: I DEMAND Congressional investigations into who "leaked" fabricated emails to the press in order to spread lies about the Administration. Four Americans DIED and these people are just lyinG!!!!!!!!!1

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 16, 2013 -> 08:15 PM) While I enjoyed the ability to enter the bars (and drink) while I was 19 & 20, I always thought it made no sense to let us in underage. I did contribute $260 to the Champaign government fund after a raid at C.O. Daniels. My sophomore roommate turned to selling pot to raise funds for his drinking tickets.

I posted that 3 days ago, Balta.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 16, 2013 -> 04:40 PM) We nerds invent arrow. Yeah once we're into tool-making hominids, intelligence is going to be an important factor in addition to physical capabilities (and not just pure brawn). Neanderthals were bigger and stronger but we were smarter and we won out.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 16, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) At the end of the day local governments make too much money off of DUIs to take steps that could end their highly profitable enforcement measures. Champaign's thing with letting 19 and 20 yo's into the bars and then raiding one or two Thursday-Saturday nights, handing out $300+ drinking tickets but no other punishment (lots of places have community service requirements) was a nice racket.

The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 16, 2013 -> 02:46 PM) Um, they were against it................once they got their land from the masses. Until then they had no problem with redistribution, as long as it was slanted in their favor. So what does it mean by "redistribution" and what's the starting point? Everything was the commons at one point until people started making claims to land (and not all societies did this; our modern version of property rights is not universal). How did these soft-bodied elites get this power if the size of your biceps was a controlling factor in more physical times?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 16, 2013 -> 01:33 PM) I think it's interesting that those that were able to protect X because of their physical strength have evolved politically to want to "protect" their money/property from others/the government. Those that went generations without X because of their physical stature evolved to want the world to be more fair and for people to share what they have. The theory doesn't work for everyone, but on a basic level I can see that being a common view of the respective parties. See, that's where I think it proves far too much. It's an interesting just-so story, but the political alignment of people with large biceps in a handful of developed Western countries in 2012 really can't justify such a wide-reaching explanation. The size of your biceps isn't the determining factor of your physical ability to protect yourself. If we are going to run that far with it, it could also be interpreted (based on the summary) through a different lens, that those who are physically stronger want to protect their dominant status regardless of legitimately and can do so without a more-powerful force to challenge them. The warlord who's raped and pillaged isn't going to be in favor of redistribution and he's probably going to be physically capable, but that doesn't mean his position is moral or justified. Like I said, interesting, but like much of evo. psych., take the claims with a huge grain of salt.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 16, 2013 -> 12:08 PM) If drunk driving is a no-tolerance crime, I don't see how you could allow any sort of justification into the discussion. It's irrelevant. It's not a justification to get out of the punishment, it's assessing whether or not your preferred policy will achieve the desired result. Zero-tolerance policies in other contexts don't really seem to work very well at deterring the undesired behavior.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:41 AM) Do the businesses also provide transportation TO their locations? It's simply an unrealistic idea. A big part of this is our "car culture" that's unavoidable in rural areas and really exploded with suburban sprawl and non-walkable subdivisions and communities. The only realistic option for most people who don't live in a city with decent public transportation is to drive.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 16, 2013 -> 10:41 AM) How does this prevent someone else from blowing for the driver? I've never, ever understood why some people do that. "Hey, you're blitzed, I'm sober, but you drive!"

I think we were, lead, termites etc. No warranties and no repairs/adjustments from the home inspection, obviously, but we got the house for $30k less than appraised value (and $100k less than they had paid for it 4 years prior) and thanks to the pipes bursting right before the final inspection, $20k worth of remodeling and a new furnace on the previous owner's insurance! Heard the guy is in jail now for defrauding DuPage county, and we still get a ton of legal-looking letters for his various businesses and his IRS stuff.

We went through a short sale, but we got lucky because the process had already been started but the previous buyer couldn't get a loan. We still had some back-and-forth (there were two companies with an interest in the property), but that aspect went pretty smoothly.

Not why they did it, they thought it would be "too distracting" for boys. So of course, girls must change their behavior. Plus heavy girls can wear strapless dresses without a problem. My friend's wedding dress was strapless, and she's worn several strapless bridesmaid dresses.

Right, big, dumb brutes turn into self-interested assholes because they can physically dominate others and get their way. Smart-but-slender men don't need to rely on brawn and physical intimidation and actually have empathy for other humans and are more egalitarian. Women don't show any correlation because they're not a bunch of aggressive, violent, self-destructive idiots. (It's an interesting study and I'm spinning as slanted of an interpretation as possible as a joke) More seriously: so it's just a correlation on bicep size and whether or not they support redistributionist policies. I don't know what that's supposed to tell me--it's not like bicep size has been a particularly important factor in physical ability. It's part of the glamour or mirror muscles that some guys like to bulk up while ignoring useful strength and conditioning, and the remaining hunter-gatherer tribesmen don't have 21" guns and 60 inch chests. Landed nobility over history have been particularly anti-redistributive and absolutely deplored any sort of physical work, instead intentionally looking effete. Sounds like this study's argument proves far too much; as far as I know, evolutionary psychology is regarded pretty skeptically by the rest of the biology field anyway. I don't say that because I have a problem with the study's results, if true. I don't and think it's an interesting idea they've tried to examine.

Assuming the study 1) says what the Daily Mail says it says and 2) is worth a s***, the conclusion I choose to draw is that big, dumb brutes who only know how to express themselves through violence and physical intimidation take right-wing reactionary political stances. See, that could easily be spun against you!

Some schools have banned strapless dresses for dances because, you know, sluts or something. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/...jersey/2133117/

Latest job-safety hazard: explosive poop foam at hog farms This didn't really start happening until 2009.

Oh that makes more sense, that movie was completely terrible.

That's pretty cool looking, unfortunate for the home owners of course, I don't get your snark though.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 14, 2013 -> 06:01 PM) Maybe not dolls or dresses, but certainly things which focus on roles involving childcaring and nurturing of a child would be biological. Possibly, though I am going to venture a guess that cultural and anthropological research finds that this isn't a universal human trait. Will google later, leaving in a minute! Edit: found this http://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132231422/wi...-may-play-dolls One group of chimps appears to have gendered play, but it's not seen in other chimp groups. That means it could very well be cultural even among other primates.