YaDinghus

Confirmed. Though it says now that Trump said Einstein was an idiot...

Yes I have. I was awarded an AB Degree with a Major in the Biological Sciences and a Minor in the Physical Sciences, ….. @ GSC in 63'. Still shooting your own leg. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society I ain't got the time or the inclination to look for all the relevant sources my professor used back in the day, but the wikipedia article should give you an idea of the concept

Well, I rather meant what exactly irish people/people of irish descent specifically do in their leisure time is beside the point of this thread since destilling alcohol to high concentrations wasn't a widespread technology 175000 years ago ;-) It is quite likely that H. Heidelbergensis who are the likely antecedents of H. Neanderthal and possibly H. Sapien's and H. Neandertal's latest common ancestor, already knew how to construct shelters of organic materials, which could keep a fire safe, since caves were notoriously dangerous because of Cave Bears. That doesn't mean early humans wouldn't have ever used caves for their convenience, and even long term habitation once they were sure that no dangerous predators lurked within. So technically I'm not contradicting you, just opening up more avenues for the debate

I have Irish ancestry, so I have a pretty good idea of what they might have done during their forced leisure time ;-) . This is, however, somewhat beside the point of this thread

Have you been to college? The first thing we learned was to TAKE NOTHING AT FACE VALUE. He properly cited research papers from established anthropology articles and books. Alas, it's more than 10 years ago, so no, I can't recall the sources my professor referenced. But you trying to discredit my very renowned college professor is a pathetic tactic. I mean, seriously...

I'd say resistance to change is pretty much a universal principle (compare to inertia - the resistance to change direction and velocity of movement). From an economic point of view, it makes sense to keep practises that have worked well so far and implement changes carefully (it doesn't make sense however to keep the old ways when the new ways are established as producing better results). Also I am not aware of any ritualistic practises in prehistoric toolmaking. I wouldn't outright reject the idea, though. Ritualisation is a powerful tool for conveying ideas across generations, and aspects of this can be identified in many traditional crafts and trades.

I'd like to see your source on that. Back in the day in anthropology classes, especially in prehistoric economy, we learned that hunter/gatherers only need(ed) to spend 2-4 hours a day on average to get the food they needed to do more than survive. The hardest part about surviving was knowing how to treat severe injuries and avoid food poisoning...

from the Wikipedia article on Mormyrids. It's quite impossible to say how intelligent Neanderthals really were. Tissue conservation techniques weren't exactly advanced around 40ka ago, so we can't examine the brain of a "true" Neanderthal for differences in the internal arhitecture between Neaderthals and Sapiens. Also we couldn't really examine how an ancient Sapien would do on a modern IQ test, because you can't see cultural evolution in a brain, either. Edit: Wow I totally missed the 2nd page...

Iron Maiden - Speed of Light

I wouldn't get hung up on the fact that it's 10^-49 seconds that defy our current understanding of physics. Also, Big Bang is an historic misnomer From Wikipedia - Fred Hoyle. But this term has lead many people to imagine the beginnig of the universe as an explosion from a single point. But now just imagine that you could appoint an infinitely large amount of numbers to every real number. Every real number here is a single point, on a scale consisting of an infinite amount of points. Our observable universe might have sprung from a single point, but it needn't have been the only point that was there at the "beginning", so even though this point would be special to our observeable universe, it would be utterly insignificant among a lot of insignificant points, and the cosmological principle would continue to hold

I thought it was something everyone can do. Now I feel weird(er)...

Bill Nye saves the world, S1E1: one of the panelists, an engineer, claims the entire world energy consumption could be covered completely with regenerative energy. We have the technology and the resources. And it would only cost a few hundred billion dollars. The Gross World Product is in the vicinity of 100 trillion dollars. If we consider that it will take 10-20 years to realize this if we commit to this, it would be a negligible fraction of our global economic power.

Since I'm in charge of music today at work, I put on the AC/DC collection

I just imagined a 'square circle', but it's kind of a stretch of the term 'square'. Bear with me: squares and circles are two-dimensional geometric forms, naturally. A circle is a cornerless object with all points being the same distance from the centet. Cornerlessness means there is no continuity break in the direction of the line drawn, a circle graph has a continuous derivative, while a square, having corners, doesn't. This is a very big problem in making a square circle. In euclidian geometry. Even in non-euclidian space, the definitions of square and circle must hold. A circle remains a continuous loop with all points equidistant from the center, only the circumference-diameter ratio changes. A square remains four enclosing sides (straight lines) of equal length touching at their ends under the same angle. What changes in non-euclidian geometry is the angle under which the ends of these lines touch. To make the square a circle, we need to create a warped plane on which the sides of the square meet so they form a continuous loop instead of corners. One example of making a square a circle under these conditions is the equator of a sphere