Jazz Guitar
Learn how to play jazz guitar with our eBook bundle
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 108
  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Southeast US
    Posts
    951
    Quote Originally Posted by joe2758 View Post
    I can’t speak for the rest of you, but I was awarded a “Science Expert” certificate in 4th grade. So I guess you could say I don’t have anything to worry about on my end.
    In the 11th grade, I was awarded “outstanding physics student” for my high school. Unfortunately, I think my being given that award said more about the caliber of physics student at my school than it said about my abilities at physics.

  2. #32
    I would say the same, but you really should have seen my volcano
    White belt
    My Youtube

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Greenacres, FL
    Posts
    11,600
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
    I think the concept of intelligence has to grow to suit the times.
    I think the standard definition of intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
    "I know nothing about the subject, and despite that have no opinion." Eugene Volokh

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    I think the standard definition of intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
    Perhaps I mean the what acquired knowledge and skills are valued, then.
    Jeff Matz, Jazz Guitar:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/jeffreymatz

    "Of what use is a dream, if not a blueprint for courageous action?"

    --Adam West, as Batman, 1966.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Greenacres, FL
    Posts
    11,600
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
    Perhaps I mean the what acquired knowledge and skills are valued, then.
    I think the basics things tested for remain the same: short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability, and spatial recognition. It's not a test of what you have learned but rather of the capacity to learn.

    People who have learned much about many things demonstrate an ability to learn...much about many things. ;o)
    "I know nothing about the subject, and despite that have no opinion." Eugene Volokh

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    For an opposing view, see Steven Pinker's "Enlightenment Now." He argues, in a data-rich analysis, that>>> life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide.<<<<
    If it was written recently then I won't have to read it. It's rubbish. Violence in the world has increased rapidly in the last few years, no question about it. Peace? What peace? Safety? What safety? Terrorism (Islamic mostly) has increased a hundredfold. It's spread all over the world.

    Happiness? How does he know? Happy people don't go around with a badge. Or maybe he means people who've got what they want materially and call that happiness. Good for them :-)

    I will read it, of course, and with an open mind, because you've suggested it but I don't hold out much hope of agreeing with him as things stand.

    (edit)

    Oh, it's a book. But there's a Wiki page on it. I'll read that, and some reviews :-)

  7. #37
    Mark -

    Well, that was quick. I won't go through what I've read.

    I'm not interested in comparative happiness. Saying we're 'happier now than we were before' is meaningless to me. It's only the sick who measure their well-being in terms of yesterday. The person who says 'I'm better today than I was yesterday' is still unwell.

    I wish we'd realise that!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    North Coast Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,704
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    I think the basics things tested for remain the same: short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability, and spatial recognition. It's not a test of what you have learned but rather of the capacity to learn.

    People who have learned much about many things demonstrate an ability to learn...much about many things. ;o)
    My personal take on intelligence has to include the ability to recognize, analyze, and devise solutions (whole or partial) to a problem or groups of problems (they tend to travel in packs). The process is iterative and likely endless, but you've got to start somewhere. A "problem" may be a threat to life, or limb; a kink, bottleneck, or other fly in the ointment; or the vision that something can be improved; or even the itch to create something new or fresh just for fun.
    Best regards, k

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Hill Country
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    Mark -

    Well, that was quick. I won't go through what I've read.

    I'm not interested in comparative happiness. Saying we're 'happier now than we were before' is meaningless to me. It's only the sick who measure their well-being in terms of yesterday. The person who says 'I'm better today than I was yesterday' is still unwell.

    I wish we'd realise that!
    I think when you look back, say, a thousand years, you see a drastic qualitative improvement in the quality of life for what is actually a much larger population. Of course things aren't perfect, and likely never will be. And of course we face dangers that people then didn't.

    But that's no reason to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can, should, and are still striving to improve the lot of folks the world over. And there's nothing wrong with looking back and taking note of where we've made a difference, and where we still need to do much work.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Greenacres, FL
    Posts
    11,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus View Post
    I think when you look back, say, a thousand years, you see a drastic qualitative improvement in the quality of life for what is actually a much larger population. Of course things aren't perfect, and likely never will be. And of course we face dangers that people then didn't.
    One need not go back nearly that far. Since 1800, global GDP has skyrocketed. It was pretty much a flat line for the 1800 years before that. From 90% of the world living in extreme poverty (-and all that entails) to only 10% is a huge advance.

