~From: ecltyo@iac.co.jp (Grant Muir)

kazandar@ix.net.com wrote:

>An interesting note: male scientists at one time argued that men had the
>potential to be more intelligent than women because on average their
brains
>were about 10% larger. Last month, a study was published that (without
>getting into the boring details) conclusively proved that women had just
as
>many neurons, and just as many neural connections, as men did. How is that

>possible given that their brains are smaller? Turns out that a woman's
brain
>is actually constructed in a more efficient manner, meaning that less
>'structural' material is required. So the 'lost 10%' is actually the waste

>space saved by the more efficient model.

>The more efficient model...as in, men have Brain 1.0 and women have Brain
1.1
>- the new and improved version. Leads to some rather interesting lines of
>thought, doesn't it? ;-)

You mean there's no upgrade path.? What a con. I want a refund. Ah, but
wait a minute, this is hardware, or at least squishyware[tm], no upgrades.

So, are women's brains RISC brains? It certainly explains all the
compatibility problems between v1.0 & 1.1 (10^8 pts. !!)

I hear that v1.1 can't handle baseball stats very well, much in the same
way that v1.0 doesn't recognize 'Totally lost. Refer to Map error -
L112b4'. Maybe some smart Genetic Engineer can come up with a patch to sort
out the compatibility issues. But let's face it, both versions are still as
buggy as hell.

I'm in a silly mood tonight, and I know who's to blame.

Grant - Member of Scottish.And.Damned.Proud.Of.That.Cabal,(SADPOT.C)
members wanted (Crazed, psychotic, kilt wearing, claymore wielding, haggis
hunting, caber tossing, highland flinging, eightsome reeling, whiskey
drinking, non-underwear wearing[underwear is for big jessies only], nessie
seaching, redhead loving, please can we have a Scottish actor playing a
Scotsman in a movie for once, just *once*, asking, Simple Minds dancing,
types.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------