James Watson's Nobel Prize Medal Will Be Returned To Him

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

James Watson's Nobel Prize Medal Will Be Returned To Him

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday December 10, 2014 @07:35AM from the return-to-sender dept.

First time accepted submitter Dave Knott writes Following the recent auction of James Watson's Nobel Prize medal, the winning bidder will return the medal to Watson. The $4.7 million winning bid was made by Alisher Usmanov, Russia's wealthiest man, a metal and telecommunications tycoon worth $15.8 billion US. In remarks carried by Russian television Tuesday, Usmanov hailed Watson one of the greatest biologists in the history of mankind, and stated that when he learned that Watson was selling the medal for charity, he decided to purchase it and immediately give it back to him.

235 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Lucky Jim by RDW · 2014-12-10 07:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Funny if he decides to auction it again next week.
1. Re:Lucky Jim by Livius · 2014-12-10 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. It should have been donated to a museum.
2. Re:Lucky Jim by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 17:44 · Score: 0
  
  Indiana Jones, is that you?
Cool by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 07:40 · Score: 2, Funny

So now Watson can sell it again!
Re:How does anyknow know it's not fake? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 07:43 · Score: 1

What a moron. He bought the damned medal. The only problem is if the money he bought it with was a fake. You don't spend 4 million bucks in order to swap someone's real medal with a fake one. You can do that for free. You should go into business.
One good turn... by Quantus347 · 2014-12-10 07:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Finally gets another. One guy does something selfless, and another guy does too as a reward. Especially since in an auction he's not just covering the cost, he's running the price up with his participation in the bidding. When everything i read seems to drop Humanity notch-by-notch, it's nice to see something that bumps it up a bit. Kudos Human Race.

[/Optimism]

--
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
1. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 07:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Sure... With that net worth, 4.7 million is less than 0.03%. Consider the average American with a net worth of $300k. This would be like buying the medal for $90 then returning it.
  So really it was nothing to him but will make him even more famous and "awesome" to other people.
2. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, and most people worth $100k wouldn't give $30 to charity so it does sort of make him at least a bit kinder than average
3. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  Cool, that means I should be able to buy it for 3$ then.
4. Re:One good turn... by Dzimas · 2014-12-10 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  Consider the average American with a net worth of $300k...
  The median *family* net worth in the United States was only $56,335 in 2013. ;)
5. Re:One good turn... by shankarunni · 2014-12-10 08:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Selfless? What the ****?
  Did you even read _why_ he had to auction off that medal? Read the source links, and follow them back.
  TLDR: He made himself an outcast by tossing out some really incendiary stuff about Africans, women, etc. (basically saying that they were "less intelligent", etc.) Once his sources of income (speaking, consulting) dried up, he needed to rehabilitate himself, so he's concocted this (IMO cynical) ploy of "selling his medal for charity" (yeah, right..)
  I'm sure his opinions mesh well with the Russian oligarchs'..
6. Re:One good turn... by mark-t · 2014-12-10 08:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  More generally, he stated that there is no actual data to support the notion that race does not contribute to intelligence, making a specific reference to Africans, and which happens to be a politically incorrect notion, but is still an accurate statement.
  This does not mean that members of one race are necessarily intellectually inferior to another, it only means that there exists some sizable amount of data which merely suggests it as a possibility, and that no data has yet been accumulated which can actually show that this is not the case. The strongest objection to the conclusion comes from a political reaction to it, and does not arise from the data itself. It would have been far more interesting to do a detailed exploration on exactly why the data appeared to indicate that than to simply make the statement about the data that he did, since there was absolutely no possible way to interpret it without him being seen as racist.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
7. Re:One good turn... by Your.Master · 2014-12-10 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  You're thinking of net income. Median net worth is closer to $81k (as of 2014), and the mean considerably higher than the GP's estimate.
  http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
  Regardless though, there's a huge problem here where there is an assumption that the total charitable contributions of this guy in his lifetime is encompassed by one charity auction purchase.
8. Re:One good turn... by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2014-12-10 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  So you're suggesting what, a minimum dollar amount of charity before such a thing can be considered worthwhile? Anything less than 10% and you might as well not bother?
9. Re:One good turn... by Threni · 2014-12-10 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  > it only means that there exists some sizable amount of data which merely suggests it as a
  > possibility, and that no data has yet been accumulated which can actually show that this is not
  > the case
  You've got it backwards. The "sizable" data is just not sizable enough, not backed with any reputable peer reviewed studies, and therefore there's no case to answer.
  And what he's said (repeatedly) is literally an example of racism, of racist statements.
10. Re:One good turn... by NatasRevol · 2014-12-10 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  I was going to say "I think you mean net income", but holy crap you're right. On the flip side of that, a mortgage is usually a couple hundred thousands dollars on the negative side.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
11. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not only does the "average American" have a smaller pool of dollars to draw from for charity purposes, the cost of living does not scale down with net worth, so a larger fraction is already devoted to essentials. A quick google search suggests household average discretionary income of $24k (though ~80% of that is from households with annual income > 100k). So, it would be more like buying the medal for $8 (or less for most). I wouldn't disparage the "average american" for not contributing to charity. It is difficult for many to contribute very much, and is mostly limited to causes that they care a great deal about.
  That being said, I take issue with the viewpoint that because he didn't have to make any personal sacrifice to donate to charity, his donation is worthless. 4.7 million is 4.7 million, and it can do a lot of good. He is also allowed to spend it, or not spend it, any way he likes. I *do* think it's awesome that he chose to do this with it. I also doubt he did that so that I would think he's a cool guy (we've never met).
12. Re:One good turn... by davydagger · 2014-12-10 08:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  less and less people have $30 to give to charity. But if statistics mean anything, most people who worth $100k are more willing to give to charity than those worth $100m. Large well broadcasts of millionares donating be damned, most charity actually comes from poor and middle class people. Of course don't let me stop you mixing up "willing" and "able". It only strengthens the demand for the commons and the public sphere.(inb4 some bad hyperbole)
13. Re:One good turn... by shitzu · 2014-12-10 08:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You cannot debunk what he said by just calling it racist. Is it true what he said? If it is, its not racist - a fact is not racist.
14. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  Then you deal with those using arguments. You don't ostracise.
  You fucking scumbags make me sick. You are everytthing that's wrong with the modern witch-hunting, book burning left.
15. Re:One good turn... by KeensMustard · 2014-12-10 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  More generally, he stated that there is no actual data to support the notion that race does not contribute to intelligence, making a specific reference to Africans, and which happens to be a politically incorrect notion, but is still an accurate statement.
  So he is saying that Africans are more intelligent than Europeans?
16. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  Selfless? What the ****?
  Did you even read _why_ he had to auction off that medal? Read the source links, and follow them back.
  TLDR: He made himself an outcast by tossing out some really incendiary stuff about Africans, women, etc. (basically saying that they were "less intelligent", etc.) Once his sources of income (speaking, consulting) dried up, he needed to rehabilitate himself, so he's concocted this (IMO cynical) ploy of "selling his medal for charity" (yeah, right..)
  I'm sure his opinions mesh well with the Russian oligarchs'..
  So what? The man also contributed significantly to the understanding of human physiology. Does his remarks discredit everything he did? The Nobel Prize he earned had absolutely nothing to do with his comments and he still deserves it, and just because he's made some insensitive remarks doesn't mean the man should be persecuted and die in poverty, ignoring any of his contributions.
  People are complex, with many facets. Absolute judgement over an entire person just for one facet is as large a crime as anything Watson said; in other words credit the art not the artist. Richard Wagner was a racist and anti-semite who philandered, thought incest was ok, and borrowed money he never paid back. He also created some of the most influential pieces of literature and performance art in Western culture who's influence is still felt today. So every time you hum The Ride of the Valkyries, you're using a racist/anti-semite's song.
17. Re:One good turn... by Dunbal · 2014-12-10 09:21 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  "cost of living"? Let me know when you've seen what the "cost of living" is for a billionaire, and then we'll talk scale. Hint: Yachts and jets are expensive. Oh wait wait you expect a billionaire to be living like a poor person...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
18. Re:One good turn... by Dunbal · 2014-12-10 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Reminds me of that Wall Street Journal article where the reporter was complaining about how poor she felt on "only" 480k a year income.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
19. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, facts can be racist and that's a taboo issue, because it conflicts with a heartfelt and reasonable desire to see people treated decently regardless of the amount of melanin in their skin. Now, I don't honestly believe that the amount of melanin in one's skin actually determines their intelligence, there's no reasonable causal link between them. However, there might be any number of correlates, genetic or environmental, which cause a skewed correlation. And I would like to dispassionately get to the bottom of this, so that we could help everyone be truly equal, rather than just morally equal, because it would help everyone who is being held back by whatever social, environmental or genetic factor they might discover.
  But I doubt any of that can ever happen as long as the very subject is taboo to the point where you become a social untouchable merely by mentioning it. We can't really have reality-based policies to deal with things like this if all research must be done under the assumption that facts can't be unfair or even racist.
20. Re:One good turn... by Dunbal · 2014-12-10 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Eh no. Even if Dr. Watson were a complete asshole, he's still the one co-credited with unravelling DNA and therefore his PERSONAL views aside, the whole world including yourself owe him a debt you will never repay because you have reaped the benefits from medical and pharmaceutical advances to ecological and industrial ones. Recognizing someone's contribution does not endorse their shortfalls. Otherwise the US is up shit's creek, what with all the torture, drone strikes, coups, etc...
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
21. Re:One good turn... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2014-12-10 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  What was selfless about Watson selling his medal to get money for himself? The guy who bought it and returned it migh be considered selfless, but Watson's act of selling his medal was certainly not. Do you even know what selfless means?
22. Re:One good turn... by mark-t · 2014-12-10 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  He was saying, in a nutshell, is that in the data that he had analyzed, he could not find evidence to support the notion that Afircans are as smart as Europeans. Whether this is because this was actually a valid conclusion, or because his data set was not large enough, or because he was misinterpreting the data, or because there were potentially other causal factors influencing the data that were not accounted for is not known, but speaking for myself, I actually doubt the validity of his conclusion, and were I in his position, I would want to carefully investigate exactly why the data appeared to indicate such a result before ever thinking of making such a statement.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
23. Re: One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  About the rich living like a poor person. That's what Jesus said - you know that guy who gets quoted a lot by rich Americans, only when it suits them.
24. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  How can someone making 100k/year not afford $30 for charity? I make $25k per year and I give away $3k of it. That is minimum wage where I'm at. And I still save 10%, though I do live cheap. I'd expect someone making 100k to at least be able to do 3%.
25. Re:One good turn... by gman003 · 2014-12-10 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  "[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really."
  "[There is a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but] people who have to deal with black employees find this not true"
  He never specified which tests he was referring to in the first quote - I for one have not seen any studies of intelligence that showed any statistically significant link between race and intelligence, only between education and intelligence, or wealth and intelligence (unfortunately race and wealth are linked for historical reasons - given our low large-scale class mobility, it will be centuries before we can study one without concern for the effects of the other).
26. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  You cannot debunk what he said by just calling it racist. Is it true what he said? If it is, its not racist - a fact is not racist.
  And you cannot cancel this left-wing "racist" magic spell against their opponents by examining the validity of a claim. A fact is a fact only if it is not "racist", else it is... "racist". By the way: you are racist!
27. Re:One good turn... by mark-t · 2014-12-10 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  I would agree that facts may be racist... since attitudes about racism or anti-racism are based only on what society might prefer to be the case, but it is always possible that real data, when measured might show that what was preferred is not reflective of reality.
  For example, one could say that it is racist to suggest that white people are brighter than black, but when talking strictly about the optical spectrum, this is indisputable, since white, by definition, is a brighter color than black.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
28. Re:One good turn... by Livius · 2014-12-10 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  And if it's false, it's still not racist, just incorrect, unless it was done in bad faith.
29. Re:One good turn... by Rakarra · 2014-12-10 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  "cost of living"? Let me know when you've seen what the "cost of living" is for a billionaire, and then we'll talk scale. Hint: Yachts and jets are expensive. Oh wait wait you expect a billionaire to be living like a poor person...
  "Cost of living" is a phrase most often used to describe the amount of money it takes to live above poverty levels in a certain geographic region. "Luxuries" are not factored in, whether it's a rich person buying a yacht or a poor person buying a big-screen TV.
30. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  It is possible that he did it as a calculated publicity stunt. But don't forget that for powerful people money is not the mean to purchase stuff, money is the effective instrument of control, the plan is to make money as powerful as possible, usually by keeping other people in need of it, maximising its effect.
  If you don't get it, try frequenting a bit the chic places and look at the fuss rich people do about forking their money.
  So the russki parted with some amount of control and that damn hurts, gotta credit him for that.
31. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Mind you that Watson is making over $300,000/year already, so it isn't like this was a bid for his well being. This was more like a charity to sustain a lifestyle 99% of the world's population will never have.
32. Re:One good turn... by Xylantiel · 2014-12-10 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  But until recently people usually had equity in their home, so it wasn't a net negative, since the home itself has value and can be sold for more than the cost of paying off the mortgage. But since the financial crisis, there is a decent segment of the population that have negative equity
33. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  What he said is not true.
34. Re:One good turn... by Tower · 2014-12-10 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but that mortgage is subtracted from the market value of the home for calculating net worth, so it isn't directly negative.
  
