SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jon Koplik who wrote (7150)4/29/2005 4:50:39 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12246
 
Jon, that is the usual confusion between correlation and causation. It seems that Phil James is already suffering dementia so his prospects, whether fat or thin now, are for early senility in his old age [assuming he makes it].

<In a study that followed more than 10,000 Californians for almost 30 years, researchers found that the fatter people were, the greater their risk for Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia>. The results were published online Friday by the British Medical Journal.

"This adds another major reason for concern about the obesity problem and it now unfolds yet another area where ... we have to say, 'for God's sake, we better get cracking,'" said Philip James, an obesity expert who was not connected with the research and who heads the International Obesity Task Force.
>

They correctly identified that fat people in middle age are more likely to be the ones with poor brain function when old.

But they didn't do the obvious thing and investigate the intelligence and general cognitive powers of those fatties and compare them with the skinnies.

If they had done so, they'd find that fat people have a lower average intelligence than normal people. Philip would conclude from that that being fat causes reduced intelligence. But that would be wrong too. Both have a single cause. It's the same cause as the infamous digital divide. The digital divide isn't caused by lack of money, but by lack of brains.

Innumerate people will now think of examples where that is untrue and foolishly conclude that therefore the theory is wrong. They are probably fat, suffer a digital divide, are heading for early senility and wishing that their income was higher [obesity is also correlated with reduced income and again, the cause isn't the obesity, it's the lack of mental propulsion to earn a load of loot - it's easier to eat a load of lard].

Obese people use fewer cyberphones too. Once again, the cause is not the obesity.

So, you fatties 'out there', don't bother losing weight to avoid your dotage. Better to improve your nutrient intake, which will probably involve losing plenty of weight too. It's not so easy to get fat on microwaved cabbage, carrots, onions, beans, parsley, peas, garlic, rice, squid, salmon, soya sauce, flaked yeast, olive oil [cold pressed and unheated] or grapeseed oil, all mixed together with a bit of seasoning such as chile. That's brain food.

Mqurice



To: Jon Koplik who wrote (7150)4/29/2005 5:01:22 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Respond to of 12246
 
PS: I am writing this in a Starbucks shop in Tauranga, [New Zealand] on my notebook computer using WiFi [802.11b]. It's free for another day because Telecom New Zealand hasn't got their WiFi system fully ready to go yet but they are letting people use it anyway.

Yesterday, I was driving around Taupo [another city in NZ] looking for an internet connection. I don't have Telecom's 1xEV-DO because it's so expensive.

It seemed odd to be looking for cyberspace when it's filling the aether, passing right through my helpless brain. I felt deaf, dumb and blind and living in the stone age. In a few years, being without cyberspace everywhere will be like being dead, dumb and blind. People think nothing much of it now, [unless they really want to get online for some reason]. But they will.

The charges are too high at present for normal people to use it. But the production cost is low and everyone will be able to use it. Some competition will sort it out.

Mqurice



To: Jon Koplik who wrote (7150)6/14/2005 12:14:46 AM
From: Jon Koplik  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12246
 
WSJ piece on old bird egg collections .............................................

June 14, 2005

Some Collectors Try To Keep All Their Eggs In One Family Basket

Pat More Guards Collection Museums Would Love; Wildlife Lover Gets a Peek

By SUSAN WARREN
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

VERNON, Texas -- When his father died in 1972, Pat More inherited an unusual legacy: the family's collection of more than 10,000 birds' eggs dating back to the late 1800s.

Mr. More's grandfather, Robert L. More, was 14 years old when he picked up his first egg in 1888 from the nest of a black vulture on the family farm. He later displayed his collection above the family's service station, and the exhibit drew visitors from around the world. Pat More closed this private museum to the public 20 years ago, but he still feels obligated to care for it.

"It's a burden that I have accepted," says Mr. More, who is 60 years old.

In the 1800s and early 1900s, bird lovers didn't just watch birds -- they took their eggs. Devotees known as oologists prowled the prairies, climbed trees and dangled off cliffs to snatch eggs from nests. They drained the eggs' contents through tiny holes in order to preserve the shells intact, and then traded and sold the eggs like baseball cards.

"It seems terribly politically incorrect now, but back then it was perfectly OK," says Carrol Henderson, a wildlife biologist for Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources.

