Posts with Comments by Charles Iliya Krempeaux
Colour my world
@Kevin said...
"Colour does not exist. Not out in the world at any rate. All that exists in the world is a smooth continuum of light of different wavelengths. Colour is a construction of our brains."
My understanding is that we (humans) don't even see color, but see Metamers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_%28color%29
That we (humans) perceive many different spectral power distribution as the same "color". This is why color printers and color screen are even possible, using things like the RGB, CMYK, YCbCr, etc color spaces. (Computer screens and color printers, in general, don't reproduce the spectral power distribution in nature, but produce a spectral power distribution that is a metamer, or "close" to being a metamer.)
Now, from what I understand, it's even more complex than this, in that depending on what other stimulus we can perceive a spectral power distribution differently. (For example, putting a "color" next to another "color" can have you perceive that color differently.)
(But that's going off on a tangent, so I'll just stop there.)
Who are the living Neandertals?
The "The Ballad Of Chasey Lain", also by the Bloodhound Gang, is pretty funny too...
WARNING... probably NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9fC9aJd-U
R1a1 and the peopling of Eurasia
Razib, you said...
"In Europe the modal frequencies are among Slavic groups, with a high representation among German-speakers"
(Assuming by "German-speakers" you mean Germany....) Wonder how much of that R1a1 got put into Germany when the Russians left Germany during the Second World War?! (The story I've Been told is that there wasn't a virgin left in the country.) There was also the Germanizing of Polish children.
I'm not even sure of the magnitudes of these are, so maybe it's trivial.
"In Europe the modal frequencies are among Slavic groups, with a high representation among German-speakers"
(Assuming by "German-speakers" you mean Germany....) Wonder how much of that R1a1 got put into Germany when the Russians left Germany during the Second World War?! (The story I've Been told is that there wasn't a virgin left in the country.) There was also the Germanizing of Polish children.
I'm not even sure of the magnitudes of these are, so maybe it's trivial.
Less than nations
@Qohelet, you said...
If I'm not mistaken, there are more Irish in the US (UK and Australia, too, likely) than in Ireland.
I think it's similar with the Scottish too. I.e., there's more Scottish in the Canada or the US than in Scotland. (Australia has a lot of them too. But I don't think more than Scotland.)
I also remember hearing before that there are more Luxembourgians in the US than in Luxembourg.
If I'm not mistaken, there are more Irish in the US (UK and Australia, too, likely) than in Ireland.
I think it's similar with the Scottish too. I.e., there's more Scottish in the Canada or the US than in Scotland. (Australia has a lot of them too. But I don't think more than Scotland.)
I also remember hearing before that there are more Luxembourgians in the US than in Luxembourg.
Web 2.0 party is over — you’re going to pay for the news again, and hopefully more
@agnostic, you said...
The business model [of 100% ad revenue] works.No it doesn't. It works for TV and Google's search engine. Facebook and YouTube have had years to turn a profit and have not, despite having a massive installed user base and a reputation as worthwhile things.
I think perhaps I communicated what I was trying to communicate poorly, because I don't think you understood me.
I was NOT trying to say a business model of 100% ad revenue worked for everyone. I was trying to say it worked for SOME people (but not all people). That's what I meant when I said...
The business model works. But it doesn't work for everyone. (I.e., it works for some but not all.)
The business model [of 100% ad revenue] works.No it doesn't. It works for TV and Google's search engine. Facebook and YouTube have had years to turn a profit and have not, despite having a massive installed user base and a reputation as worthwhile things.
I think perhaps I communicated what I was trying to communicate poorly, because I don't think you understood me.
I was NOT trying to say a business model of 100% ad revenue worked for everyone. I was trying to say it worked for SOME people (but not all people). That's what I meant when I said...
The business model works. But it doesn't work for everyone. (I.e., it works for some but not all.)
@agnostic, you said...
This is the first nail in the coffin of Web 2.0, and once the other give-it-away internet companies see how profitable it is to actually -- gasp! -- charge for your product, they will wake up from their pipe dream of growing by attracting a big crowd and pushing ads. YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, perhaps other components of Google, Wikipedia -- they can either charge and profit or get shoved out of the market by those who are growing by charging.