  --
  "It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
35. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Then you deal with those using arguments. You don't ostracise.
  It's been dealt with. What he said isn't true. It's racist.
  
  You fucking scumbags make me sick. You are everytthing that's wrong with the modern witch-hunting, book burning left.
  Are you trying to be ironic? If not, re-read your own first paragraph.
36. Re:One good turn... by MachineShedFred · 2014-12-10 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, what a shithead for donating some of his resources to charity.
  He gives more money than you'll see in your life in one day, and you're shitting on him because he didn't give more? Ingrate.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
37. Re:One good turn... by SillyHamster · 2014-12-10 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot debunk what he said by just calling it racist. Is it true what he said? If it is, its not racist - a fact is not racist.
  I agree you cannot disprove the truth of a claim by calling it racist, but for that same reason, being factual does not preclude racism.
  Because if all factual claims are not racist, a racist statement must not be true - but if racism does not change the truth content of a claim, a racist claim could still be factual.
  Going to the definition of the word, racist means discrimination on the basis of race. A simple true statement like, "whites are pale-skinned and blacks are dark-skinned" is discriminating on the basis of skin color (race).
38. Re:One good turn... by NatasRevol · 2014-12-10 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  How recently? My parents never had net positive equity until they retired & paid if off with retirement money.
  In part because mortgage rates in the 1980s were in the 15-20% range. Hard to build up equity in that environment.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
39. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  Clearly you know nothing about the "race" to discover the DNA structure. Others (Pauling's team and at least two other labs) were also 99% there, he got to 100% first. So we owe him... absolutely nothing.
40. Re:One good turn... by khellendros1984 · 2014-12-10 11:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Racism is a belief. Facts can't hold beliefs, although they can be used to support someone's belief. Unreasonable conclusions and unreasonable interpretations of facts can be racist. Facts cannot, and logic cannot.
  
  Say that a bullet-proof study came out saying that blond-haired people are, on average, far less intelligent than brown-haired people (assuming some specific, concrete definition of and way of measuring "intelligence" were to be discovered). In and of itself, that would be a fact. If you add the opinion that "more intelligent is better than less intelligent", then you might come up with the prejudiced opinion that "brown-haired people are better than blond-haired people". That doesn't make the fact itself "colorist". It's only the combination of fact and preconceived opinion that makes the thought colorist.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
41. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Error message [67]: "no start tag specified for implied empty element Optimism"
42. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  Did you even read _why_ he had to auction off that medal? Read the source links, and follow them back.
  Yeah, a bunch of worthless Liberals had him ostracized from the scientific community for publishing something that wasn't political correct with sound research behind it. Liberalism is the modern equivalent of the Catholic Church during the dark ages and the world would be better off without it.
43. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  It is true, according to research, if you take IQ tests across the world and compare. What's also true is that the gaps have been narrowing over the years where there has been more development and education. However, there might remain a biological gap, basically (cutting many corners here) because it was different and in some respects more challenging to survive in colder climates. That's all from a biology perspective though, not taking in regard any political or sociological perspective. Did I mention biology? Biology is not about fairness.
44. Re:One good turn... by tompaulco · 2014-12-10 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they have kids. Maybe they live in an expensive part of the country? Maybe they have different priorities than you do?
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
45. Re:One good turn... by quenda · 2014-12-10 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  What does median tell us? The majority of homeowners are in mortgage debt, and the majority of renters have very little in financial assets.
  It is their income that matters for most people.
46. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  We owe a debt to those who first discovered something? Especially when that discovery was dependent on the (mostly unaccredited) work of others? Do you not feel that Dr. Watson's work would have been done by others in his absence, making your contention highly specious?
47. Re:One good turn... by John.Banister · 2014-12-10 13:03 · Score: 2
  
  Reading a source link "He plans to donate some of the proceeds to Cold Spring, where he still draws a $375,000 base salary as chancellor emeritus"
  
  He certainly didn't run out of money.
48. Re:One good turn... by Dunbal · 2014-12-10 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  So if Pauling would have gotten there first, you'd say we owe Pauling nothing. So basically your argument is, fuck them all, I don't owe anyone anything. Fine. Practice your philosophy then and go live in a cave somewhere.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
49. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  While the potential may be there regardless of any human social group you may choose, perhaps all the way back to the Cro Magnon or even earlier culture may be a factor on the development of the mind and how it develops, classic Greece had a huge impact in the western mind, abstract thinking, philosophical concepts, art....that just wasn't there previously in a formal manner, perhaps cultures that newer went through those stages e.g Aboriginals didn't develop in those areas the same way we did, perhaps because they didn't feel the need for it, also cultural choke may play a part
  take a whole cultural group of forest people to the modern world in one go and they will have trouble adapting to our moral concepts, way of life and ideas
  take an African baby to the west, rise him in a wealthy educated family and send him to Oxford and he probably will measure just as his peers
  that means that dealing with African countries or populations in the same manner as with countries with more developed as in "modern" cultures maybe the wrong way to go and that we may want to try to find beater ways to came across, but them there is a long body of experience in that area, the problem is that we tend to forget and have a difficult grasp of how different other cultures can be from our own specially from an individual point
50. Re:One good turn... by Cito · 2014-12-10 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  I live on disability $9855 per year
  Sucks I can't help anyone
51. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 14:09 · Score: 0
  
  If only he had said something more popular but also correct, such as, genetically, the notion of "race" does not exist.
52. Re:One good turn... by catmistake · 2014-12-10 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot debunk what he said by just calling it racist.
  It is far easier to debunk on its face: race does not exist in hard science, but only in sociology. Genetically, there is no "race trait." Biologically, it is not a characteristic that is used. Its really a crap concept and eventually we'll stop using it. But I have deep concern for them because most people find that biologists are not as smart as other races. (See? I can talk nonsense, too!)
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
53. Re:One good turn... by davydagger · 2014-12-10 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  I said "worth 100k", not making 100k. I also stipulated that they are statisticly more likely to give to charity, and give a far bigger percent of what they have than those worth 100m.
  The second clause, was that other people, worth far less, are far too poor to be able to afford charity. The coverage by the media makes it seem like wealthy Billionares do the most, and its the stingy middle and working classes that need to be stopped, when really its the opposite, and you just have a media driven perception bias.
  Also, the fact that some people needat all is a sign that the system is broken, and looking at society, it can be said that some of the things that billionares do to become billionares actually impovershes other people, making them need charity in the first place.
54. Re: One good turn... by wisnoskij · 2014-12-10 14:31 · Score: 2
  
