You hit it right on.

I think many admins are ok with the "reboot fix" technique, because they don't work in high-stakes environments. If Bob in Accounting's windows desktop goes down twice this week due to the same issue, who cares (just reboot it again). The same goes with most non-mission-critical services (and those without strict SLA). The same can sometimes also apply in vastly-redundant heterogeneous environments, where having one application instance go down is not a big deal since you have 1000s more identical instances (e.g. content delivery networks, etc; unless the bug ends up taking down everything!).

That approach can't be applied to high-stakes environments, where peoples' lives or money depends on bug-free operation. Try explaining to management why markets have been halted several times this week due to a problem that could've been fixed the first time with a little bit of investigation.

Sweeping important problems under the rug is a great way to drive customers to your competitors.

I have a KRK set (2x Rokit 5" G1 + 1x 10S G2) which is awesome but pricey.

However I also have a pair of M-Audio BX5a, which are $200 for a PAIR, and sound extremely good for the price (way better than other M-Audio gear I've tried -- I was very surprised). They don't have as flat frequency response as the KRKs, however they nonetheless sound very good for just listening (not necessarily for audio mixing, though). I like them so much that I use them as my main system on my computer desk (the KRKs are a bit too big and powerful for being 2ft from my head!)

Of course the BX5a lack the extreme low frequency range, so a subwoofer (preferably with built in crossover) is definitely recommended. I have mine paired with a KRK 10s G2, which is overkill but sounds great. If I could find a smaller sub, I would've gotten it. However it seems like all the studio monitor subs are 10", and the M-Audio & Behringer subs are just as pricey as the KRK (so there's no competition -- the KRK is the best deal by far).

Studies suggest that there is a potential correlation between brain-body size ratio and intelligence. While this link is not definite, it's certainly is somewhat meaningful

The wikipedia page is a decent place to start for a general overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio

The article itself points out that the conclusion is NOT that lizards are smarter than birds, but rather that this particular lizard is extremely smart:

This study shows that anole lizards are particularly quick learners when it comes to this type of test (quickly learning under which cap the food is located).

I don't think that speed of learning is necessarily definitely correlated to capacity for learning; it's possible that a parrot might learn more slowly than this lizard, but might still eventually be able to achieve more extensive and higher levels of cognitive processing.

Certain birds (parrots in particular) actually have the capability to count; have object permanence (understanding that an object still exists even when it is out of range of senses such as sight/smell/etc); have self-awareness (understanding that a mirror is showing an image of themselves, not another animal); construct and utilize tools in indirect arrangements (e.g. use one tool to obtain another tool, which is then used to complete a task); learn by observation; and organize in complex social structures with intricate communication. These are all cognitive abilities that are found in early human childhood development.

That said, this lizard is pretty cool! I kinda want one now...