I'll give you a bit of insider knowledge (although a few years old). The problems with MySpace and Facebook is the people who go there just go there to have fun. And in doing that, people aren't interested in ads. They'll sometimes click on "flashy" or "shinny" ads that catch their eyes. But even click those "flashy" or "shinny" ads... they still don't seem to be interested, since they're in the mood for having fun. (And this is even if they normally would be interested in the ad, when they're on sites like MySpace and Facebook, that potential interest is "put on hold".)
YouTube has other problems. The cost of hosting is huge. Also, finding an ad creative that works well in video on the web is still being worked out.
The business model of "pushing ads" does have a product. The product is the users! I.e., you are the product. The business model works. But it doesn't work for everyone. (I.e., it works for some but not all.)
I'm skeptical if the newspapers can keep the audiences they have if they become pay-per-access. If I remember correctly, before the newspapers came online, blogs were much more important. When the newspapers put websites online, many people gravitated to these newspaper websites. If the newspapers turn into pay-per-access, blogs may become more important again.
One thing though... when the advertising industry came online, it shrunk. The reason is that advertisers were finally able to measure if their ads were effective or not! This is a HUGE thing, because before advertisers would put ads in magazines or newspapers and most would not have a clue if the ad was effective or not. These advertisers were wasting their money. The magazines knew it. The newspapers knew it. (In fact they depended on it.) But the advertiser really didn't know. With online advertising, advertisers can measure all sorts of things... and because of that can see what's junk and what isn't.
So... point being with that last paragraph... online, the newspapers can't sell their junk inventory like they could in their paper versions.
This is the first nail in the coffin of Web 2.0, and once the other give-it-away internet companies see how profitable it is to actually -- gasp! -- charge for your product, they will wake up from their pipe dream of growing by attracting a big crowd and pushing ads. YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, perhaps other components of Google, Wikipedia -- they can either charge and profit or get shoved out of the market by those who are growing by charging.
I'll give you a bit of insider knowledge (although a few years old). The problems with MySpace and Facebook is the people who go there just go there to have fun. And in doing that, people aren't interested in ads. They'll sometimes click on "flashy" or "shinny" ads that catch their eyes. But even click those "flashy" or "shinny" ads... they still don't seem to be interested, since they're in the mood for having fun. (And this is even if they normally would be interested in the ad, when they're on sites like MySpace and Facebook, that potential interest is "put on hold".)
YouTube has other problems. The cost of hosting is huge. Also, finding an ad creative that works well in video on the web is still being worked out.
The business model of "pushing ads" does have a product. The product is the users! I.e., you are the product. The business model works. But it doesn't work for everyone. (I.e., it works for some but not all.)
I'm skeptical if the newspapers can keep the audiences they have if they become pay-per-access. If I remember correctly, before the newspapers came online, blogs were much more important. When the newspapers put websites online, many people gravitated to these newspaper websites. If the newspapers turn into pay-per-access, blogs may become more important again.
One thing though... when the advertising industry came online, it shrunk. The reason is that advertisers were finally able to measure if their ads were effective or not! This is a HUGE thing, because before advertisers would put ads in magazines or newspapers and most would not have a clue if the ad was effective or not. These advertisers were wasting their money. The magazines knew it. The newspapers knew it. (In fact they depended on it.) But the advertiser really didn't know. With online advertising, advertisers can measure all sorts of things... and because of that can see what's junk and what isn't.
So... point being with that last paragraph... online, the newspapers can't sell their junk inventory like they could in their paper versions.
Wars we know
@Razib, you said...
if someone sees the murder then you're on the hook for murder instead of robbery. so it doesn't *necessarily* make rational sense.
Perhaps I did a poor job of expressing what I was trying to express, but by "make sense" I didn't mean rational[1]. I just meant you could understand their reasoning, without necessarily justifying it or necessarily sharing their assumptions, and without (necessarily) expecting an optimal choice.
Based on reading your blog for a while, I believe you also believe that people, in general, aren't rational.
However, even despite this I think there is some "method to their madness" (even if it is not optimal).