  It is not really possible for real data, when measured, to be racist if we bankrupt every scientist interested in measuring that data.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
55. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 14:48 · Score: 0
  
  Sure... With that net worth, 4.7 million is less than 0.03%. Consider the average American with a net worth of $300k. This would be like buying the medal for $90 then returning it.
  So really it was nothing to him but will make him even more famous and "awesome" to other people.
  Can I have $90? I mean, that's just a pittance to you, right? If not, then I guess 4.7 million is not a pittance to him.
  I'm guessing if you had a device running iTunes, when Apple gave everyone U2's "Songs of Innocence," you were one of the people all pissed off about it.
  HOW DARE APPLE GIVE ME FREE MUSIC!??! WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE?!??
  Dude. A news story about Russia, indeed, a wealthy Russian, (which when I was a kid would have been a contradiction in terms!) doing something super-nice for someone... and you're bitching about it? Jesus H., M.F. CHRIST! Can't you just be happy, and not point out like a braying jackass how little money that is for him?
  WTF, dude? What do you want? Almost every other super-rich guy DIDN'T DO THIS, so why do you have to run down the ONE guy who DID on that particular day? What do you d for him to give away all his wealth, personal property, and impoverish himself? Would that make you happy?
56. Re:One good turn... by quenda · 2014-12-10 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  If it is, its not racist - a fact is not racist.
  Actually, to steal from Cobert, facts have a well-known racial bias. Life is not fair.
57. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 15:31 · Score: 0
  
  He makes $375,000/yr from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory as Director Emeritus or whatever his title is. I'm sure he could have managed without speaking gigs.
58. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 16:22 · Score: 0
  
  yes
59. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 17:35 · Score: 0
  
  He was saying, in a nutshell, is that in the data that he had analyzed, he could not find evidence to support the notion that Afircans are as smart as Europeans.
  
  Let me see. If we correlate intelligence with education, which would be pretty reasonable (not necessarily true in all cases, but in most), how can you not come to the conclusion that Africans are not as intelligent as Europeans? I'll give you that intelligence has different meanings. Shit, if I were stuck in the African Sahara, would I have a better chance at surviving that an African bushman who has been raised in that environment? I doubt it. But if you correlate intelligence with education, it's fully explainable that Africans wouldn't be as intelligent as Europeans, since their opportunity for education is not as great, overall, as their European counterparts.
  Let's the the opposite for a second as well. Are you telling me that the tribe living in Amazon, never having been educated outside their own circle, is as smart as their counterparts living in a modern society? Again, I give you some slack about survival and shit, but really? The way we define intelligence? Writing? Music? Not to even mention computers, medicine, etc.?
  I just wish people would call white white and black black.
60. Re: One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 20:41 · Score: 0
  
  Fewer and fewer ! Use 'less' for items which can't be counted. E.g. sand, not people.
61. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · 2014-12-10 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  "cost of living"? Let me know when you've seen what the "cost of living" is for a billionaire, and then we'll talk scale. Hint: Yachts and jets are expensive. Oh wait wait you expect a billionaire to be living like a poor person...
  It's so much easier and cheaper living hand to mouth in your car, as you don't have to fund an army of cooks, secretaries, party planners, tax advisers, chauffeurs, silverware polishers, bodyguards, lawyers and prostitutes.
  That's the reason why taxes should be regressive, and real billionaires should pay no tax at all.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
62. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · 2014-12-10 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  How recently? My parents never had net positive equity until they retired & paid if off with retirement money.
  In part because mortgage rates in the 1980s were in the 15-20% range. Hard to build up equity in that environment.
  But except for occasional blips, the value of houses rose steadily through the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s (at least here in the UK) so that overall your equity increased, even if paying the interest was painful.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
63. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 21:12 · Score: 0
  
  But if statistics mean anything, most people who worth $100k are more willing to give to charity than those worth $100m. Large well broadcasts of millionares donating be damned, most charity actually comes from poor and middle class people.
  This smells like bullshit to me. I mean, Bill Gates is giving away a majority of his fortune - tens of billions of dollars - which is equivalent to ~$100 for every person in the US. Do you have any sources to back your claim?
64. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 21:20 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe they do not fucking care like me.
65. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · 2014-12-10 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  More generally, he stated that there is no actual data to support the notion that race does not contribute to intelligence, making a specific reference to Africans, and which happens to be a politically incorrect notion, but is still an accurate statement.
  This does not mean that members of one race are necessarily intellectually inferior to another, it only means that there exists some sizable amount of data which merely suggests it as a possibility, and that no data has yet been accumulated which can actually show that this is not the case. The strongest objection to the conclusion comes from a political reaction to it, and does not arise from the data itself. It would have been far more interesting to do a detailed exploration on exactly why the data appeared to indicate that than to simply make the statement about the data that he did, since there was absolutely no possible way to interpret it without him being seen as racist.
  Yes, and there is also no conclusive data that there is not a teapot orbiting the Earth.
  Anyway, the essential problem is using the word "race" in the first place, since there is no such thing. There are simply human beings, and there are trivial variations between them in terms of things like skin and hair colour, but all the rest is cultural.
  It is also incredibly foolish to use a term like "African" to cover everyone from a Professor of Physics in Lagos to an unemployed taxi driver in Cape Town.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
66. Re:One good turn... by ruir · 2014-12-10 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  Here it was a scam buying a house as an investment. You cannot rent it, as the tenant became the owner with socialist laws to guarantee house to anybody, and you have to pay huge council taxes, and even if the tenant pays a low rent, you have to pay for all the repairs. On top of that, the tenant fucks up your house over time, and even better, when you sell it, you pay a tax of 40% on the profit you made from when you bought it, without taking inflation into account.
67. Re:One good turn... by Elad+Alon · 2014-12-10 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Your last point - "maybe they have different priorities" - is answering him "maybe you're right, and they can, but choose not to".
  
  --
  News for merdes. Shit that matters.
  Ask me about my sig.
68. Re: One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 22:12 · Score: 0
  
  All right. Where is the african Newton? The black-skinned Galileo? Ah, yes. Nowhere. Cold fact: Europeans are superior, get over it.
69. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · 2014-12-10 22:38 · Score: 2
  
  Even if having a different skin colour made you a different "race", and even if IQ tests were accurate and bias-free, and even if different "races" had different average IQs, it still shouldn't make any difference to how we treat people.
  We don't say to kids "you've been tested at the age of 10 and have an IQ of 85, therefore you are not allowed any further education, you can only apply for minimum wage jobs, you can't vote and we're going to sterilise you". They are free to do the best they can with whatever gifts or disadvantages they've been given.
  So why would it make any difference if there was a slightly different proportion in IQ scores between black, white or brown skinned people?
  You'd still have some black lawyers and doctors, and some white unemployed junkies.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
70. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · 2014-12-10 23:13 · Score: 1
  
  For example, one could say that it is racist to suggest that white people are brighter than black, but when talking strictly about the optical spectrum, this is indisputable, since white, by definition, is a brighter color than black.
  I hope that was supposed to be funny, because otherwise it's a contender for Stupidest Post of the Year.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
71. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · 2014-12-10 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Going to the definition of the word, racist means discrimination on the basis of race. A simple true statement like, "whites are pale-skinned and blacks are dark-skinned" is discriminating on the basis of skin color (race).
  You're playing with words. "Discrimination" can mean either the simple act of differentiating between two things, or in a phrase like "racial discrimination" acting in a negative manner towards a group.
  Someone's skin colour is as trivial a differentiator as their hair or eye colour, anyway.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
72. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · 2014-12-10 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  So your argument is that, if we equate intelligence and education, anyone who isn't as well educated is less intelligent, therefore less educated people in Africa are by definition less intelligent, so it's true to say that Africans are less intelligent?
  You might want to look at your initial assumption and consider the terms "circular reasoning" and "begging the question".
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
73. Re:One good turn... by tehcyder · 2014-12-11 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  Recognizing someone's contribution does not endorse their shortfalls.
  And conversely, having made that contribution does not excuse their shortfalls.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
74. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  How is the parent poster "shitting on him" when he/she points out that when a person that wealthy gives what is an insignificant amount to them it results in a much better reward in terms of gratitude and notability to them than for the average Joe making a much larger donation relative to their means? People should see that generosity should be judged in relation to the means of each donor and not in absolute terms. Or do you argue that a billionaire donating a billion is more selfless than a homeless man donating ten bucks of the hundred he has?
75. Re:One good turn... by Talderas · 2014-12-11 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  There are genetic differences in humans that can be attributed to populations rather than individuals. A valid question to ask is are these differences solely appearance type traits or do they impact other aspects.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
76. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  Fair enough, and I agree. I find it especially tragic how the capitalist system literally destroys a lot of scientific progress by giving people incentive to keep secrets and subvert new solutions. We're lucky that some things are too revolutionary to be stopped. Imagine what would have happened if the media industry stopped the internet? Maybe they could have if they worried sooner - and current industries will look back on their mistakes and be more vigilant.
  If we can't work with communism we need to at least strengthen ant-competitive laws. Price fixing? All owners forfeit their stake and the company is sold at auction. Deflating prices to drown out the competition? Same fate. Abusing a monopoly/duopoly to extort unreasonable profit margins on basic goods (food, internet, rent, utilities, standard toiletries, etc)? Prices get regulated. Killing people on low wages? Raise the minimum wage. These things need to become standard practice so that corporate decision makers have strong incentive to compete with integrity.
77. Re:One good turn... by NatasRevol · 2014-12-11 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  the value of houses rose steadily through the 1980s, 1990s and 2000
  Definitely not the case in the US. Looks more like a cardiac rhythm here. Up and down.
  Right now, I'm trying to sell a house for 20% less than I paid for it, after owning it for 10 years - can't get a buyer.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
78. Re:One good turn... by SillyHamster · 2014-12-11 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  You're playing with words. "Discrimination" can mean either the simple act of differentiating between two things, or in a phrase like "racial discrimination" acting in a negative manner towards a group.
  
