Except that the measured ability is not the same before and after the hormone treatment, whereas the desire to be / perception that they are the other gender probably doesn't change so much. Yes, long term the effect may become more pronounced or different, but the short term effect of hormones is enough to show that hormones do have psychological effects beyond getting us into bed with each other.
It probably has a cultural element, but there seems to be a biological element too. Female babies are more likely to fixate on faces, male babies more likely to fixate on mechanical mobiles, from pretty much the first time they open their eyes. Women's linguistic skills vary with the menstrual cycle, and the linguistic skills of pre-op transexuals receiving hormone treatment tend to shift in the direction associated with the intended change. Men who have been given certain a female hormone have been found to be better at interpreting emotion in facial expressions than a control group. Dolls and tea-sets are the cultural manifestations of genuine biological differerences.
The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation, and disagrees with you.
Funny how you also don't provide the analysis into common english.
It's sudo with a gui, in other words: what macos does when you try to modify files in the system folder, or gksudo in linux.
It's sudo with a GUI, but it specifies features of the GUI that I've not seen on Linux (not that I'm much of a Linux guru). Yes, when I try to do something beyond my privs I might get a dialog offering to sudo, mut the Microsoft patent also seems to say that the dialog will actually offer the names of logins that do have the required privs, based on frequency of use and whether they're associated with the current user. that's something I've not seen. Not something I especially want to see either, but it suggests something more novel than a simple sudo GUI,
I'm trying to think of an instance of satire that isn't humorous -- there's surely a tendency for at least a wry smile as one recognises what is being satirised.
Because there is none. Quit confounding parody and satire with humour. Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).
I think that to count as satire or parody it does have to be funny, otherwise it's pastiche, reductio ad absurdam, tu quoque or something like that. And I think that instance was funny.
... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?
Explain what SFW porn is, please.
Depends where you work. I expect that if you work for the Playboy organisation, SFW porn is stuff produced by your employer, NSFW porn is that produced by competitors (unless you're in market research).
I don't think fascism belongs on the right side of the scale.
There are different ways in which one can measure left-right distinctions. I was thinking of social rather than economic, and I see "an aggressive nationalism and often racism" as socially right wing. In terms of the movement towards it in the USA, as an outside observer I see the move towards (though not all the way to) "a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism" and "emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism" was more a tendency of the previous administration, with measures such as the Patriot Act (the very name of which suggests "aggressive nationalism"), and I think it would be fair to call that administration "conservative". Obama might turn out to be more inclined to be more inclined to "regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.", although I don't see it yet. I'd be interested to know what actions of the current administration fit your description of a move in that direction, because it's quite possible I've missed something.
There's a RIGHT way to use a computerized slides, and a WRONG way.
I once attended a presentation at which the presenter had been ordered by the organisers to use a Powerpoint presentation. The powerpoint presentation he used was just a slideshow of classic artworks (unrelated to the presentation) which went on in the background while he gave an excellent talk on the actual subject. I file that under "RIGHT way".
Required attendance at all lectures to pass the coursework element
Locked the door at the start of the lecturers, so that latecomers would fail
Required purchase of his textbook
Simply read a chapter from the textbook in each lecture
If asked a question, would simply re-read the relevant paragraph
Apparently he was doing some highly lucrative and cutting-edge research, which is why he was kept on. The problem isn't powerpoint, the problem is professors who can't (or can't be bothered to) teach.
The term "thought police" comes from Orwell's "1984", set in what "had once been called England or Britain", so it makes sense that it's happening here. And according to Orwell, "1984" was a criticism of the perversions of communism and fascism. Interesting that you pick up on the extreme left but not the extreme right...
Anybody that applied serious scientific thinking to it wouldn't take it any more seriously than they do Greek mythology.
Firstly, although I realise this is an unpopular view on/., "scientific" thinking isn't necessarily the only type of thinking that is relevant (hint: what sort of thinking would you need to use to determine that "scientific" thinking is the only relevant sort of thinking?) Secondly, although I doubt a strictly literalist fundamentalist reading of the Bible would stand up to "scientific" thinking (if we grant that it would have to), there are more nuanced ways of "believing" in the Bible that do seem to stand up to "scientific" thinking -- witness the number of major scientists who profess and defend Christian faith. We might disagree with them about their faith, but it's hard to argue, for example, that John Polkinghorne hasn't subjected his belief to a very high level of "scientific" thinking.
You mean they disagree with you, so they must be stupid?
No, I mean they believe implausible things without proof, and are thus operating on faith.
They believe things that you (and quite possibly I) find implausible but that they do not find implausible, without proof but with what they believe to be good evidence.
If you seriously study the philosophy of religion
Why do I have a feeling you mean, if I seriously study the philosophy of one religion, without regard to others?
I have no idea why you have that feeling. When I formally studied Philosophy of Religion we covered, for example, the belief that there is no life after death, that there is non-material individual life after death, the belief that there is material individual life after death and the belief that there is reincarnation. Which religion would that be?
The most convincing argument from this latter (and indeed for most of the religions I've mentioned) is an uninterrupted chain of witness, a collective memory vouchsafed by a trust network.
Presumably you mean the argument that you find most convincing. I don't find that convincing on its own, only in conjunction with the subjective evidence of religious experience (which is why I asked the question about CF).