    There's a neat page called The Visual History of World Poverty that is worth checking out.
    "I know nothing about the subject, and despite that have no opinion." Eugene Volokh

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Greenacres, FL
    Posts
    11,600

    Another article on the same research

    Study: IQ Scores Are Falling Due to Environmental Factors | Time


    Interesting quote: “It’s not that dumb people are having more kids than smart people, to put it crudely,” Rogeburg told CNN. “It’s something to do with the environment, because we’re seeing the same differences within families.”
    "I know nothing about the subject, and despite that have no opinion." Eugene Volokh

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Hill Country
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    One need not go back nearly that far. Since 1800, global GDP has skyrocketed. It was pretty much a flat line for the 1800 years before that. From 90% of the world living in extreme poverty (-and all that entails) to only 10% is a huge advance.

    There's a neat page called The Visual History of World Poverty that is worth checking out.
    Sure, even the last two centuries have seen smallpox and polio largely defeated, slavery cornered, cancer in retreat, hunger being addressed by advanced agricultural management, and a slowly-dawning understanding that the most powerful weapons aren't the most useful.

    To be sure, advancing technology has presented us with difficulties -- climate change, pollution, deforestation, all based upon the population growth that our advances have allowed. That population growth is the crucial issue facing us, but even then we're starting to have an understanding of the interaction between GDP and childbirth; studies seem to indicate that as nations increase their wealth, birth-rates drop. It seems that if we work at expanding the economic well-being of people the world over, we may have one tool that can help with those issues.

    And in all likelihood, we will follow 99% of the other species that have ever lived into extinction, our best efforts notwithstanding.

    In the scheme of things, kids walking around with smart phones strikes me as a minor gripe. I doubt they will be the cause of our demise, myself.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Greenacres, FL
    Posts
    11,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus View Post
    That population growth is the crucial issue facing us, but even then we're starting to have an understanding of the interaction between GDP and childbirth; studies seem to indicate that as nations increase their wealth, birth-rates drop. It seems that if we work at expanding the economic well-being of people the world over, we may have one tool that can help with those issues.

    And in all likelihood, we will follow 99% of the other species that have ever lived into extinction, our best efforts notwithstanding.

    In the scheme of things, kids walking around with smart phones strikes me as a minor gripe. I doubt they will be the cause of our demise, myself.
    I'm with you about the increase in overall wealth. Pinker has said he gets pushback on this from some other Liberals. (He calls himself one, always has.) They don't seem to want to see any good come from wealth. (Bono has said the same thing about ending poverty. Some people just don't want to allow that any good could come from capitalism.)
    "I know nothing about the subject, and despite that have no opinion." Eugene Volokh

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    Study: IQ Scores Are Falling Due to Environmental Factors | Time


    Interesting quote: “It’s not that dumb people are having more kids than smart people, to put it crudely,” Rogeburg told CNN. “It’s something to do with the environment, because we’re seeing the same differences within families.”
    the "environment" - less reading was cited as an environmental factor.

    I'll buy that. Fewer mental exercises lead to lower mental strength. I'll wager that this study in Norway could be repeated for the US with even more dramatic results.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    3,060
    Back in the day we used to talk about microevolution and macroevolution.

    Change in intelligence however it is measured due to environmental factors would be the former. Happens relatively quickly, i.e., over a generation or two. I guess the Flynn effect would be an example of this.

    Macroevolution takes more than a few generations, in fact takes thousands if not tens of thousands of years.

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    I'm with you about the increase in overall wealth. Pinker has said he gets pushback on this from some other Liberals. (He calls himself one, always has.) They don't seem to want to see any good come from wealth. (Bono has said the same thing about ending poverty. Some people just don't want to allow that any good could come from capitalism.)
    Personally, I have no interest in economics whatsoever. Intelligence and happiness have nothing to do with wealth. Some of the poorer people are far happier than those with lots of money. Money can become a dreadful burden, especially a ton of it. Obviously we need some money for food, clothing, and the necessities of life, but it's simply a convenience, never an end in itself.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Hill Country
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    I'm with you about the increase in overall wealth. Pinker has said he gets pushback on this from some other Liberals. (He calls himself one, always has.) They don't seem to want to see any good come from wealth. (Bono has said the same thing about ending poverty. Some people just don't want to allow that any good could come from capitalism.)
    Unfortunately for them it's a well-documented relationship. There is an essentially inverse ratio between per-capita GDP rate in a given country and live births per 100,000 in that same country. There are several hypotheses attempting to explain why that might be, the most popular of which is that in a poor society, multiple children may be seen (consciously or not) as a sort of retirement insurance. There's also the fact that in poorer societies, neonatal and childhood deaths are typically more prevalent.