And given this, I think there is value in trying to understand the "Nazi reasoning", even if you don't agree with it, and not just trivialize it. (Not saying you were doing that Razib. But that was part of what my original comment was about.)
so in the case of the germans vs. the russians, in world war i the russian army collapsed. in world war ii mass executions & starvations by the germans of prisoners of war, and guaranteed liquidation of officers, meant of course that the red army had no option but victory.
similarly, the assyrians and the persians both had empires based on military force. but in hindsight one could make that the more thorough organized terror and brutality which characterized the assyrian order made their polity more brittle to an exogenous shock. not only did the persian empire last longer, but it managed to survive conquest and reemerge a second time in the form of the parthians & sassanids.
in the eastern front the germans in world war ii lacked the full portfolio of choices available to expanding powers, in particular co-option and assimilation as the "carrot" to the "stick" of extermination. extermination wasn't the stick, it was the whole point of the game. a modus vivendi such as brest-litovsk was impossible because of the ends aimed for (evident in the rejection of truces which the soviets offered), which naturally reduced the likelihood of success when you look at the topline population & raw material data which would be relevant to a war of attrition/extermination. killing tens of millions of slavs in a war of extermination *or* a german empire to the urals might be possible, but the combination of the two is probably not likely.
I'd agree that given the environment the Nazis were in, that there probably wasn't an optimal solution, given their two goals.[2]
__________________________________________________
[1] Because I've found that different people seem to mean something different by the word "rational" than others, I'll point out that I am assuming you mean "rational" in the sense of an objectively most optimal decision. (And thus my comments reflect this assumption.)
More....
if someone sees the murder then you're on the hook for murder instead of robbery. so it doesn't *necessarily* make rational sense.
Perhaps I did a poor job of expressing what I was trying to express, but by "make sense" I didn't mean rational[1]. I just meant you could understand their reasoning, without necessarily justifying it or necessarily sharing their assumptions, and without (necessarily) expecting an optimal choice.
Based on reading your blog for a while, I believe you also believe that people, in general, aren't rational.
However, even despite this I think there is some "method to their madness" (even if it is not optimal).
And given this, I think there is value in trying to understand the "Nazi reasoning", even if you don't agree with it, and not just trivialize it. (Not saying you were doing that Razib. But that was part of what my original comment was about.)
so in the case of the germans vs. the russians, in world war i the russian army collapsed. in world war ii mass executions & starvations by the germans of prisoners of war, and guaranteed liquidation of officers, meant of course that the red army had no option but victory.
similarly, the assyrians and the persians both had empires based on military force. but in hindsight one could make that the more thorough organized terror and brutality which characterized the assyrian order made their polity more brittle to an exogenous shock. not only did the persian empire last longer, but it managed to survive conquest and reemerge a second time in the form of the parthians & sassanids.
in the eastern front the germans in world war ii lacked the full portfolio of choices available to expanding powers, in particular co-option and assimilation as the "carrot" to the "stick" of extermination. extermination wasn't the stick, it was the whole point of the game. a modus vivendi such as brest-litovsk was impossible because of the ends aimed for (evident in the rejection of truces which the soviets offered), which naturally reduced the likelihood of success when you look at the topline population & raw material data which would be relevant to a war of attrition/extermination. killing tens of millions of slavs in a war of extermination *or* a german empire to the urals might be possible, but the combination of the two is probably not likely.
I'd agree that given the environment the Nazis were in, that there probably wasn't an optimal solution, given their two goals.[2]
__________________________________________________
[1] Because I've found that different people seem to mean something different by the word "rational" than others, I'll point out that I am assuming you mean "rational" in the sense of an objectively most optimal decision. (And thus my comments reflect this assumption.)
More....
@Don McArthur, said...
"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense."
- Tom ClancyI think it is a big disservice to perpetuate that most the things the Nazis did didn't make sense.
And it's not to justify what they did. But it makes sense in the same way that it makes sense that a mugger might murder his victim to make it so the victim can't tell anyone about it. (I.e., it's still immoral, but it does make sense.)
For the problem with trivializing their motives is to make it more difficult, if not impossible, to learn from that history which could make it more likely that such events could happen again. (After all, if you don't understand it the what was really going on how will you be able to recognize it if it happens again?)
"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense."
- Tom ClancyI think it is a big disservice to perpetuate that most the things the Nazis did didn't make sense.
And it's not to justify what they did. But it makes sense in the same way that it makes sense that a mugger might murder his victim to make it so the victim can't tell anyone about it. (I.e., it's still immoral, but it does make sense.)