  Do I need to point out that "racial discrimination" is a subset of "discrimination"? "White truck" vs "truck".
  Discrimination is the judgement, it doesn't have to be linked to action. People get called racist for racist opinions/statements, not necessarily for racist actions.
  "whites are smarter"/"blacks are smarter" is the SAME FORM as the previous innocuous statements. Still not racist?
  How about "Whites are dumber"/"blacks are dumber"? Simple inversion of the smarter claim - still not racist?
  You may consider this playing with words, but either words communicate a concrete idea, or we're just babbling at each other.
79. Re:One good turn... by zentigger · 2014-12-11 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yay! some guy that has been exploiting workers, preying on consumers, and wrecking environmental destruction for decades (not to mention other activities of dubious legality) gives himself a nice little pat on the back!
  What a swell chap!
  
  --
  the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
80. Re:One good turn... by KeensMustard · 2014-12-11 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like his research was essentially meaningless, or rendered meaningless because he chose the wrong hypothesis.
  Its just as valid to claim from that basis that Africans are smarter than Europeans. After all, the data did not rule that out.
81. Re:One good turn... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-12 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  So the 4.7 million he gave to charity is absolutely worthless? Apparently charity money is only of value to the charity if it significantly affects the giver of the money.
Keep the medal by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 07:46 · Score: 0

The decent thing to do would be to keep the medal and have the estate 'return' it to the buyer after Watson passes.
Putin wouldn't return it. by mmell · 2014-12-10 07:48 · Score: 5, Funny

In fact, Alisher would be well advised never to let Mr. Putin even see the medal. I can see Mr. Putin simply putting the medal in his pocket and making sure everyone knows how his old pal Alisher "gave it to him".
Just sayin'.
1. Re:Putin wouldn't return it. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't worry about it. It's not like a Nobel Prize is a Super Bowl ring or anything.
2. Re:Putin wouldn't return it. by maestroX · 2014-12-11 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Returning it will encourage more to auction medals.
  Just wait and see until two Peace medals are up for sale (past due for the EU medal and Obama's).
  (ironically, this would be an all American way for achieving the title of most peaceful leader ever)
Watson is a scientist by sideslash · 2014-12-10 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Watson is a scientist. He's very intelligent. He's also a fallible human being. And he's old. Put all those together and you have a recipe for some unfiltered opinions. As long as he's honestly speaking his opinions, I personally disagree with blacklisting such people from society.

When you think about it, our culture's political correctness has some weird quirks. Religious views, put forward as religious views, are summarily shot down, because ours is supposed to be a secular society informed by science. But there is a strong dogma that genetics is not a factor in the observed disparity in measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews. This dogma doesn't have any scientific basis that I'm aware of; the best that can be said is that we don't (yet?) understand all the many factors that affect intelligence. Therefore (correct me if I'm wrong), honesty should compel us to admit that genetics, including genetics exemplified in racial groups, may constitute major factors in intelligence. And therefore, Watson's fundamental heretical belief may be... true? Is it OK to talk about this?
1. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Religious views, put forward as religious views, are summarily shot down, because ours is supposed to be a secular society informed by science.
  Unless the religion is propagandized as repressed and misunderstood, in which case it's given the benefit of the doubt. Wouldn't want to invite retaliation for offending them.
2. Re:Watson is a scientist by preaction · 2014-12-10 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Except Appliantologists.
3. Re:Watson is a scientist by 91degrees · 2014-12-10 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that so many people have an agenda with this sort of research, it's very hard to tell who has an agenda and who is genuinely curious. Not sure what to do about this.
  
  And his description of Rosalind Franklin do come across as a pretty sexist, even if you make excuses for his age.
4. Re:Watson is a scientist by crunchygranola · 2014-12-10 08:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I was unaware that Watson had been "blacklisted". After 39 years as Chancellor of CSHL, a good long run, which is largely a public relations function - he did show himself unsuited to continue filling that role due to his 'unfiltered' public expressed opinions (which had been occurring for quite awhile, even when he was not-so-old). Still his punishment was 'promotion' to Chancellor Emeritus with a perpetual $375,000 salary, still with a free mansion to live in. Few 'blacklisted' people are treated so favorably.
  He is still knocking down $30,000-$75,000 minimum fees for public appearances. Pretty good money for someone who is 'blacklisted'.
  What You really seem to be saying is that he should be above criticism, and not accountable for anything he says. I disagree.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
5. Re:Watson is a scientist by davmoo · 2014-12-10 08:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  He didn't wait to be old to fuck over Rosalind Franklin.
  
  --
  I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
6. Re:Watson is a scientist by t4eXanadu · 2014-12-10 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, being old is not an excuse. A racist, sexist old person is still racist and sexist. Sorry, get with the times or get out. I don't care how great of a scientist he was (and let's face is, he would not have made those discoveries without the hard work of many of scientists, some of whom never received the credit they were due). He's still a crummy person.
7. Re:Watson is a scientist by bigtrike · 2014-12-10 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  Did you even see what he said? Watson's statements also went outside the bounds of science by making broad conclusions from his own anecdotal evidence. They were absolutely not scientific.
  Regarding intelligence, if you're talking about IQ tests, they're poor measurements of intelligence because they tend to be culturally biased. A lot of studies have shown that race as we know it is more of a social construct than a genetic one and what we define as races is only loosely correlated to genetic variance. Until there are better ways of testing intelligence, all we can know for sure is that genetics may be a factor or they may not.
8. Re:Watson is a scientist by t4eXanadu · 2014-12-10 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  "Get with the times or get out" I was not referring to you, but to Watson. I just wanted to clear that up. Not looking to start a fight here. (Why can't we edit our posts?)
9. Re:Watson is a scientist by t4eXanadu · 2014-12-10 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  In my comment below I said "get with the times or get out". I just want to clarify that I was referring to Watson, not to you. Not looking to start a fight here. I don't like conflict.
10. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  Except science is not true relative to its political usefulness or acceptance.
11. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Probably has something to do with the fact that "measurable intelligence" doesn't have any scientific basis.
  It's pretty easy to put together a racially biased "intelligence" test that's convincing enough to pass superficial analysis, though, so there's plenty of room for people to generate lots of studies supporting their ideas about how intelligence might be genetically linked to skin color.
12. Re:Watson is a scientist by jayrtfm · 2014-12-10 08:35 · Score: 2
  
  Yeh, a friend who was a scientist there gave me a good 10 minute rant about him. That salary would fund 8 or so post docs.
13. Re:Watson is a scientist by phantomfive · 2014-12-10 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  I personally disagree with blacklisting such people from society.
  Blacklisting people from society for what they say has a name. It's called censorship.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
14. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · 2014-12-10 08:36 · Score: 2
  
  I characterized it as his expressions of honest (at least I take him at his word) opinion.
  
  You appear to be part of that species of fence sitters who are unwilling to commit to anything even when your position gets ridiculous. Of course some intelligence tests have some part that is biased toward cultures. They are still of some use at estimating the parts of intelligence we most care about for practical purposes. And more particularly, IQ tests are useful at predicting aptitude to excel at Western intellectual pursuits including academics in general. Do you disagree with that?
15. Re:Watson is a scientist by Tom · 2014-12-10 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Religious views, put forward as religious views, are summarily shot down,
  
  Which world is that you live in? Religion still carries much more credit than its performance record justifies. The pope is invited to parliaments and international diplomacy as if he was somehow especially smart or important. Even the Dalai Lama is given special respect for purely religious reasons. Churches enjoy special priviledges in many countries, with tax exemption being just the tip of the iceberg.
  The simple fact is that the human brain and psychology has evolved little from tribal society and we believe or disbelieve a lot of things not due to facts or evidence, but due to group pressure, conformity, tales, authority as well as shortcuts in thinking, heuristical approaches and so on. Religion is just one example of that, superstition also still exists even though religion has already tried to root it out for a thousand years.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
16. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · 2014-12-10 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Probably has something to do with the fact that "measurable intelligence" doesn't have any scientific basis.
  That's politically correct baloney. Tests can be devised to gauge many types or aspects of intelligence. You can measure an individuals aptitude and/or ability, and then use it to predict in a very general way how that individual will perform on various tasks that benefit from such intelligence.
17. Re:Watson is a scientist by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-12-10 08:41 · Score: 2
  
  I'm never quite sure if it's mere hyperbole or raging entitlement that causes people to breathlessly use the language of actual oppressive activity to describe people who are being 'punished' in ways that most of us will never have the pleasure of being treated.
  
  "Blacklisting" is, from time to time, an actual labor market practice, and it stings a lot more than being quietly retired to a cushy honorary position. As in, y'know, literally never working in this town (or larger area) again, prolonged unemployment, penury, that sort of fun stuff. Do people just not know or care about what the real thing looks like, or do they think themselves deserving of so much coddling that the slightest inconvenience is identical to the direst oppression?
18. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  And by extension, it is also not true relative to "the times" that we happen to be in.
19. Re:Watson is a scientist by Prien715 · 2014-12-10 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews
  Can anyone name me a black sub-suharan psychologist? Now, let's try the same with Ashkenazi Jews. (Freud comes to mind immediately for me -- but he's not the only brilliant mind)
  I find it simpler to explain the differences in the tests with the differences of the people who created them.
  
  --
  -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
20. Re:Watson is a scientist by AlreadyStarted · 2014-12-10 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  But there is a strong dogma that genetics is not a factor in the observed disparity in measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews. This dogma doesn't have any scientific basis that I'm aware of; the best that can be said is that we don't (yet?) understand all the many factors that affect intelligence.
  I believe the "dogma" you refer to is the scientific method. The position you are describing (I'm not implying you're taking it) posits a causal relationship exists between the totality of sub-Saharan Black African genetic heritage and lower comparative intelligence with respect to another group.
  
