. . .
but you know, I try my best
.
. . .
It would seem that the limit of a Homo sapiens sapiens’ capacity to uniquely categorize other ones begets, in the context of the current population thereof of Earth, its extrapolation of a singular identity over, even, many millions thereof.
Quote from: R. I. M. Dunbar. “Co-Evolution of Neocortical Size, Group Size and Language In Humans” (uned. preprint). 19 Feb. 235. link=http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/1993/dunbar1993a.pdf
Primates are, above all, social animals. This has inevitably led to the suggestion that such intense sociality is functionally related to the exceptional cognitive abilities of these animals, as reflected in their unusually large brains (Jolly 1969, Humphrey 1976, Kummer 1982, Byrne & Whiten 1988). This claim is supported by the finding that mean group size is directly related to relative neocortical volume in nonhuman primates (Sawaguchi & Kudo 1990, Dunbar 1992a). These analyses suggest that although the size of the group in which animals live in a given habitat is a function of habitat-specific ecologically-determined costs and benefits (see for example Dunbar 1988, 1992b), there is a species-specific upper limit to group size which is set by purely cognitive constraints: animals cannot maintain the cohesion and integrity of groups larger than a size set by the information- processing capacity of their neocortex.
(Red colorization mine.)It would seem that the limit of a Homo sapiens sapiens’ capacity to uniquely categorize other ones begets, in the context of the current population thereof of Earth, its extrapolation of a singular identity over, even, many millions thereof.
but you know, I try my best
.Estimates for that limit for Homo sapiens sapiens have been placed at under three hundred, large enough to accommodate "the interest" (username18333).
= guilty !
(you see, I am weak...). but this time it will be different (like they used to say every quarters since 1913).
(for my discharge I wanted to post here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=636319.280 but it was the best, and I had only a good one
)
edit: the advice is cool, but as I can't follow it, as it would make me silent, and so guilty by omission of opposing, I say that it's wrong. if one stone fall the all is weak, or false. science 101.
.....
if I said so, in what sense does the verb of a kuffar having worked all his life to protect the interest (nice word) of those enslaving mankind should have any value before me? I am speaking of those pretending to be "judge"... lol, if there wasn't the faithful they would have called themselves god, and would have make plant of the creation illegal, rape legal (or at least lightly punishable), and authorize systemic tool to enslave all but their masters from whom they would have gotten a little... In the Joes party I am sure they were there... I am even ready to bet.
---
once armies are in motion the only judge standing are those there to judge the infraction to the code of conduct of the battle groups. nothing else, nothing more. And as it's war and the fog can be deep, and those being judged are backed by their peers, caring too, I can tolerate them... tolerate.