For the problem with trivializing their motives is to make it more difficult, if not impossible, to learn from that history which could make it more likely that such events could happen again. (After all, if you don't understand it the what was really going on how will you be able to recognize it if it happens again?)
What does the decline in homicide rates look like?
@TGGP, you said...
Drug dealers, for instance, are a common target for robbery who are especially unlikely to contact the police.My impression has been that drug dealers are usually taxed. Not legal taxation, but taxation by gang members. (I.e., gang members will take so much money from the drug dealers that operate on the territory they claim as theirs.)
(Assuming you are talking about this) if you are going to include this a robbery, then shouldn't you count legal taxation as robbery too?
Drug dealers, for instance, are a common target for robbery who are especially unlikely to contact the police.My impression has been that drug dealers are usually taxed. Not legal taxation, but taxation by gang members. (I.e., gang members will take so much money from the drug dealers that operate on the territory they claim as theirs.)
(Assuming you are talking about this) if you are going to include this a robbery, then shouldn't you count legal taxation as robbery too?
@moldbug, you said...
Indeed. And if you'll permit a bit more conjecture, I wonder if this might have a little something to do with male homosexuality rates. Was there anything else queer about those tame silver foxes, besides their blotchy coats and floppy ears?If you are asking about the animals' sexual preferences, I don't remember reading anything about it either way.
Male feminization is a pretty quick-n-dirty way for evolution to select against aggression - but get the wrong mix of alleles, and you're playing for the other team. Maybe niceness, as well as IQ, has gotten a bit of "overclocking." Just a thought...
How do you see IQ relating to tameness and male feminization?
Indeed. And if you'll permit a bit more conjecture, I wonder if this might have a little something to do with male homosexuality rates. Was there anything else queer about those tame silver foxes, besides their blotchy coats and floppy ears?If you are asking about the animals' sexual preferences, I don't remember reading anything about it either way.
Male feminization is a pretty quick-n-dirty way for evolution to select against aggression - but get the wrong mix of alleles, and you're playing for the other team. Maybe niceness, as well as IQ, has gotten a bit of "overclocking." Just a thought...
How do you see IQ relating to tameness and male feminization?
If you'll permit a bit of conjecture.... Might I suggest that perhaps a kind of human version of the Tame Silver Fox has been going on.
If there was Anthropometric data available perhaps this could be tested.[1]
___________________________________
[1] This would assume that "tamed" humans would be physically more juvenilized.
If there was Anthropometric data available perhaps this could be tested.[1]
___________________________________
[1] This would assume that "tamed" humans would be physically more juvenilized.
Male life expectancy, the story of region & income
@Ikram, you said...
I don't know the composition of British immigration to Canada -- I'll see if I have time to look it up. I do know that Canada had the largest Orange Order in the world up to the Thirties, and Toronto had the world's biggest Orangeman's parade (today, the largest parade in Toronto is Caribana, North America's biggest Carribean festival).I think it would interesting to explore the European descent (that I expect to probably be mostly British descent) from the time of Rupert's Land and the Hudson Bay Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert%27s_Land
I'd imagine that this is one of the oldest lines of British descent in North America. Or in Canada at least.
(I have some descent from this from my Father's Mother side. Looking at what I know of that part of my family tree, it's Scottish. But I don't know if that's representative of those people, in general, from the Rupert's Land and HBC era.)
I don't know the composition of British immigration to Canada -- I'll see if I have time to look it up. I do know that Canada had the largest Orange Order in the world up to the Thirties, and Toronto had the world's biggest Orangeman's parade (today, the largest parade in Toronto is Caribana, North America's biggest Carribean festival).I think it would interesting to explore the European descent (that I expect to probably be mostly British descent) from the time of Rupert's Land and the Hudson Bay Company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert%27s_Land
I'd imagine that this is one of the oldest lines of British descent in North America. Or in Canada at least.
(I have some descent from this from my Father's Mother side. Looking at what I know of that part of my family tree, it's Scottish. But I don't know if that's representative of those people, in general, from the Rupert's Land and HBC era.)
"being close to Canada is good for a county's average life expectancy"
If this life expectancy phenomena is due to German vs British descent, as I think you are suggesting here...