  This is extremely difficult to show, and in my opinion rightfully receives criticism unrelated to it's social implications.
21. Re:Watson is a scientist by Artifakt · 2014-12-10 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I think there are some good, sound, scientific reasons that intelligence differences along racial lines are not genetic (at least in major part). Simplest among these is that there is as much evolutionary pressure from problems such as tropical diseases as there is from survival during an ice age, or similar factors that are invoked to "scientifially "explain these differences.
  In general, Science frequently uses Occam's Razor in one of its classic forms "It is vain to explain with more what can be explained with fewer". Explanations that somehow give special weight to the selection pressures that supposedly improved European or Asian migrants and treat the human evolutionary period like Africa was some sort of peaceful paradise where people had no reason not to stay jolly, dumb and lazy, are perfect examples of needless and counter-scientific complexity.
  These are usually offered with pseudo-scientific claims that somehow attacks by diseases or parasites or large predators on the African proto-human population, are not sustained at the right frequency, or in some exact way that was needed, and only survival against one particular stressor caused evolutionary pressure. Sometimes these get very elaborate, with claims that only one thing, such as glaciers, produced the precise combination of stressors needed to trigger evolution - wars, for example, didn't count as an evolutionary driver, unless they were wars against a distinct species offshoot such as the Neandertals, or diseases didn't count because they didn't happen on a yearly cycle like glacial advances, etc. That's special pleading, not science.
  With that said Watson did something very good for many people. I'll respect that even where I think he's wrong about something, and even where I might dismiss all somebody's other opinions otherwise.
  
  --
  Who is John Cabal?
22. Re:Watson is a scientist by t4eXanadu · 2014-12-10 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not clear on what you mean. Elaborate?
23. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Blacklisting people from society for being bigoted research thieves (what Watson is), has a name: It's called the natural result of society not condoning bigotry, even though it hasn't really done anything about the research theft.
  You or I have a right to say whatever the hell we want, but if we are an asshole, we don't have a right to force anyone to listen to it, and nobody has any requirement to provide either of us a platform to spout our assholeness from.
  All that happened here, is that Watson was no longer being provided as much of a platform from which to spout racism and sexism - he was still earning over $375K a year, and had a freely provided house, when he started whining "Oh, poor me! I have so little money left that I'm no longer in the top 1%! Won't someone please take pity on me! I would like to buy myself some fancy paintings, but I can no longer afford them!" (That was his original stated plan for the money from the auction. He may have changed this in response to criticisms.)
  And now some Russian with more money than scruples has decided to reward him for spouting bigotry that probably aligns nicely with that particular Russian's own prejudices by tossing him what amounts (for Usmanov at least) to pocket change.
24. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  There are plenty of social factors also. See the TED talk by Dr Flynn, about the Flynn effect.
  Society really shapes how IQ developes, and IQ is something that can be trained. Most IQ tests are based on very simple rules, and can easily be taught, and learned.
  Just having access to a computer, trains the IQ. There are a lot of symbols, and connections, cause and effect, that is similar to patterns in IQ tests, in some sense.
  Besides, "A foot is to a shoe, as a hand is to a ..." (glove), will be quite nonsensical, for someone who grows up in a country where it is never below 10C.
25. Re:Watson is a scientist by swb · 2014-12-10 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The pope is invited to parliaments and international diplomacy as if he was somehow especially smart or important.
  The pope is treated as having political importance not because of the efficacy of his theology but because he is the spiritual leader of 1+ billion Catholics, a large portion of which actually believe in the doctrine of papal infallibility.
26. Re:Watson is a scientist by tibit · 2014-12-10 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Let's get over the "poor Rosie", shall we? It's just stupid. Go read the 1968 Double Helix. Nobody fucked her over. She died from an illness, and Watson himself acknowledges that she was a solid experimentalist. She was also an occasional bitch :)
  
  --
  A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
27. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · 2014-12-10 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  No, the dogma I referred to has nothing to do with the scientific method, as it arrives at its own definite conclusion about the measured intelligence gap: that it's not genetically driven in any substantial way. It's dogmatic opinion and political correctness, not science.
28. Re:Watson is a scientist by pla · 2014-12-10 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  PsySSA can probably name a few for you.
  
  Probably even a few with a bit more up-to-date methods than an Austrian pervert dead some 75 years now...
29. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  Lol so jelly.
30. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:02 · Score: 0
  
  But there is a strong dogma that genetics is not a factor in the observed disparity in measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews.
  First of all, all we have is a correlation that population A and population B have different values when we measure intelligence. This does not mean there is a genetic factor in it. This is exactly like phrenology or any other correlation related beliefs. Unless someone finds a clear pathways from the DNA to the makeup of the brain that clearly illustrates a genetic link, it is just belief. It could very well be cultural or many many factors that people have found that affects the results we get when we measure intelligence.
  On an individual level, the variation in both population is high enough that with substantial probability you can meet a dumb person from population A and a smart person from population B. So, if you label an individual from population B as being dumb, you are wrong a significant amount of time and if you label a person from population A as smart, you are wrong a significant amount of time.
  So, not everyone from population A has the smart genes or there are individuals in population B that have the smart genes but we have classified individuals by something else and we are super-imposing intelligence by it.
  Here's a thought: if you're worried about smart and dumb people, subject everyone to the intelligence tests and classify them with that. We already have GPA, SAT scores, GMAT scores, credit scores and many other measures of achievement. Why not judge people by their achievement scores rather than their racial background. Oh wait a minute, that is exactly what we do!
31. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · 2014-12-10 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  You are using a lot of words, but you haven't added anything to the conversation. Nobody denies that there is a unique bell curve for each population, or heck, that the bell curve moves over time with the Flynn effect and the like.
32. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  You're trying way too hard, junior. Go back to 4chan and practice some more, you're not ready for this place.
33. Re:Watson is a scientist by david_thornley · 2014-12-10 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  He appeared to be saying that the intellectual inferiority of blacks is shown by every black employee, which is very definitely untrue and definitely racist. The comment about Africa at least has a little justification.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
34. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  It's better for the university to be able to claim a Nobel works there than 10 more slaves.
35. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  But there is a strong dogma that genetics is not a factor in the observed disparity in measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews. This dogma doesn't have any scientific basis that I'm aware of
  What about the Flynn effect? The general increase in IQ scores over the years (to the point where the average IQ in 1932 would be around 80, if scored using today's tests) seems to suggest a strong environmental, and not genetic influence in intelligence, or at least intelligence how we measure it.
36. Re:Watson is a scientist by hey! · 2014-12-10 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  But there is a strong dogma that genetics is not a factor in the observed disparity in measurable intelligence between sub-Saharan Black Africans and Ashkenazi Jews. This dogma doesn't have any scientific basis that I'm aware of;
  The first step in addressing the question scientifically is determining whether the question even makes sense. You have to *establish that the question is valid* before answering it.
  A hundred years ago scientists didn't know about DNA, couldn't characterize someone's genes. They went with what they could observe: skin color, hair, eye shape etc. And they came up with various compelling three race and five race schemes. But we aren't limited like they were. We can open up someone's genetic black box and characterize his heritage precisely. And when we did that all those compelling, intuitively obvious schemes fell apart.
  The problem with the question you pose is that it makes no sense to lump all Sub-Saharan Africans into one "race". Most of the genetic diversity of the human race is in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are ethnic groups in Africa that have more genetic diversity than all human populations originating outside Africa *combined*. So we can't answer the question you pose because it's very assumptions contradict the facts.
  If we were to divide humanity into five "great races", they'd probably end up being five *African* races, with the rest of the world tacked on in various ways. What's more it would turn out that there were *other* equally justifiable ways to construct five African races.
  Race is like constellations. Humans *will* see patterns in complex, random data. Just because Orion *looks* like an object doesn't mean that the stars in Orion are linked by some process. But boy is that pattern ever compelling.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
37. Re:Watson is a scientist by bigtrike · 2014-12-10 11:45 · Score: 2
  
  The evidence is still "on the fence," so it's hard to draw any conclusions from. Even some studies among identical twins have shown a correlation below 0.5.
  I will agree that western designed tests show that westerners do well at western institutions. Nearly any time someone creates a metric of something as difficult to define as intelligence, they create it in such a way that they're the top scorers. I'm sure if those living in sub-saharan africa were to design their own intelligence tests, it would favor them instead.
38. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  A test that tests how well you write tests being predictive of how well you do in an environment that bases success on the use of tests doesn't seem very persuasive. I'm amused by academia since it is so thoroughly dependent on the use of contrivances... How else would you easily evaluate students? And then people use their performance on these contrivances as some kind of analog to intelligence, when throughout history human beings have excelled through their ability to apply existing knowledge to novel situations.
39. Re:Watson is a scientist by ultranova · 2014-12-10 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  Tests can be devised to gauge many types or aspects of intelligence. You can measure an individuals aptitude and/or ability, and then use it to predict in a very general way how that individual will perform on various tasks that benefit from such intelligence.
  