The practice was eventually ended by laws protecting birds. Though most egg collections were destroyed, hundreds survived. They contain scientific treasures -- including DNA that some conservationists hope might someday allow cloning of extinct birds, a la Jurassic Park dinosaurs. The eggs also present a dilemma to collectors' descendants who find themselves torn between family sentiment, public duty and scientific interests.

John Handsaker discovered his great-grandfather's egg collection two years ago when he decided to renovate the man's long-abandoned Iowa farmhouse. He found a great wooden chest containing 3,600 eggs nestled into beds of cedar sawdust. Mr. Henderson, a family friend, spent days cataloging the eggs of 467 species, including puffins from Scotland, a black-footed albatross from Japan, and a black vulture and Cooper's hawk obtained from an R. More in Texas.

Mr. Henderson urged the family to donate the collection for research, but the family is still wrestling with that. Mr. Handsaker's father favors giving away the eggs. But his uncle doesn't want to let them leave the family. "To him, it's a very personal attachment," says Mr. Handsaker.

Collections vary widely in quality. Most were haphazardly gathered or have deteriorated. Some oologists, like Mr. Handsaker's great-grandfather, took meticulous notes on the appearance and habits of bird species and documented the time, place and circumstances of each find, creating a valuable historic record.

There was a dark side: Some collectors repeatedly harvested eggs of rare species, which because of their rarity were particularly valuable. One traders' catalog from 1904 lists the egg of a California condor -- a species that later nearly became extinct -- for $350. By comparison, the egg of a common blue jay traded for 10 cents.

Selling the eggs now -- even the old collections -- is outlawed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other wildlife protection laws, but the collections still have scientific value and can be donated to museums or research institutions. For instance, shell thickness over time can show the environmental effects of pesticides. Collectors' notes can help biologists evaluate the effects of climate change and urban sprawl and provide insight in protecting endangered species.

"Eggs are a priceless window into our environmental history," says Scott Edwards, a biology professor and curator of the bird and egg collection at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology, who is interested in acquiring the Handsaker collection.

One reason families are reluctant to donate their collections is that they could be locked away in the basement of some research institution, never to be seen again. Such fears aren't baseless. To properly preserve eggs, scientists believe that they must be kept out of public view. Light fades color and markings, humidity produces mold, and heat makes brittle shells even more fragile.

The Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology in Camarillo, Calif., has gathered more than 300 egg collections since the 1960s. The foundation now has more than a million eggs hermetically sealed away in drawers off-limits to the public, though open to scientists for research. "They say don't put all your eggs in one basket, but here we are," says collections manager Rene Corado.

Once or twice a year, the foundation tracks down another collection, usually from heirs, universities or museums that can no longer take care of the eggs. And it's not unusual to meet resistance.

Two years ago, Mr. Corado tried to persuade officials in the tiny East Texas town of Mount Vernon to relinquish a collection because it contained rare eggs from the passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet and heath hen, all extinct. The eggs had been donated to the town for its new natural-history museum, and Mr. Corado was asked to evaluate the collection.

Mr. Corado warned that the eggs would deteriorate without proper care and offered to take them. But town officials refused.

"We thought, if it's worth that much to them, it's worth more to us," says J.D. Baumgardner, president of the county historical society. The city committed $45,000 to build a special light- and climate-controlled exhibit and hopes to put the eggs on public display sometime next year.

Museums and universities also have sought to get their hands on the More collection, but grandson Pat More has steadfastly refused to part with a cherished piece of family history. Bob More collected many of the eggs from the giant Waggoner Ranch in Wilbarger County, Texas, where his job as ranch manager sent him roaming across the ranch's half-million acres of bird-rich scrub land. He painstakingly documented his finds according to the American Ornithologists' Union guidelines and created his own bird museum on the second floor of his office building and gas station in Vernon.

For decades, schoolchildren trooped through the egg museum on field trips, and listings in tour guides drew a steady stream of visitors.

Pat More closed the museum because he didn't have enough time to devote to showing the collection. This spring, he gave local high-school student Brady Surber, who plans to major in wildlife biology in college, a rare personal tour. The 19-year-old took pictures and scribbled notes about the eggs, displayed neatly in glass-faced cabinets, many still in their original nests.

"I was amazed by the thoroughness of it," says Mr. Surber. "The eggs are in perfect condition."

Though Mr. More doesn't have the time or resources to restore the private museum to its former glory, doing that remains his goal. Giving the collection away isn't in his plans.

"No one would take care of it like I would," he says.

Write to Susan Warren at susan.warren@wsj.com

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.