    The difficulty arises because nowadays wealth is usually increased by industrial or post-industrial means, meaning that we still face matters like pollution and resource depletion.
    Last edited by Thumpalumpacus; 06-16-2018 at 08:42 AM.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Hill Country
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff View Post
    Back in the day we used to talk about microevolution and macroevolution.

    Change in intelligence however it is measured due to environmental factors would be the former. Happens relatively quickly, i.e., over a generation or two. I guess the Flynn effect would be an example of this.

    Macroevolution takes more than a few generations, in fact takes thousands if not tens of thousands of years.
    I disagree. Evolution happens in the genome. If the drop of intelligence is due to environmental factors (say, lead in the environment, or absence of a rich learning environment) that expression in the person in question says nothing about their genetic proclivity towards or away from intelligence. All evolution (and micro- and macro- is really an artificial divide) is defined as a change in the alleles in a given species over time (alleles being various genotypes). Unless and until the environment influences the reproductive success of a large number of a population, any environmental changes are just that: environmental.

    Gould and others in the Punctuated Equilibrium school of thought posit that genetic evolution can happen quickly, in the space of generations -- and with some simpler species (such as the guppies you mentioned upthread, or the cichlids in Lake Victoria, or the spotted moths of 19th-century England) such evolution has been observed. And though those changes occurred quickly, and were driven by the changes in the environments, they are neither micro- nor macro-evolution. They are simply evolution occurring as a species adapts to changes in its environment due to differential reproduction.

    Put another way, there is no known mechanism (aside from extinction) which prevents "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution".

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus View Post
    Unfortunately for them it's a well-documented relationship. There is an essentially inverse ratio between per-capita GPD rate in a given country and live births per 100,000 in that same country. There are several hypotheses attempting to explain why that might be, the most popular of which is that in a poor society, multiple children may be seen (consciously or not) as a sort of retirement insurance. There's also the fact that in poorer societies, neonatal and childhood deaths are typically more prevalent.

    The difficulty arises because nowadays wealth is usually increased by industrial or post-industrial means, meaning that we still face matter like pollution and resource depletion.
    The most likely explanations are religious mandates that emphasize many children, and lack of access to birth control--the 2 are related.

    From the World Health Organization website:

    Global unmet need for contraception

    214 million women of reproductive age in developing countries who want to avoid pregnancy are not using a modern contraceptive method. Reasons for this include:


    • limited choice of methods;
    • limited access to contraception, particularly among young people, poorer segments of populations, or unmarried people;
    • fear or experience of side-effects;
    • cultural or religious opposition;
    • poor quality of available services;
    • users and providers bias
    • gender-based barriers.


    The unmet need for contraception remains too high. This inequity is fuelled by both a growing population, and a shortage of family planning services. In Africa, 24.2% of women of reproductive age have an unmet need for modern contraception. In Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean – regions with relatively high contraceptive prevalence – the levels of unmet need are 10.2 % and 10.7%, respectively. (Family planning/Contraception)

    The other factors mentioned above are also relevant as well.

    It's no mystery than in developed countries, a majority of families choose birth control whenever possible.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus View Post
    I disagree. Evolution happens in the genome. If the drop of intelligence is due to environmental factors (say, lead in the environment, or absence of a rich learning environment) that expression in the person in question says nothing about their genetic proclivity towards or away from intelligence. All evolution (and micro- and macro- is really an artificial divide) is defined as a change in the alleles in a given species over time (alleles being various genotypes). Unless and until the environment influences the reproductive success of a large number of a population, any environmental changes are just that: environmental.

    Gould and others in the Punctuated Equilibrium school of thought posit that genetic evolution can happen quickly, in the space of generations -- and with some simpler species (such as the guppies you mentioned upthread, or the cichlids in Lake Victoria, or the spotted moths of 19th-century England) such evolution has been observed. And though those changes occurred quickly, and were driven by the changes in the environments, they are neither micro- nor macro-evolution. They are simply evolution occurring as a species adapts to changes in its environment due to differential reproduction.

    Put another way, there is no known mechanism (aside from extinction) which prevents "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution".
    I agree with the last statement, and I admit I am a few, ahem, years out from a good knowledge of the details of evolution. (I may do a little reading and get back with you...)

    I will point out that intelligence, however defined, is not a matter of a couple of genes. It's very complex--maybe the most complex system in the human animal. Personally I think we have had the potential for high intelligence for 10's of thousands of years. Its expression (a genetic term) depends upon many environmental factors, as you point out.