  You can measure how well someone performs a task, and use that to predict how well they'll do similar tasks in the future. But what has that to do with intelligence? Why does having this particular skill indicate intelligence, rather than practice?
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
40. Re:Watson is a scientist by lazy+genes · 2014-12-10 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  That was was great,lol. I bet Crick saw this coming.
41. Re:Watson is a scientist by Smauler · 2014-12-10 13:42 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sure if those living in sub-saharan africa were to design their own intelligence tests, it would favor them instead.
  Are there any intelligence tests in which people from sub-saharan Africa do come out on top?
42. Re: Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  Not true.
  that's when a government or authority blacklists something.
  when a society does it, it is called shunning.
43. Re:Watson is a scientist by Spy+Handler · 2014-12-10 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  I will agree that western designed tests show that westerners do well at western institutions. Nearly any time someone creates a metric of something as difficult to define as intelligence, they create it in such a way that they're the top scorers. I'm sure if those living in sub-saharan africa were to design their own intelligence tests, it would favor them instead.
  Except for some weird reason, those eastern orientals seem to do very well on these western tests of intelligence, even though they learn English as a second language! So much so that western universities are flooded with them and the administrators of the western universities are restricting oriental student numbers while handing out affirmative action slots to blacks.
  Doesn't it strike you as odd that first generation immigrant oriental children score higher on the English (verbal) portion of the SATs than African-American children, whose families have been speaking English natively for umpteen generations? Or were these tests created specifically to favor western AND eastern students while somehow excluding blacks? (that would be quite a trick)
44. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  First generation eastern children have predominantly American Standard English as a model. Blacks and people from Central America have long standing variants to contend with as well. Some of these variants ('ebonics") are recognized as legitimate languages, not poorly spoken English.
45. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't it strike you as odd that first generation immigrant oriental children score higher on the English (verbal) portion of the SATs than African-American children, whose families have been speaking English natively for umpteen generations? Or were these tests created specifically to favor western AND eastern students while somehow excluding blacks? (that would be quite a trick)
  First generation eastern children have predominantly American Standard English as a model. Blacks and people from Central America have long standing variants to contend with as well. Some of these variants (African American Vernacular English–"ebonics") are recognized as legitimate lects, not poorly spoken English.
46. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  No. No, it isn't. I have read it. Yes, they did. She did indeed die of an illness, and Watson acknowledged many things. Regardless, being occasionally unpleasant in no way excuses being blatantly fucked over.
47. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 22:24 · Score: 0
  
  They do marry young female children, so there's some redeeming value.
48. Re:Watson is a scientist by tehcyder · 2014-12-11 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  genetics exemplified in racial groups
  And what, scientifically, is a "racial group"?
  I'd place it amongst such outdated concepts as "the aether" and "the harmony of the spheres". I didn't realise that anyone apart from neo-Nazi mass murderers thought it had any meaning any more.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
49. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  How is "her work was stolen, she was given no credit, and was patronized for years even after her death" not being fucked over? I mean right now, you're calling her "poor Rosie" instead of referring to her by her proper name. She was a scientist and a grown woman, don't refer to her by a childish nickname like that.
50. Re:Watson is a scientist by Talderas · 2014-12-11 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  We've mapped the humane genome but we are nowhere close to understanding what all the individual genes are responsible for. There have been studies that have looked at the genetic differences between individuals and only about 85% of those genetic differences can be ascribed to the individual. The remaining 15% are genetic differences that are consistent among a population but vary between populations. We do know that at least some of those 15% of differences are going to be the physical traits that are indicators for how we socially describe race. What we don't know is how those 15% impact intelligence. They could be a direct impact on the floor or ceiling of intelligence or they might have a more nuanced impact by being genes that encourage behaviors that are counter-productive to building intelligence. They may impact nothing. However we don't know and I would agree that to say that these genes have no impact when we don't know what they do is a foolish statement to make.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
51. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · 2014-12-11 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  What? Admitting you don't know the answer to that is racist!
52. Re:Watson is a scientist by sideslash · 2014-12-11 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Only to neo-Nazi mass murderers, huh? Thank you for sharing your fair, balanced, and nuanced opinion today.
53. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  Little girls are great.
54. Re:Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  "Get with the times" is a social constructivist position and incompatible with the philosophy of science.
In other news Barack Obama has listed his medal... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 07:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Opening bid - tree fiddy.
For Charity? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 07:52 · Score: 0

Um, I'll probably get a lot of shit for looking a gift horse in the mouth but I don't recall that being for charity. It was for research to institutions he still is gainfully paid by:

Watson told Nature that his motivation for selling the medal is a chance for redemption. He plans to donate some of the proceeds to Cold Spring, where he still draws a $375,000 base salary as chancellor emeritus, and also to University College Cork in Ireland to help establish an institute dedicated to the mathematician George Boole. "I'm 52% Irish," Watson said by way of explanation.
So yeah, charity in the way of remembering great mathematicians.
In Soviet USA... by mamba69 · 2014-12-10 07:53 · Score: 5, Funny

In Soviet USA medal returns to you
1. Re:In Soviet USA... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  Now if we could just get that Super Bowl Ring back...
A class act by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 07:53 · Score: 0

I don't know how he conducted his business; but at least this sounds like a class act. A lot of people here don't seem to get that.
The only question in my mind is whether or not it would be acceptable to auction the medal again. Maybe once a year. There could be an un-written understanding that the medal will be returned, allowing a fund-raising each year.
Maybe they could even use some of the money they raise to fund a new medal program. One that didn't hand out medals so cavalierly, especially for "peace".
I choose Science by Rotten · 2014-12-10 07:54 · Score: 1

I agree. Science and political correctness are not a good mix. I choose science.
1. Re:I choose Science by michaelggreer · 2014-12-10 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  I choose science too! One of the great things about science is that it can quickly conclude hypotheses based on opinion and prejudice. Continuation of such conjectures after solid refutation strips them of any "scientific" inquiry and authority. They are exposed for the pure prejudice they are.
  And all members of a society are welcome to respond to such open and public prejudice in any reasonable manner they choose.
  As he is also a well-known sexist jerk and research thief, I choose to spurn him. Join me if you agree, don't if you do not.
Brilliant by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2014-12-10 07:56 · Score: 2

Now that Usmanov has set the precedent, he can expect a lot of other Nobel Prize winners coming forth to cash in. And when Feynman's heirs put forth his, Usmanov can buy it and keep it.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
What Goes Around... by magusxxx · 2014-12-10 07:57 · Score: 1

They should just let Netflix rent it out a month at a time..."Okay, who's next in the queue?"

--
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
1. Re:What Goes Around... by ArcadeMan · 2014-12-10 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Netflix has queues? Can't you just press "play" to stream it?
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
why should he have it by nimbius · 2014-12-10 07:59 · Score: 2

If Watsons nobel was of so little significance to him that he hocked it for cash, it begs the question of why should he have received one in the first place. Personally the Nobel lost its purpose for me after Barack Obama received it. Nothing against the guy, but it seemed like a cheap and awkward gesture that completely misunderstood the point of american presidency in the context of our government.

Watsons crime, namely that hes an old crumudgeon, isnt the issue for me. I tolerate the acerbic opinions of the elderly in regard to race, sexuality and gender, and try to view them as contextual expressions of a generation that was cheated into believing nonsense. I think part of the reason conferences and speaking arrangements were cancelled is because his appearance and opinions may inadvertently serve to validate his personal prejudices as a valid scientific point. My only axe to grind with him is that he seems to hog the spotlight and never really credit his peers like Francis Crick

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:why should he have it by GungaDan · 2014-12-10 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Obama's ludicrous Peace prize was more jarring to your conscience than Henry Kissinger's? Something isn't right here. You're either very young and unaware of the dubious history of this prize, or you have personal issues that cloud your judgment of the inanity of obviously stupid Nobel awards.
  
  --
  Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
2. Re:why should he have it by Charliemopps · 2014-12-10 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  It might have had something to do with the fact that he's old, destitute, and it's really cold in Chicago this time of year... Nobel prizes don't keep you warm.
3. Re:why should he have it by Major+Blud · 2014-12-10 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention that it was awarded to Arafat but not to Gandhi.
  
  --
  If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
4. Re:why should he have it by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-12-10 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably worth noting that, aside from both being set up and funded by Alfred Nobel, there isn't necessarily much connection between a nobel in one field and one in another. Different judges, different selection processes, different external pressures, etc. Not really any reason to think differently of one because you think the laureates for another are badly chosen.
  
  Also, the history of the nobel peace prize is, unfortunately, littered with 'statesmen', which frequently means that winners have more blood on their hands than your average SuperMax inmate. If anything, it would have been more appropriate to award Obama after he'd made clear that a unilateral campaign of drone strikes and a 'war on terror' of unlimited scope and duration were just peachy keen with him, rather than before he'd had a chance to really get into stride.
  
  As for Watson, he seems to have mistaken being treated like a slightly embarrassing curmudgeon whose most productive years as a scientist are well behind him with being actively persecuted. I can't really blame him for acting a bit disappointed at the feeling of having come down in the world; but it's pretty hard to imagine how absurdly high-powered his later career would have had to have been to not be a letdown after his early work, and it wasn't particularly. His old-age PR does seem somewhat worse than some other scientific luminaries who have just quietly faded away; but even the ones that age into avuncular and eventually grandfatherly figures still tend to be remembered for the science they did when they were substantially younger, with their later output varying between 'respectable' and 'more or less retirement'.
5. Re:why should he have it by GungaDan · 2014-12-10 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Shimon Peres and Arafat should have split an award. They both (ultimately) worked towards peace in a situation where peace was (and remains) a pipe dream.
  Gandhi clearly should have gotten a peace prize.
  This underscores the fact that there is a flaw in the decision process.
  