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/07/dont-blame-canada.php
... then I'd expect to see a "hard" change in life expectancies if the map was continued into Canada, since Canada tends to be dominated by people of British descent in many parts of Canada...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Censusdivisions-ethnic.png
If this life expectancy phenomena is due to German vs British descent, as I think you are suggesting here...
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/07/dont-blame-canada.php
... then I'd expect to see a "hard" change in life expectancies if the map was continued into Canada, since Canada tends to be dominated by people of British descent in many parts of Canada...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Censusdivisions-ethnic.png
Bad reason vs. bad facts
"but the utilization of the GSS or WVS interface hasn't spread. Why? One friend suggested that perhaps people fear what they might find out!"
My experience when I first got into GSS was that digging throgh the GSS variable to find interesting GSS variable or to find a GSS variable you can use to come up with an answer to your question can be a big chore.
Not to mention that sometimes there just isn't a GSS variable that will let you come up with an answer to your question.
My experience when I first got into GSS was that digging throgh the GSS variable to find interesting GSS variable or to find a GSS variable you can use to come up with an answer to your question can be a big chore.
Not to mention that sometimes there just isn't a GSS variable that will let you come up with an answer to your question.
The problem of crap
@Brett Stevens, you said...
The problem with links or emails is that they're one-dimensional; they need to be tagged or categorized before they're useful. In addition, any service with either finite resources or a desire to make money should prioritize that which is popular. However, the problem is that if you let popularity alone rule a service, you end up with lolcats and unscientific, popular "truths." I guess as in all questions human the answer is to have leaders who can tell the difference between appearance and discernible reality to sort the crap from the gold.Or you could just set up a trust network, and each person can "decide for themselves" (as calculated from their trust network) what is "crap" and what is "gold". (Or at least be presented with what is "crap" and what is "gold".)
Something in the line of: http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html
The problem with links or emails is that they're one-dimensional; they need to be tagged or categorized before they're useful. In addition, any service with either finite resources or a desire to make money should prioritize that which is popular. However, the problem is that if you let popularity alone rule a service, you end up with lolcats and unscientific, popular "truths." I guess as in all questions human the answer is to have leaders who can tell the difference between appearance and discernible reality to sort the crap from the gold.Or you could just set up a trust network, and each person can "decide for themselves" (as calculated from their trust network) what is "crap" and what is "gold". (Or at least be presented with what is "crap" and what is "gold".)
Something in the line of: http://www.advogato.org/trust-metric.html
Perhaps people like to memorize stuff?
I'm sure I'm not the only one who memorized umpteen digits of Pi when they were young :-) [1]
Does anyone know what different kinds of measures of memories there are? (We have different kinds of measures for intelligence. Like IQ, Wonderlic, etc. Are there different kinds of measures for memory?) [2]
And given these measures, are there stats on how different populations do on these measures?
_____
[1] Not something that I use when I'm trying to impress a lady of course :-) But there's a certain class of people who get impressed when they realize I'm not just making the digits up as I go, and that I actually reciting the digits of Pi.
[2] When I was a teenager (or maybe younger), I figured that memory was part of what people interpreted as "being smart". (Not the only component though. But part of it.)
Does anyone know what different kinds of measures of memories there are? (We have different kinds of measures for intelligence. Like IQ, Wonderlic, etc. Are there different kinds of measures for memory?) [2]
And given these measures, are there stats on how different populations do on these measures?
_____
[1] Not something that I use when I'm trying to impress a lady of course :-) But there's a certain class of people who get impressed when they realize I'm not just making the digits up as I go, and that I actually reciting the digits of Pi.
[2] When I was a teenager (or maybe younger), I figured that memory was part of what people interpreted as "being smart". (Not the only component though. But part of it.)
Ethnic America, 1830
In my experience, I think most people, in common language, would label this as "culture" instead of ethnicity. (Even though it is correct to label it as ethnicity. And probably sloppy thinking not to recognize this as ethnicity.)
(Let me tell a little story to elaborate the point....)
Mainly growing up in a particular suburb of Vancouver and now living in the city of Vancouver, I know that the people in that suburb have a different culture than that of the people in the city of Vancouver. (For one, it's a much more martial culture in that suburb. But that's not the only thing that makes them different. There's a lot more to it.) It's also common for people in each of the groups to think of themselves as being different from the other groups. (I'm also aware of the slurs, jokes, and sentiments that each group has perpetuates regarding the other group.)
