There are a lot of evolutionary trade offs, but weaker bones and refined minds are the two things that do not trade off against each others

A refined mind (for example, such as the one in Homo Sapiens Sapiens) consumes 20% - 25% of the total energy intake of the individual

To obtain a more refined mind one does not need to make one's bone "weaker" --- on the other hand, supercharging the intake process, for example, eating meat instead of digesting straws --- can supply the additional "energy consumption" that a refined mind needs

If there is one trade off for weaker bones is that we humans are becoming better swimmers

As our bones become weaker, our bones become lighter, and lighter folks can float/swim more easily in the water

It is thus no surprise that the vast majority of those who have won Olympic swimming gold medal are mostly from the Caucasoid tribe --- for the Caucasoids have (relatively speaking) the lightest bones among all the humans

Before an answer, I will say that a large part of that trust came from being ignorant to the way the world actually works. I was young, delusional, and believed that authorities would never lie. Outside of Nixon and Kissinger of course. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and looking back I don't believe they were as accountable as I wanted to believe.. but there are several differences between today and then in attitude and training of law enforcement.

Back then, police were not held in a higher regard than the public. Respected, sure.. but a cop's actions were measured by their risk to the public. For example, the commando style raids we see today are a very new phenomenon. 30-40 years ago this would not have happened unless someone's life was in eminent danger. Today we have commandos chucking grenades into houses to serve warrants. We have commando style raids for non-violent crimes like drug dealing. Cops shooting family pets because they claim "I was afraid of the dog". Those things simply did not happen back then. Police were expected to respect the public as much as the public respected them.

There are many other differences in training and actions found to be acceptable then and now. A cop shooting someone today can simply use the excuse "I thought I was in danger", even when it's a kid playing army with his buddies. That would have had an officer suspended without pay 40 years ago, and back then there were many more kids out playing army/cops & robbers, etc.... Toy guns were much more common, hell we brought them to school to play at recess.

Lastly hiring practices are much different then and now. Then, there was more worry about public perception of officers. Cops were expected to outsmart the bad guys, not kick their asses. Today agencies want the ass kickers, bad asses, and bullies. "Gangs" are not something new, so that excuse does not work as the justification.

Accountability is a good thing, and something severely lacking today. We have enough independent footage to know that events that happen should not, but since the footage is from "independent" sources they are all labelled questionable. A source that can be held with fewer questions, such as the body cameras by cops, would add much to a case like Michael Brown. Even if the camera was not facing Michael Brown at the onset of the encounter, audio could have been used to determine who's story was most accurate.

Thirty/Forty years ago I would have always taken the cops word over an encounter. Today, not so much. What you point out is exactly correct. People behave different when they are being watched, which includes "people" in Law enforcement.

Because it's not possible to have both, unless you are just going to be a baby factory and let the State raise the kids. Is that another thing you want? And trust me, I'm a huge advocate for Plato's "The Republic" but that is one area where I completely disagree with Socrates. (if you are confused read the book)

Being a parent is a full time job all on its own. Not everyone can be like the Yahoo CEO and build a nursery next to her office to spend some time with the kid while at work. Most women in fact are not in such a position, and many don't want the stress of having a baby at work anyway. Instead of admonishing or belittling a person for wanting to be a parent, prop them up for being a parent.

Oh I know, I'm a misogynist for claiming that the woman should do these things. If of course you ignore the fact that men don't have the breasts to breast feed, and lack the uterus to carry a baby from conception to birth. After birth, I'm fine either way. I work with a lady who pumps all day and her husband takes care of the baby (and their other 2 children) all day. Nothing wrong with this arrangement in my opinion, and in today's society it's often the fiscally responsible choice.

Stop painting any woman without a career in some_company as a bad thing, and relationships as a bad thing. Parents (yes, that is plural) should both be involved in a kids life, and this happens when we promote the benefits of relationships and promote accountability for actions (such as pregnancy). This trend of 2 people being required to work full time at a company is a very new one, it really started in the 1970s and 80s.

Back in the 1980's when anything Japan, including the stinky sushi was the in thing, I shook my head in disbelieve

At that time I was still relatively new in America, and the "blindly following the trend" thing that was happening in the US of A was in some way, comparable to what happened in China back in the "culture revolution"

We human beings supposed to have enough brain power to think, but looking at how people were/are behaving, no matter if it's in the US of A or in China, sometimes I have to wonder if that defect in the human beings would one day cause our own downfall

Watch out for the boomerang, man !

Whatever the West is doing to Russia now it will ricochet and the amplified effect will eventually land on the lap of the West

Whenever I scan a document or an article and the word 'Diversity' pops up ... sigh!, yet another useless Political Correctness piece of crap!

