It most certainly does not - where did you hear such a thing? There is a steady decline in scores on IQ tests after age 20 or so.

That's what they thought for decades - that intelligence ramped up about linearly until the late teens to early twenties, kneed over, and declined about linearly (though more slowly) until death.

But after IQ tests had been used for a few decades there was a substantial population who had taken IQ tests several times in their lives. Somebody got the bright idea to track the trajectory of individuals as they aged, rather than using different cohorts for each age's scoring, which conflates IQ changes due to aging with IQ difference between generational cohorts.

The results were surprising, and very clear.

The trajectory for individuals was the linear ramp up, knee over, and a gradual, linear, change for the rest of life. But the ramp went UP (about a third as fast as they had previously thought it went DOWN). And it was far more linear than the previous estimates.

Turns out the apparent decline with age was due to a much larger trend of higher IQ scores with later cohorts. Much of psych research since this work has been looking for the causes of the lower IQ in earlier generations: Candidates include improved nutrition (especially eliminating dietary deficiences), better treatments for or prevention of childhood diseases, and so on, better education (in what scores on IQ tests), etc. (One big one turned out to be the elimination of thyroid deficiency by iodizing salt.)

Detailed examination of the effect shows that the high scores aren't rising substantially, but that the lower scores are coming up to approach them - another sign that it was mostly a matter of eliminating brain-harming pathologies rather than a general increase in IQ.

This has been known for decades. Where are you getting the old model? Is it still being taught, after all this time? Or did you see it long ago and miss the later breakthroughs?

I was stunned at the volume (3 liters is a lot), not the spelling. (Easy misunderstanding.)

In all seriousness, you should get yourself checked for diabetes.

For what?

Only if the cost of the fuel cell pack + installation, and the on-going cost of propane (not natural gas??) is cheaper over 3-4 years than the cost of electricity.

In places where power goes out during storms, it might be fruitful to get one anyway.

Unless that path is surfing, living with your parents and getting Food Stamps.

Did I read that correctly? 3 liters of diet coke?

More importantly, did you *write* that correctly?

Given all the problems with the "study", I smell agenda.

But of course.

What else do you let them do after dinner when you also let them have sugar desserts?

Either that, or "experts" in "feelings" guilted them into it.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8747098

The brain as miraculous as it is can only handle a single lifetime of information.

And you have how many multi-lifetime old samples in your research to support this claim.

Come up with a way to give me multiple lifetimes, healthy as I was in my late teens, to see if my brain crashes due to "filling up", and I'm willing to be an experimental subject.

I'm already in my late '60s. I'm also studying for a college degree and getting 4.0 (much better than when I was trying to work my way through college and avoid the draft during the Vietnam era.)

Psych research has shown that intelligence, as measured by I.Q. tests, increases with age. ("Senile dementia" is a handfull of specific diseases, which only a fraction of people get, and eliminating THOSE would obviously be part of "curing" aging.) Meanwhile, the brain's capacity for both memory and processing is very large (as shown by the amount of info people with eidetic memory accumulate, and are able to index and retrieve without apparent problems, over normal life spans.)

So you think there's a limit to how much the brain can handle, a wall we might hit if we cured aging? Let's find out. Bring it on!

Can these tubes also be used to carry the innernet?

Yes - by running fiber along their rights-of-way along with the tranport tube.

Which is exactly how SPRINT got started.

The name is an acronym for Southern Pacific Railroad Internal Network Telecommunications, and dates from the time they upgraded their own along-track communication from microwave to fiber and took advantage of the recent demonopolization of long distance telephone, driven by MCI, to enter the long-distance phone service. But they were already selling other messaging service along their microwave network, as Railroads have been doing since the initial deployment of the telegraph.

Power companies occasionally do this, too.

When you already have a right-of-way and your own communication along it, adding more bandwidth to sell is FAR less expensive than setting up a communications-only standalone company by buying signal-line right-of-way and installing equipment from scratch.

It was thought that the pneumatic tubes could be used for large scale postal delivery, ...

There were plans to do this. But the US Postal Service (then a government department with a legal monopoly on delivering sealed "first class" mail) blocked them, as it had shut down other competing private-enterprise postal services in the past.

Under the current legal regime it might once again be possible. But given the expense of building the infrastructure in the midst of built-up cities (without existing steam tunnels and the like) and the relative cheapness of electronic communication, it seems unlikely to be profitable.