  --
  Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
6. Re:why should he have it by nedlohs · 2014-12-10 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  You really weren't paying attention if Obama was the final nail. The peace prize is irrelevant when working out the worth of the actual ones for science fields.
  And yes, the DNA double helix - what a load of useless crap nothing came of that!
7. Re:why should he have it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  It might have had something to do with the fact that he's old, destitute, and it's really cold in Chicago this time of year... Nobel prizes don't keep you warm.
  Even in Chicago, $375,000/year should put a fair roof over his head and plenty of beans on his plate. Not to mention, Watson donated the majority of proceeds to the University of Cork
8. Re:why should he have it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with GP. Kissinger was at least trying to bring peace to the Middle East.
  Obama? At the time the prize was announced he had done nothing.
9. Re:why should he have it by Obfuscant · 2014-12-10 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  Watsons crime, namely that hes an old crumudgeon, isnt the issue for me. I tolerate the acerbic opinions of the elderly in regard to race, sexuality and gender, and try to view them as contextual expressions of a generation that was cheated into believing nonsense.
  That's pretty much the same thing the old curmudgeons say about you, you know?
10. Re:why should he have it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  The Peace Nobel is neither a real Nobel nor about peace. It's 100% political. The (non-Peace) Nobel prizes are awarded for real achievements. You can argue person A deserved the prize more than B, but anyone who is awarded one helped his field a lot.
11. Re:why should he have it by radarskiy · 2014-12-10 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's all about managing expectations. Everyone knew Kissinger was a bastard already.
12. Re:why should he have it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  The Israeli Prime Minister at that time, Rabin, also got a medal. Unfortunately he was murdered by jewish religious fanatics. I do believe Peres was a minister in that cabinet.
13. Re:why should he have it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  Not so clear back then.
  http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/themes/peace/gandhi/index.html
14. Re:why should he have it by quenda · 2014-12-10 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Personally the Nobel lost its purpose for me after Barack Obama received it.
  
  The Nobel peace prize has always been different - very political.
  The amazing thing is that you still respected it before Obama's award (AKA the inaugural not-being GW Bush award).
  Past winners include Yasser Arafat (peace in Palestine) and Henry Kissinger (Vietnam war).
  The Stockholm science prizes are not the same.
15. Re:why should he have it by Calavar · 2014-12-10 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Middle East? What in the world are you talking about? Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for the American withdrawal from Vietnam. (And ostensibly for brokering peace between North and South Vietnam, but we all know how long that lasted.)
  Keep in mind that in 1970, Kissinger was the one who pushed for expanding the Vietnam conflict into Cambodia. Around the same time, he was also working with the CIA to try to overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile. In 1971, he had the US throw its support behind the Pakistani government, even after a US diplomat in Pakistan said that the government engaging in widespread genocide of its own citizens.
  Did I think Obama deserve the Peace Prize? Probably not. But at least the committee didn't decide to give it to him while knowing that he was complicit in genocide and active in coup d'etats.
16. Re:why should he have it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 19:14 · Score: 0
  
  I just cannot believe how every single time the Nobel prize is mentioned, someone tries to drag it down by mentioning the peace prize, after which multiple people have to explain why the peace prize is not really relevant to judging the scientific prizes (they are not even remotely decided by the same persons -- I personally happen to know several of the persons who decide the physics prize, and I assure you that they have no say in the peace prize, but there is no need to take my word for it: it is not hidden information in any way).
  The peace prize is awarded by a Norwegian committee, which should be the first clue that it is not given by the same Swedish people who decide the other prizes. Its connected to the others by name, sure, but if one spends the amount of time to formulate a knee-jerk reaction about it, one could as easily spend 30 seconds reading something as simple as the Wikipedia article to at least learn something about the history of this prize (not "the Nobel prize", but "the Nobel peace prize"). In the summary:
  
  Due to its political nature, the Nobel Peace Prize has, for most of its history, been the subject of controversies.
  Sadat, Kissinger, Arafat, Xiaobo -- not exactly "uncontroversial" picks.
  Xiaobo is a very illuminating comparison, seeing as to how he is wildly controversial in a specific part of the world. What is awarded is really the image of him, which by proxy says "the rest of the world is not really fond of the Chinese dictatorship". As was it for Obama: what was awarded was the "we do not like the foreign policies carried out by a certain country as of late", and since he had explicitly stated his goals in a way that emphasized peace and human rights, he was a fitting vessel.
  "Yeah, but how many of those promises bore fruit" -- this is beside the point (an interesting point in its own right, but not relevant to the Nobel peace prize). It is the intent that was important to begin with. It highlighted to a large amount of people the problems with the previous policies, bringing questions on the table.
17. Re:why should he have it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 21:01 · Score: 0
  
  " I tolerate the acerbic opinions of the elderly in regard to race, sexuality and gender,"
  Their opinions are correct. Feminist should be killed. Sometimes this happens in Russia when they try to take important Men down.
  Hans Reiser should be free.
18. Re:why should he have it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 17:43 · Score: 0
  
  You jealous?
Re:Russia, LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:00 · Score: 0

Well if anyone in the USA bought it , it would have been prodded, hammered, beaten ,and melted down using 'Enhanced Interrogation " methods, then thrown in with a ton of other gold and the rings sold off would have "Contains nobel Gold" in an attempt to triple the price of the jewellery and prove how "Awsome" the USA is.
Seems like a good guy.. by Roskolnikov · 2014-12-10 08:03 · Score: 2

He was one of the least hurt by the sanctions regarding the Ukraine, seems like he cares... wonder how taxation on this is going to play out....

--
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
1. Re:Seems like a good guy.. by xfizik · 2014-12-10 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Are you seriously bringing up Ukraine in this topic?
2. Re:Seems like a good guy.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  I know, right? Ha ha, the Ukraine. Do you know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble.
3. Re:Seems like a good guy.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  Just like Russia then.
Politics-free Science Journal by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:04 · Score: 0

There seriously needs to be a politics-free science journal.
All this political correctness bullshit has ruined science at all levels.
Science is now rotten at the core.
People should be allowed to research without being victimized.
An anonymous journal with pseudonyms and an encrypted database of real names could be a nice idea.
This way nobody can be demonized and they can continue to research even if there research (doesn't) attacks an entire race.
Racial differences are an important area of research and it will only lead to better research. There ARE differences between us. Some minor, some major.
Some sub-races of major race groups have hugely beneficial and hugely disadvantageous genetic differences.
Some of them such as that one branch of people in Africa being horribly weak against viruses, which is where ebola and all the like hang out, or people in the north of Europe that are, quite literally, immune to most retroviral infections. Or there are some people that have evolved entirely different blood vessel networks to deal with low oxygen up in mountains, instead of more linear networks of vessels, they are more spider-like. (this sadly also comes with a disadvantage, easier to clot)
These things sorely need to be researched deeper to find out our differences so they can be used to help each other.
Gene therapies for so many things are right around the corner, and research like this would help that immensely.
Profit!! by Rogue974 · 2014-12-10 08:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Have we finally found what the ultimate Step #3 is?!?!?
Step 1: Win Nobel Prize
Step 2: Go Broke
Step 3: Sell Nobel Prize medal
Step 4: Profit
Step 5: After medal is returned, wait an acceptable time and return to Step 1!!!
1. Re:Profit!! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-12-10 08:35 · Score: 2
  
  If you achieve Step 2 while pulling $350k/year, you may not stay out of penury all that long after Step 4, so hopefully 'an acceptable time' is relatively short.
2. Re:Profit!! by gl4ss · 2014-12-10 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  it doesn't really seem like he was broke unless he had a very expensive coke habit or something.
  it was done mainly to redeem himself or make himself relevant again, by getting some money to donate.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Taxes by cnaumann · 2014-12-10 08:09 · Score: 1

Can't help but to wonder about the tax consequences of this both to Watson and all Nobel prize winners.
1. Re:Taxes by pla · 2014-12-10 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Can't help but to wonder about the tax consequences of this both to Watson and all Nobel prize winners.
  
  The US already treats prestigious awards (Nobels, Olympics, etc) as taxable income.
  
  Watson hocking his medal doesn't change much. And depending on how much of it he actually donated, he may have no actual taxable liability as a result of the sale.
2. Re:Taxes by sir-gold · 2014-12-10 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Depending on how it is taxed when being returned (as a gift), vs. when it was originally awarded (as an award), he may actually end up owing MORE taxes.
  For example, if the original award was estimated to be worth $1 million, he will have "donated" $1 million worth of assets, however it is now worth $4.7 million, which means he will have received $4.7 million in "gift income" that he has to pay taxes on.
  This doesn't even take into account the possible difference in tax rates between gifts and awards.
3. Re: Taxes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  I say this is money laundry. So the taxes are pretty small :)
Good use of excessive wealth by Bob_Who · 2014-12-10 08:12 · Score: 1

Human achievements are not always very well enumerated in a paycheck or in business sales revenue.
Its good when the folks with piles of cash can pay it out to others who have done great things. The money seems to generate so much attention that it illuminates the recipient's good work. I humbly request piles and piles of cash so I could give it away to some peeps, that full time.
You mean by xfizik · 2014-12-10 08:27 · Score: 1

not all Russians are bad people?
1. Re:You mean by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  It is probably true that not all Russians are bad people, but Usmanov most likely is still a bad person. He pretty much would have to be in order to qualify as the wealthiest man in all of Russia, and rewarding a bigot like Watson isn't going to make him look better except to people who haven't looked into things, or bigots who share Watson's views.
2. Re:You mean by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  It sure is bigoted to point out the fact that evolution does, in fact, work above the neck in human beings, even though it's fashionable to say it doesn't. Silly creationists. Why don't you cultural marxists fuck off out of the sciences and do something more your speed, like sucking off LGBTBBQ niggers.
3. Re:You mean by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  Wish they'd get the fuck out of linux distros too (Debian etc)
Re:In other news Barack Obama has listed his medal by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:31 · Score: 1

Maybe Kissinger can list his too. Maybe a Cambodian will buy it.
Too bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:37 · Score: 0

it wasn't bought by someone to carve Rosalind Franklin's name on it.
Is he a good person? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:38 · Score: 0

> not all Russians are bad people?
Do you honestly believe someone worth $16B in a mafia-like state is a good person?
1. Re:Is he a good person? by xfizik · 2014-12-10 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's all relative.
2. Re:Is he a good person? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  My first guess was that he's doing this to stroke his own ego that happens to share the same controversial opinions as Dr. Watson.
  "This man is brilliant and things some of what I do! I BRILLIANT MINDS THINK ALIKE!"
One of the statements he made on the matter by presidenteloco · 2014-12-10 08:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Evaluate for yourself:
[Watson] said he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”
One thing I know about IQ tests in my experience is that they seem biased toward people who a) have a particular math and science educational history, and b) have a lot of time on their hands to think abstractly.