    I don't think there is evidence for major genetic shifts regarding intelligence in humans, but I'm open to new information.

    Only slightly off-topic there's a fascinating book I was obsessed with in college by Julian Jaynes:

    The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind: Julian Jaynes: 0046442057073: Amazon.com: Books

    It focuses on the evolution of consciousness and posits this only occurred in the last 3000 years or so. Before that, people were not really "conscious", but driven by primitive voices in their head that told them what to do, i.e., build that pyramid.

    I talked to my daughter about it fairly recently--she was a Psych major who now is doing psychology research--and she said it wasn't considered a serious theory these days.
    Last edited by Doctor Jeff; 06-16-2018 at 08:20 AM.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Hill Country
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff View Post
    I agree with the last statement, and I admit I am a few, ahem, years out from a good knowledge of the details of evolution. (I may do a little reading and get back with you...)

    I will point out that intelligence, however defined, is not a matter of a couple of genes. It's very complex--maybe the most complex system in the human animal. Personally I think we have had the potential for high intelligence for 10's of thousands of years. Its expression (a genetic term) depends upon many environmental factors, as you point out.
    Absolutely. I don't think there's very many human behaviors at all that are solely genetic in derivation ... especially something so complex as intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff View Post
    I don't think there is evidence for major genetic shifts regarding intelligence in humans, but I'm open to new information.
    The structure of the brain has certainly evolved in order to accommodate higher intelligence -- the cerebral cortex in humans is larger as a proportion of the brain than it is in most other mammals, and studies seem to indicate that that is where those thought processes we call intelligence occur. That would obviously involve genetics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff View Post
    Only slightly off-topic there's a fascinating book I was obsessed with in college by Julian Jaynes:

    The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind: Julian Jaynes: 0046442057073: Amazon.com: Books

    It focuses on the evolution of consciousness and posits this only occurred in the last 3000 years or so. Before that, people were not really "conscious", but driven by primitive voices in their head that told them what to do, i.e., build that pyramid.

    I talked to my daughter about it fairly recently--she was a Psych major who now is doing psychology research--and she said it wasn't considered a serious theory these days.
    I haven't read it, but his thesis doesn't comport with what I've learnt in both formal schooling and much further reading as an interested layman. Nicholas Humphries has some very interesting work on the subject.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Greenacres, FL
    Posts
    11,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff View Post

    Only slightly off-topic there's a fascinating book I was obsessed with in college by Julian Jaynes:

    The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind: Julian Jaynes: 0046442057073: Amazon.com: Books
    That book fascinated me too!
    Here's a recent reappraisal of it. (I haven't read it yet but intend to later today. That book made a big impression on me when I was young.)
    The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: a critical reappraisal of Julian Jaynes’ hypothesis
    "I know nothing about the subject, and despite that have no opinion." Eugene Volokh

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Greenacres, FL
    Posts
    11,600

    The 7 Tribes of Intellect

    Interesting article about IQ distribution.

    >>>Now that we have some British politicians talking about IQ it seems the right time to rush out a summary I was slowly preparing about the lives and achievements of different intelligence bands. Please accept this as a general overview, subject to revision, to which more illustrative details and precise boundaries will be added at a later date. <<<

    The 7 tribes of intellect, by James Thompson - The Unz Review
    "I know nothing about the subject, and despite that have no opinion." Eugene Volokh

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff View Post

    Only slightly off-topic there's a fascinating book I was obsessed with in college by Julian Jaynes:

    The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind: Julian Jaynes: 0046442057073: Amazon.com: Books

    It focuses on the evolution of consciousness and posits this only occurred in the last 3000 years or so. Before that, people were not really "conscious", but driven by primitive voices in their head that told them what to do, i.e., build that pyramid.
    Haha. Bullshit.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    North Coast Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,704
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    Interesting article about IQ distribution.

    >>>Now that we have some British politicians talking about IQ it seems the right time to rush out a summary I was slowly preparing about the lives and achievements of different intelligence bands. Please accept this as a general overview, subject to revision, to which more illustrative details and precise boundaries will be added at a later date. <<<

    The 7 tribes of intellect, by James Thompson - The Unz Review
    This is a highly informative article, and well worth reading all the way to the end, where the best jokes are. Thanks for posting this!
    Best regards, k

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus View Post
    There are several hypotheses attempting to explain why that might be, the most popular of which is that in a poor society, multiple children may be seen (consciously or not) as a sort of retirement insurance. There's also the fact that in poorer societies, neonatal and childhood deaths are typically more prevalent.
    I lived in Senegal for 10 years continuously (apart from two 3 month trips back to England ) I spent most of the fifteen years prior to that wandering around another 20 or so African countries... The reason for having several wives & as many kids as possible is EXACTLY to provide for your old age (OK - it's a status thing too, as a friend said to me 'My father has five wives, I only have one, how is that fair?')