The theme is always the same --- no matter if it's tech, or business, or wealth, or whatever-you-can-think-of, their basic argument is that someone has been _WRONGED_ and we must do everything to right the wrong, to make sure that the disenfrenchised party is disenfrenchised no more !

The 'common theme' is 'GAP', and the adjective can be 'racial', or 'gender', or 'wealth', or whathaveyou

They never care to address the WHY, they only want to talk about the "injustice"

The society is not going forward if every time they come up with something new the rest of us have to stop everything in order to 'help the disenfrenchised'

Disclaimer: I am a patent holder

I entered the field back in the 1970's and guess what? Patents were already there !

While it is true that patent trolling were not considered to be trendy back then, but the existence of patents in itself had already stiffen innovation somewhat

While we geeks and nerds kept on trying out new ideas, the institutions (universities and research labs) we worked for were sweating bricks and had to check with their attorneys to make sure that we were doing did not trespass on somebody else' patents

The idea of patents were good, when it was invented, however, that idea does not suit the present days environment anymore. Due to the abuse and trolling, patents have become a big hindrance to the society to move forward

But then again, I have not hear the arguments about the patriarchy and misogyny for a while so at least it's different agenda based reporting.

Society does not have enough turmoil, so we have to invent and spew more...

Except as I stated to someone else, the system won't change with the same players in the system. No candidates in the last election, or the one before that, or the one before that, ad nauseam, have changing our system on their agendas. Zero, zip, nada, primarily because their livelihood depends on the current broken system. If it's fixed, they lose their jobs (or have a strong chance of doing so). We could use the same exact arguments to discuss term limits, which have also been discussed by the populace but never voted on favorably by the politicians who rely on this broken system for their paychecks.

I surely agree that the current system is horribly broken. Maintaining the system won't "fix" it, so enough people have to vote to change the system in order to invoke changes./p.

If only our Politicians thought this simply, but I do like the idea.

So the US Media and Politicians never switched the blame from the GOP who claimed responsibility for the hack to the DPRK never happened? The shift in blame is all black helicopters and "hookey"? Really now, I think you need a reality check, because this is not a casual link but _WHAT HAPPENED_.

Perhaps you are considering that the CIA did make changes to Sony PR information is also just a casual link, even though the emails prove this. More black helicopters and casual strands right?

Believe everything you are told by our Media, they have never lied before. Same goes for the politicians, and remember Saddam really had mountains of yellow cake and dirty bombs.. GW told you so, and it has to be true.

This is after the fact we are talking about, not what ever fantasy land you pretend to live in. Sony did not have to out their execs, hackers did that for them. The original group that took credit never mentioned either the movie or the DPRK. That was a side show to divert attention away from the content of the emails and put CISPA SOPA back on the political agenda. You are choosing to ignore investigative journalists who do this for a living from The Intercept and Wired. Oh, I know.. according to you Glen Greenwald must just be a 9/11 truther because you say so and correlate anyone that questions Government actions to an easy to play lie card. Pathetic, simply pathetic, reasoning skills you have going on there.

Here is a tidbit, but we can go further. For example Opium production in Afghanistan was prohibited under the Taliban and right before the war Opium production was at record lows. Right after the invasion opium production goes to all time highs and has remained at all time highs ever since. There were plenty of lies regarding nearly every war, it's a question of whether or not there was also enough justification for "bad" to start the war. I don't believe any of our recent wars have such justification, but of course that is my educated opinion.

As to the comment from Halivar, stating that "Sony works for the CIA": That is a goddamn idiotic statement for anyone to make. It does not discount what is obvious and provable collusion between huge corporations and Governments, which we have plenty of _proof_ for in the US. We try to pretty some of it up by labeling it "just lobbying", but in reality it's outright bribery, blackmail, cronyism, and nepotism. The levels of collusion are not just courtesy, it's input to operations in both directions. Whistle blowers from nearly every major "news" outlet have claimed this, and many from Hollywood have made similar claims regarding Hollywood's itinerary and direction for movies. "Oh, they only did that in WW I and WWII" really does not make sense, but this is what people will attempt to claim.

Nowhere do I even imply that this is about money for Sony. This is about demonizing the DPRK, not money. It's about bringing back CISPA/SOPA legislation, and demonizing hackers in general. It's politics, not money driven.

Before you attempt to make a false claim the answer is "N", I'm not a fan of the DPRK Government and don't intend any implication that they are the good guys. Quite the contrary, if everything we are told is true they are a despicable dictatorship. At the same time, lying to topple dictators for a political agenda has not turned out well anywhere else. Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan are easy examples of lies to topple Governments that have been horrific for the populations living in that country. We don't conquer to establish a better Government for them, we topple to destabilize and exploit resources.

Further, we can't topple the DPRK without pissing off China and suffering severe consequences.