mkeener

I think I didn't communicate clearly. What I meant to say is that I think birds fare as well when birds strike aircraft (jets, helicopters) as when aircraft strike other aircraft. There's a measurable difference between a 200g soft thing bumping into another one, as opposed to a multi-ton rigid structure full of high explosive liquid and fast moving things having a little tiff.

I get what your saying about the organized chaos, but the risk slight accidental impact imposes isn't even close.

Would be awesome, though, gotta say.

I think birds fare about as well as an aircraft when striking other aircraft. Doesn't really seem comparable.

I'm not sure if that's the same for me. Just feeling good about it yourself says more about how you wish to view yourself as a good or moral person. Telling others about your charitable acts reflects more on how important we find showing that we are good and moral people to others.

Of course I don't intend to bring the character of the parent to question, I think it's great when anyone engages in charitable acts.

It's just interesting to me to think about the fact that compensating someone for what was once charity could dissuade them from donating. If compensation causes you to avoid giving blood, which is saving lives, because you no longer get the warm fuzzies were you ever acting altruistically to begin with?

I don't know.

Well, truly altruistic until you tell someone that you're a regular blood and plasma donor. But, like said before, you could simply refuse the compensation.

It's probably more because of the running surface in combination with the shoe, than the shoe alone. Using the same logic, our bodies weren't meant to run barefoot on concrete/tarmac for long periods. They're too hard.

Isn't that assuming a static level of wealth/production? Wealth/Production output isn't a zero sum game, it's not some pie you keep cutting into smaller slices. It can grow over time and even if you increase the number of slices cut, each slice can retain the same relative mass. It's when these don't match up that you find yourself with an inflationary or deflationary currency.

Yes, you can and do cause inflation by printing more money, but it's not as simple as you assert it to be, and it certainly doesn't warrant the rudeness to the parent.

Except for 2.1 -> 2.2 (Froyo) -> 2.3 (Gingerbread). So, not very exceptional.

Yes, Exactly! Another similar example would be the process that produced the heikegani crab.

TL;DR - Over years fishermen threw crabs with face-like patterns on their carapaces back into the ocean. Over time this produced crabs with extremely detailed faces, increasing the chances they wouldn't be eaten and could reproduce.

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

Was it just me that found this curious?

“Negative emotions like fear and sadness can lead to brain activity and thought patterns that are detrimental to creative, productive work: (a) avoidance of risk; (b) difficulty remembering and planning; and (c) rational decision-making.”

'a' and 'b' I'll grant, but rational decision-making is detrimental to productivity and creativity? Fear incites rationality? This seems out of place to me.