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
1. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:25 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  What is so surprising about that (wrt IQ tests)?
  Maths and Science are the ways by which we understand the nature of the universe so someone who has an educational history in these subjects is going to know more about how our world functions, and having lots of time to think abstractly will probably lead to you being more intelligent than someone who is not.
  So, you're saying that IQ tests are biased towards intelligent people? Damn.
2. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  Well, why I think you are right saying that, let us notice that our modern society parallels the IQ tests in this regard as it "seem biased toward people who a) have a particular math and science educational history, and b) have a lot of time on their hands to think abstractly." So even if we have someone in any skin color whom we judge a wise/intelligent person, without these skills they not going to show up with the people with them ( university, research institute ) - they will be with the ones we think have lower IQ. So while Watson maybe right, it doesn't mean black AND/OR women are dumber - it means the IQ tests and our society measures "intelligence" in a biased way. My son easily beat MENSA, but he is still a teenager who cannot shop without list because can't keep 5 things in his head - top 2 percent my ass.
  Women are still handicapped, they are usually need to stay home to PROVIDE home environment and raise the children ( simply because men usually don't want to do it ).
  Native american societies were actually matriarchal - men were roaming up and down as they wished fighting and hunting, women did stay home and did agriculture. As far as land was ownable to them it was owned and inherited by women. Not because of some deep respect to women - simply because men did not care to do anything with it. So those men were smarter? Or the women were? Or these are stupid questions?
3. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by quenda · 2014-12-10 14:48 · Score: 2
  
  One thing I know about IQ tests in my experience is that they seem biased toward people who a) have a particular math and science educational history, and b) have a lot of time on their hands to think abstractly.
  Or, and I'm going out on a limb here, the tests could just be biased towards people with a high IQ? (Which may correlate to the other factors you mentioned)
  The fact is that IQ tests are a better predictor of many things than educational history or free time. This make it scientifically valid.
4. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by tehcyder · 2014-12-10 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  So, you're saying that IQ tests are biased towards intelligent people? Damn
  *sigh*
  If you give the same intelligence test to (1) a wealthy, highly educated person from a supportive family and (2) the illiterate oldest child in a group of subsistence farmers you had better have a good way of discounting the cultural and developmental factors involved if you claim to be measuring pure intelligence.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
5. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by Taco+Cowboy · 2014-12-11 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  ... If you give the same intelligence test to (1) a wealthy, highly educated person from a supportive family and (2) the illiterate oldest child in a group of subsistence farmers ...
  
  ... how about (3) a penny-less refugee from China landed in USA in his mid-teens, with nothing but the cloth he was wearing?
  I know you gonna launch the Political Correctness thing but if I, a refugee from China, who when arrived at the U. S. of A. can't converse with anybody with any language except Mandarin, can make it, don't anyone tells me that a child of a farmer can't
  I am sick and tired of your kind of PC creeps. What you guys are doing are actually hurting the underprivileged more than helping them
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
6. Re:One of the statements he made on the matter by samwichse · 2014-12-12 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  If you'd been given a standardized IQ test in English how well would you have scored then?
  It's almost impossible to separate education/background from intelligence in these tests, which is the whole point of this thread. And his point was that the illiterate oldest child of subsistence farmers probably IS just as intelligent, and capable of "making it," given the opportunity.
  Sam
Watson is a scientist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 08:43 · Score: 0

"unfiltered opinions" meaning "the truth".
What Watson said was TRUE, and every little shit on Slashdot knows it. Otherwise, why aren't you moving to Africa?
LOL at putting Ashkenazi Jews at the top of the scale... THEY are the ones who took away our right to free speech, so millions of non-whites parasites can invade and destroy our countries from within.
Why don't white people have the right to have their own countries any more?
How I hate every Left wing white traitor with all my heart - and you all will pay, when society collapses... because we know who you are... you arrogant little nation-wrecking shits...
Also owns Arsenal by jslaff · 2014-12-10 08:51 · Score: 1

Usmanov is also a large shareholder in Arsenal, the north London soccer/football team I support. For $4.7 million we could have gotten some needed defensive coverage at the back.
1. Re: Also owns Arsenal by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  In case Usmanov is subject to sanctions, his bid will be confiscated, right?
A noble gesture by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:27 · Score: 0

from Russia's wealthies man.
Need more news such as this.
I'm confused... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:31 · Score: 0

"I choose science too!" - did you come to buy Caesar
"he is also a well-known sexist jerk" - or praise him?
See even russian's by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 09:32 · Score: 0

even russian's - subhuman as they are - know that nigger's are shit and are willing to stand up for some body that calls it as it is.
1. Re:See even russian's by Sardaukar86 · 2014-12-11 20:39 · Score: 1
  
  even russian's - subhuman as they are - know that nigger's are shit and are willing to stand up for some body that calls it as it is.
  Well, 'shit' or not, I'm sure most "russian's" and "nigger's" have a considerably better handle on apostrophe use than yourself, you son of a greengrocer you.
  
  --
  ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Re:Russia, LOL by Rakarra · 2014-12-10 09:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ok, Obama. We get it. You're mad at Putin for not handing over the guy who humiliated and exposed you, Snowden. You don't need to spam your butthurt everywhere.
I realize that as nerds we tend to live in our own little bubbles and magnify the importance of nerdy things, but on the list of grievances the US (and Ukraine, and the EU) have against Russia, Snowden is pretty far down.
Re:Russia, LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 12:11 · Score: 0

Not to 'muricans.
Re:How does anyknow know it's not fake? by unixisc · 2014-12-10 12:31 · Score: 1

But he's Uzbeg
Re:Russia, LOL by Scarletdown · 2014-12-10 16:28 · Score: 1

Ok, Obama. We get it. You're mad at Putin for not handing over the guy who humiliated and exposed you, Snowden. You don't need to spam your butthurt everywhere.
I would guess that he would have been more butthurt about Putin one upping him in the posing with an animal photo department.
Obama poses with a poodle, and Putin is really putin on the ritz by posing with a leopard (can't recall if it was an ordinary leopard or a snow leopard though).
That said, I would kill for a Nobel Peace Prize. :D

--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Re:Russia, LOL by LordWabbit2 · 2014-12-10 19:33 · Score: 3

Like inciting a civil war in Libya then bombing it back into the stone age. Libya used to be a pretty good country to live in before the NATO "intervention" to stop the Libyan government from fighting extremist terrorists, oops sorry, "Freedom fighters", funded by the west and bolstering their numbers with mercenaries. The illegal invasion of Iraq also comes to mind, the US president didn't even bother asking congress to go to war, just brought down 2 towers and no one asked any questions. Why the fvck invade Iraq again? Bin Laden wasn't even in the country?

--
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
Russians aren't faggot SJW pieces of shit. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 20:59 · Score: 0

Russians aren't faggot SJW pieces of shit.
Nice.
Good on Russia and Russian men.
He spoke the truth about women and many africans by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 21:41 · Score: 0

He spoke the truth about women everywhere and many ethnicities of africans.
Good.
Fuck you SJW.
Bet you like systemd.
Feminists should be killed.
Hans Reiser did the right thing.
Marry young girls. (female children, allowed in the Old Testament)
I hope Russia continues on a regressive anti-progressive course.
And obstructs and obstructs.
Debian rejects game for authors opinion on women by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 22:14 · Score: 0

Debian rejects game due to authors opinion on women.
A properly licensed opensource casino video game was
recently posted to the debian bug tracker as a request
for packaging, as is the standard method for pursuing
such things in debian.
The bug was quickly closed, tagged as "won't fix"
The reason given by one of the debian developers
alluded to the authors past anti-feminist remarks:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bi...
The piece of software in question is licensed
under the GPL and is one of the only of it's
kind for linux (ascii-art console slot machine software)
Is professing progressive politics now a hard requirement
for being allowed to contribute to free software projects?
------
Debian developers also threatened author with lengthy imprisonment, denied existence of author's contributions
Previously a debian developer, Erich Schubert, claimed that the author of gpcslots had never
contributed anything to opensource, was corrected, replyed to the corrections,
and then deleted the corrections and left up his false claims.
Author has contributed gigabytes of media to opensource, years of programming
work, and has been involved in numerous projects.
http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/2...
Another debian developer, Josselin Mouette, (while bragging that he, JM, had successfuly
campaigned to ban prostitution in france, have Johns arrested, and had run
mafias out of the country) told the author that he was going to have him
arrested by the FBI (van'd) because the author suggested there was no sin
in marrying young girls (and cited a bible verse in support of that).
http://np237.livejournal.com/3...
Fuck you SJW cunt. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 22:22 · Score: 0

Fuck you cunt.
Feminists should be killed. Sometimes that happens in Russia!
Re:Russia, LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-10 22:48 · Score: 0

SJWs hate russia and putin.
'Muricans thing he's ok and manly, not a bitch.
A dick move really by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 00:13 · Score: 0

He just handed Watson an income tax bill of almost $2 million.
Re:Russia, LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 00:13 · Score: 1

Yeah, God damn Russia for protecting their interests after the US and EU were caught red-handed orchestrating a violent revolution which removed the democratically elected pro-Russian leader!
Re:Russia, LOL by Rakarra · 2014-12-11 06:59 · Score: 0

Yeah, God damn Russia for protecting their interests after the US and EU were caught red-handed orchestrating a violent revolution which removed the democratically elected pro-Russian leader!
Go back to Russia Today, moron.
Mr Usmanov, you are my unsung hero. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-11 17:41 · Score: 0

Meooowwwww!!!
US$1, not $1 US, idiot. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-12 15:50 · Score: 0

Learn to write.
Answer a question, mmell by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-19 04:26 · Score: 0

What's it like getting your ass kicked by apk + downmodding to hide it 20x http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?