I think it would be accurate to identify 2 ethnicities here. One being the people in that particular suburb. And the other people the people in the city. (Probably it's more complex than that... in that there's probably more than 2 ethnicities here, but lets keep things simple.) However, I don't think it would be common for members of the populations to identify these as ethnicities. Even though that's what they really are. They'd just say they have different cultures (or even different sub-cultures).
For a little extra information.... From a morphological point of view, the groups are even seen different. (Although I haven't gone out and done any kind of survey or formal study) my personal observation is that mesomorphs are much more common in the suburbs, while ectomorphs are much more common in the city. Even though both are derived from mainly European stock.
(Let me tell a little story to elaborate the point....)
Mainly growing up in a particular suburb of Vancouver and now living in the city of Vancouver, I know that the people in that suburb have a different culture than that of the people in the city of Vancouver. (For one, it's a much more martial culture in that suburb. But that's not the only thing that makes them different. There's a lot more to it.) It's also common for people in each of the groups to think of themselves as being different from the other groups. (I'm also aware of the slurs, jokes, and sentiments that each group has perpetuates regarding the other group.)
I think it would be accurate to identify 2 ethnicities here. One being the people in that particular suburb. And the other people the people in the city. (Probably it's more complex than that... in that there's probably more than 2 ethnicities here, but lets keep things simple.) However, I don't think it would be common for members of the populations to identify these as ethnicities. Even though that's what they really are. They'd just say they have different cultures (or even different sub-cultures).
For a little extra information.... From a morphological point of view, the groups are even seen different. (Although I haven't gone out and done any kind of survey or formal study) my personal observation is that mesomorphs are much more common in the suburbs, while ectomorphs are much more common in the city. Even though both are derived from mainly European stock.
Will the recession bring anti-globalization protests back?
@kurt9, you said...
Also, why protest when you can start your own business?While I would likely agree that that is a virtuous way to think, I doubt most people think like that. It's not (in this context) about how we think they should think... it's about how they actually think.
Also, why protest when you can start your own business?While I would likely agree that that is a virtuous way to think, I doubt most people think like that. It's not (in this context) about how we think they should think... it's about how they actually think.
So we are seeing the Anti-foreign sentiments. Something else to note is that we are also seeing the Make-work sentiments, the Anti-Market sentiments, and the Pessimistic sentiments.[1][2]
_________________________
[1] Hat tip Bryan Caplan
[2] I can list examples of each. But if you keep up with the news you've probably already seen plenty of examples.
_________________________
[1] Hat tip Bryan Caplan
[2] I can list examples of each. But if you keep up with the news you've probably already seen plenty of examples.
Blue-eyed lemurs: not HERC2
HERC2 isn't the only mechanism for blue eyes in humans though, is it? For example, refer to this paper...
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2045q6234h66p744/fulltext.html
Assuming I'm read it correctly, blue eyes with brown spots doesn't seem to be caused by HERC2.
(I'm drawing it from the part, in the paper linked to above, that says, "Blue with brown spots (with brown) scored as ?unknown? in the linkage and association studies.")
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2045q6234h66p744/fulltext.html
Assuming I'm read it correctly, blue eyes with brown spots doesn't seem to be caused by HERC2.
(I'm drawing it from the part, in the paper linked to above, that says, "Blue with brown spots (with brown) scored as ?unknown? in the linkage and association studies.")
@Sandgroper, you said...
AFAIK, Siamese are the only cat breed that you can train to wear a collar and go for a walk on a leash. They really are outliers.Reminds me of the Tame Silver Fox study. Those things were tame too, and some developed blue eyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_Tame_Silver_Fox.jpg (Blue eyes aren't a "normal" eye color for foxes, AFAIK. But I'm not an expert on foxes.)
AFAIK, Siamese are the only cat breed that you can train to wear a collar and go for a walk on a leash. They really are outliers.Reminds me of the Tame Silver Fox study. Those things were tame too, and some developed blue eyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_Tame_Silver_Fox.jpg (Blue eyes aren't a "normal" eye color for foxes, AFAIK. But I'm not an expert on foxes.)
Recent Comments