
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How I Spent My Summer Vacation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techliberation.com/2008/08/29/how-i-spent-my-summer-vacation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techliberation.com/2008/08/29/how-i-spent-my-summer-vacation/</link>
	<description>Keeping politicians&#039; hands off the Net &#38; everything else related to technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: eee_eff</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2008/08/29/how-i-spent-my-summer-vacation/comment-page-1/#comment-66183</link>
		<dc:creator>eee_eff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/?p=12328#comment-66183</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;But this theory doesn’t really explain actual individual instances of the behavior in the present or deviations from it; nor does it have any predictive power.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;No, I would take you to task there, Solveig.  For example, consider two populations of the same species in a changing encvironment, excepting only their behavior, which is one population is varied and the other it is very consistent.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The one that has a wide variety of behavior to chose from, as the environment changes, will adapt more quickly to that changing environemnt.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;He also notes that the theory leaves much unexplained–homosexuality being his choice of example (though how he knows that there is no evolutionary explanation for homosexuality a priori, I cannot imagine; there may very well be one, especially as it is common to many species).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;There have been several posited; the most convincing I&#039;ve read also provided an explanation for the prevalence of bi-sexuality in females and it&#039;s comparative rarity in males; if he&#039;s done such a half-hearted attempt at research to exclude even these, I&#039;ll happily avoid this book.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>But this theory doesn’t really explain actual individual instances of the behavior in the present or deviations from it; nor does it have any predictive power.</i><br /><br />No, I would take you to task there, Solveig.  For example, consider two populations of the same species in a changing encvironment, excepting only their behavior, which is one population is varied and the other it is very consistent.  <br /><br />The one that has a wide variety of behavior to chose from, as the environment changes, will adapt more quickly to that changing environemnt.  <br /><br /><i>He also notes that the theory leaves much unexplained–homosexuality being his choice of example (though how he knows that there is no evolutionary explanation for homosexuality a priori, I cannot imagine; there may very well be one, especially as it is common to many species).</i><br /><br />There have been several posited; the most convincing I&#39;ve read also provided an explanation for the prevalence of bi-sexuality in females and it&#39;s comparative rarity in males; if he&#39;s done such a half-hearted attempt at research to exclude even these, I&#39;ll happily avoid this book.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eee_eff</title>
		<link>http://techliberation.com/2008/08/29/how-i-spent-my-summer-vacation/comment-page-1/#comment-56035</link>
		<dc:creator>eee_eff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:38:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techliberation.com/?p=12328#comment-56035</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;But this theory doesn’t really explain actual individual instances of the behavior in the present or deviations from it; nor does it have any predictive power.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;No, I would take you to task there, Solveig.  For example, consider two populations of the same species in a changing encvironment, excepting only their behavior, which is one population is varied and the other it is very consistent.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The one that has a wide variety of behavior to chose from, as the environment changes, will adapt more quickly to that changing environemnt.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;He also notes that the theory leaves much unexplained–homosexuality being his choice of example (though how he knows that there is no evolutionary explanation for homosexuality a priori, I cannot imagine; there may very well be one, especially as it is common to many species).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;There have been several posited; the most convincing I&#039;ve read also provided an explanation for the prevalence of bi-sexuality in females and it&#039;s comparative rarity in males; if he&#039;s done such a half-hearted attempt at research to exclude even these, I&#039;ll happily avoid this book.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>But this theory doesn’t really explain actual individual instances of the behavior in the present or deviations from it; nor does it have any predictive power.</i><br /><br />No, I would take you to task there, Solveig.  For example, consider two populations of the same species in a changing encvironment, excepting only their behavior, which is one population is varied and the other it is very consistent.  <br /><br />The one that has a wide variety of behavior to chose from, as the environment changes, will adapt more quickly to that changing environemnt.  <br /><br /><i>He also notes that the theory leaves much unexplained–homosexuality being his choice of example (though how he knows that there is no evolutionary explanation for homosexuality a priori, I cannot imagine; there may very well be one, especially as it is common to many species).</i><br /><br />There have been several posited; the most convincing I&#39;ve read also provided an explanation for the prevalence of bi-sexuality in females and it&#39;s comparative rarity in males; if he&#39;s done such a half-hearted attempt at research to exclude even these, I&#39;ll happily avoid this book.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

