Slashdot Mirror

From TFS:
https://www.aau.edu/uploadedFi...

Overall, 11.7 percent of students across the 27 universities reported experiencing nonconsensual penetration or sexual touching by force or incapacitation since enrolling at the IHE.

Which is about HALF of the fabled 25%.

The magic 25% (i.e. the long parroted and continuously debunked legend of 1 in 4 women being raped) was reached through following fiddling of numbers.
Again, from TFS:

To assess the overall risk of nonconsensual sexual contact, prevalence measures were estimated that combine the two behaviors that constitute sexual contact (penetration and sexual touching) and the four tactics discussed above (physical or threat of physical force; incapacitation; coercion; AAC [Absence of Affirmative Consent]).

Absence of Affirmative Consent being a catch-all category for any kind of "explicit" and "active, ongoing voluntary agreement" of "both partners".

The question that makes 11.7% into "1 in 4 women" being:

Since you have been a student at [University], has someone had contact with you involving penetration or oral sex without your active, ongoing voluntary agreement? Examples include someone:
- initiating sexual activity despite your refusal
- ignoring your cues to stop or slow down
- went ahead without checking in or while you were still deciding
- otherwise failed to obtain your consent

When that question, which no longer talks about rape but about failure to read minds and thus tell if someone is still deciding and a failure to "otherwise obtain consent" (possibly in written form) we get the magical 1 in 4 numbers.
Which would dictate that every family that has at least one female child, also has at least one rape victim (two grandmas + mom + daughter = 1 of them must be have been raped).

But even then more fiddling with numbers is needed to reach the magic 1 in 4 value. Such as limiting the survey response to seniors only.

According to the AAU survey, 16.5 percent of seniors experienced sexual contact involving penetration or sexual touching as a result of physical force or incapacitation. Senior females (26.1%) and those identifying as TGQN (29.5%) are, by far, the most likely to experience this type of victimization.

And if it needs to be more obvious that they get those numbers by padding the set and expanding the time frame...

Students who are relatively new to school may experience higher risk because they are not as familiar with situations that may lead to an incident of sexual assault or misconduct.
Examination of the rates for the current academic year show this pattern holds for undergraduate females.
Among freshmen, 16.9 percent of females reported sexual contact by physical force or incapacitation.
This percentage steadily declines by year in school to a low of 11.1 percent for seniors.

And then there are other issues...
Like defining "penetration" as "when someone's mouth or tongue makes contact with someone else's genitals", without defining whose mouth and whose genitals are in question.
The way question is defined, both giving and receiving oral sex constitutes penetration.
On whom? Well... On both giver and receiver of oral sex, according to such a loose definition.

Or "physical force" being defined as "holding you down with his or her body weight, pinning your arms, hitting or kicking you, or using or threatening to use a weapon against you".
Which equates physical violence and a gun to your head with "being on the bottom".

Or how numbers reported don't really match up.
Like penetration numbers for fem

Here's what I would love to see. Take the set of graduates in a given year from some set of universities. Say, AAU member universities. Identify the graduates who, as high school seniors, met a certain SAT/ACT threshold, with a higher threshold in math, and who also took at least one C.S. or Calculus course in high school. Let's call this set "students who, upon graduating high school, were potential C.S. majors".

First question: what percentage of this set are women? Probably less than 50% given the way it was constructed, but probably higher than 18%, which is percentage of women earning C.S. degrees. Now, take the subset of the women from this set who did not earn a C.S., Math, Engineering or Physics degree, and ask them why they didn't pursue one of those fields. I suspect their answers might be interesting. This a group that, on paper, was not disadvantaged either in ability or exposure to C.S./Math. In fact, it's a set whose interest in C.S./Math is likely to be higher than average since C.S./Calculus are almost never required to graduate high school. So, in high school at least, the members of this set showed some interest in C.S./Math. Why, then, did they choose not to pursue either at university? On an aggregate level, what did they pursue instead?

Another interesting avenue of research might be to look at those silly Myers-Briggs personality types. Come up with an expected % of C.S./Math/Engineering/Physics for each type based on actual real-world data. Then examine whether certain types that produce a disproportionate number of workers in those fields are overrepresented among male high school seniors vs. female high school seniors. I'm guessing this would explain some (but not all) of the gender gap in C.S./Math/Engineering/Physics. As an example, maybe it's the case that there are just way more male INTPs than female INTPs and the INTP type tends to disproportionately favor those fields.

Minix was really the first of its kind; a Unix-like OS that you could run on cheap (relatively speaking at the time) commodity hardware and that you could get the source code for. A lot of the computing we take for granted now comes from Tanenbaum's work.

Truly!

I first learned of Minix by reading about it in Byte magazine. At the time, I was an undergrad at a big US university, a member of the Association of American Universities. The only multitasking computers on the entire campus were a Unix mainframe, a VAX, and a cluster (lab) of Sun workstations that only graduate engineering students could have accounts on. The Unix and VAX machines could be accessed using VT-100 (and later) terminals in computer labs spread out all over the campus. There were also BYOF (Bring Your Own Floppies) computer labs filled with DOS (pre-windows) PCs, and a few labs filled with early Macs, but those labs were mostly used by humanities majors hunting-and-pecking their term papers out.

Booting a multitasking unix-like OS on a personal computer was a huge deal back then.

Costs are very relative.

For example:
http://www.aau.edu/aau/MasseyCharts.pdf

an experienced PHD earned under $20,000 in 1950.
an experienced PHD earned about $33,000 in 1960.
an experienced PHD earned about $40,000 in 1970.

In all three cases, they were earning VERY good money.

From
http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/prices-1950.htm
House: $14,500
Average income: $3,216
Ford car: $1339-$2262
Philco model 1403 TV: $199
Admiral "home entertainment" TV system: $549.50
12" records: $4.85
10" records: $2.85
Milk: $.82
Gas: $.20
Bread $.14
Postage stamp: $.03
Pumpkins : $.02 cents a lb
Campbell's Pork & Beans - (2) 1 lb. cans: $.25
Sirloin steak: $.77 lb
Kraft Mayonnaise - quart jar: $.62.

----
So in 1950, they could afford a typical house on a single years earnings, and a typical car on 1/9th of their income.

----
If energy went up 25% and everything (including salaries) went up 25%, it would be a net wash.

---
So it only matters if something doesn't go up.

Cars are about the same price as they were in 1950.
The average person earns $40,000 today.
A cheap car is $12,000->$14000 with tt&l or about 1/3 of salary.
A cheap car then was $1,339 ir about a third of their annual salary.

---
Basically income is up from $3,300 to $40,000 (or about 12x).
Anything that hasn't increased in price by 12x has gotten cheaper.
So gas should be $2.40. Hmm. looks on target.
A Top of the line TV should be about $6,000. Looks about right. Maybe TV's are even cheaper.
Campbells pork & beans should be $3.00. I think they are about $1.80. So a bargain (tho in 1950 you were getting much healthier, REAL, unhormoned, antibiotic'd meat... so maybe we should compare it to organic foods)
---

And our houses are bigger (My 1955 house is tiny compared to my friends 2002 house).

---
Inflation will get you bad if you retire and don't leave about a third of your money in equities.