    One of my wife's uncles has 3 wives & too many kids to count but I'll guess 18 - 20, when he discovered his first wife, who is 5' tall, suffers from severe morning sickness from day one of each pregnancy, has had 10 + children already as well as several miscarriages (forgot - she has sickle cell too), had been put on Depo-Provera & told she probably wouldn't survive another pregnancy he beat her & she didn't go back for the next jab. As he says, you never know which of your kids is going to be useful.

    We're currently getting daily phone calls from another idiot, sorry I meant cousin, who's decided he needs a second wife because at the age of 25 he only has 2 kids & his wife's tired already. He's driving somebody else's taxi, living in one room & all four of them are sleeping in one bed (which I bought when I found they were on a mattress on the flour). 'God will provide' but only if I buy him a sheep for the ceremony....all of his uncles think this is a good move.

    (Male) children are a financial asset above all...girls cost money, & then get married & leave to benefit someone else's family, boys bring status, women, & children to earn money into your compound.

    You gotta educate the women....

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    Personally, I have no interest in economics whatsoever. Intelligence and happiness have nothing to do with wealth. Some of the poorer people are far happier than those with lots of money. Money can become a dreadful burden, especially a ton of it. Obviously we need some money for food, clothing, and the necessities of life, but it's simply a convenience, never an end in itself.
    It can only only a convenience of no interest for the small minority of people who have most of the money.

    It's difficult to be intelligent or happy with malaria (for example) it wipes out your brain cells & you feel like shit. If you don't have the money (aprox 1 USD) to buy chloroquine you die real easy. Lots of people die.

    For anyone who's chosen to be burdened by an excess of money the solutions easy. see above...

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Omaha, NE
    Posts
    3,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus View Post
    The structure of the brain has certainly evolved in order to accommodate higher intelligence -- the cerebral cortex in humans is larger as a proportion of the brain than it is in most other mammals, and studies seem to indicate that that is where those thought processes we call intelligence occur. That would obviously involve genetics.
    Agreed. I didn't mean no evolution occurred, just that it took tens of thousands of years. Behaviorly modern human behavior is generally accepted as having arisen ~40,000 years ago.

    Homo sapiens - Wikipedia

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    That book fascinated me too!
    Here's a recent reappraisal of it. (I haven't read it yet but intend to later today. That book made a big impression on me when I was young.)
    The “bicameral mind” 30 years on: a critical reappraisal of Julian Jaynes’ hypothesis
    That is a fascinating discussion and provides an opportunity to rehash some older ideas I have not thought about in a long time. Can you have consciousness without language for instance? I have to agree that at this juncture his ideas seem quite naive, but at the time I think they were very innovative.

    Let's face it, we still don't know what is consciousness or how to truly define intelligence. The brain remains a big black box full of mysteries.

  29. #59
    People expose themselves to hours and hours of media every day. It is mostly paid for by advertisers, and if it is on your phone it is designed to trick YOU specifically. The more stupid your actions and the more you define yourself by your ability to consume the higher advertisers profit margins.

    Stupidity makes you cool and refusing to listen to older voices with more experience might slow down the rate of your consumption so anyone over thirty who doesn't express their allegiance to being hip, by wearing 'hip' clothes or putting gel in their spiked hair or painting their face orange or abusing steriods, is dismissed as a curmudgeon.

    It amazes me that this is never discussed, it's as if McCarthy was an unqualified success.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Greenacres, FL
    Posts
    11,600

    Interesting tweet from HumanProgress.Org

    >>>According to the Council on Foreign Relations' Global Conflict Tracker, the Western Hemisphere is, with the exception of the drug-war in Mexico, free of conflict. No person alive can remember our Hemisphere to be as peaceful as it is today.<<<<

    HumanProgress
    "I know nothing about the subject, and despite that have no opinion." Eugene Volokh

Join our Facebook Page

Get in Touch


Jazz Guitar eBooks
How To Get a Jazz Guitar Tone?
Privacy Policy

 

 

Follow us on:

Jazz Guitar Online on FacebookJazz Guitar Online on TwitterJazz Guitar Online on YoutubeJazz Guitar Online RSS Feed