The problem is that religions with entirely incompatible cosmologies use the same justification (which boils down to an uncomfirmable appeal to authority), which suggests that this justification is an insufficient means of arriving at the truth, which must be faulty in at least one case, and thus is likely faulty in all cases.
Yes, it can only possibly be a partial and uncertain means of arriving at the truth. Unfortunately, when you get down to metaphysics, that's as good as it gets, and even science has its metaphysical assumptions.
If one is generous, one might conclude that Religion is True, but beyond that...
Yes. But did you read the James lecture? If you have a forced decision then it is rational to take a decision not on the basis of absolute truth but on the basis of the best hypothesis you can form. Any of the well intellectualised religions can rationally form that hypothesis.
It's been a while since I've studied epistemology; I gave it up after recognizing that most philosophical fields are obviated by the cognitive-neuroscientific study of human thought.
Only if you have already decided what can be known about the cognitive-neuroscientific basis of human thought!
Add to that the observation that, whether or not there's something beyond the illusory curtain of our (technologically enhanced) senses, we're constrained to acting within the real world as though it is the real world, and you'll realize that there are far more interesting matters of study crying out for one's time.
Actually, I find examining and testing the underlying assumptions of that "real" world very interesting indeed.
But if you're interested in my epistemological views, I suppose you could say I'm a contingent reformed logical positivist (barring all that universal-rational-language claptrap)
So you reject Popper? Or is that part of the "reformed"?
I would contend that we do not and cannot have access to a non-contingent universal Truth. We may have axiomatic beliefs (a la foundationalists) but they are simply beliefs, and no Truer for our believing them.
Agreed. But if the religious have different axiomatic beliefs to us, is there any rational ground for criticising them for believing valid conclusions from those axioms?
And we could always just be brains in vats. But, our perceptions of reality are real to us; so it is perfectly possible to cons
You mean they disagree with you, so they must be stupid? If you seriously study the philosophy of religion you will find that it is very well founded indeed. Inconveniently, the counter arguments are also very well founded indeed. That's why it remains a genuine hot area of intellectual debate, although you won't know that if you only read one side or the other. If you think religion can't be well founded, what is your view on the debate over Classical Foundationalism? For example, is memory a rational basis for belief?
I can't imagine a scenario where a search stimulates brain acti... Ohhh, ok. I get it now.
It stimulates "parts of the brain that control decision-making and reasoning" when they try to work out how to pay off their credit card bill and how to explain their browser history to their wives.
I never said they disregarded reason... just that it wouldn't matter to them if the works were "written by the same person" because people of faith already recognize that it wasn't directly written by God or whatever name they call their god.
That wasn't the bit I was disagreeing with. I was disagreeing with
Most people with such beliefs don't need confirmation from some "outside source" as to whether their beliefs are well founded.
In general religious people seem as dependent on outside sources for their beliefs as everybody else.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the measured ability is not the same before and after the hormone treatment, whereas the desire to be / perception that they are the other gender probably doesn't change so much. Yes, long term the effect may become more pronounced or different, but the short term effect of hormones is enough to show that hormones do have psychological effects beyond getting us into bed with each other.
That being said, is the feminization of boys all that bad?
I see it as a good thing. If women want real men they're going to have to turn to older guys. Like me.
It probably has a cultural element, but there seems to be a biological element too. Female babies are more likely to fixate on faces, male babies more likely to fixate on mechanical mobiles, from pretty much the first time they open their eyes. Women's linguistic skills vary with the menstrual cycle, and the linguistic skills of pre-op transexuals receiving hormone treatment tend to shift in the direction associated with the intended change. Men who have been given certain a female hormone have been found to be better at interpreting emotion in facial expressions than a control group. Dolls and tea-sets are the cultural manifestations of genuine biological differerences.
Microsoft doesn't need to control open source. Microsoft just needs to put it in a pretty box that someone is willing to pay for.
With a couple of proprietary additions (additions, not changes which would be subject to the GPL) so that it's incompatible with other versions.
This is the MPAA. You'll want what you're told to want.
Don't use a two letter word for the name, there are a rather limited number of combinations.
If there isn't already a language called BS, I'm starting development now!
Quick... someone blame global warming!
Or Microsoft! This must be Microsoft's fault! Or is it the RIAA? Or the US Patent Office? Damn, so many villans!
That will be the public library, then (as long as you're not in the USA).
The person analyzing this for groklaw is a lawyer well seasoned in tech and IP litigation, and disagrees with you.
Funny how you also don't provide the analysis into common english.
It's sudo with a gui, in other words: what macos does when you try to modify files in the system folder, or gksudo in linux.
It's sudo with a GUI, but it specifies features of the GUI that I've not seen on Linux (not that I'm much of a Linux guru). Yes, when I try to do something beyond my privs I might get a dialog offering to sudo, mut the Microsoft patent also seems to say that the dialog will actually offer the names of logins that do have the required privs, based on frequency of use and whether they're associated with the current user. that's something I've not seen. Not something I especially want to see either, but it suggests something more novel than a simple sudo GUI,
I'm trying to think of an instance of satire that isn't humorous -- there's surely a tendency for at least a wry smile as one recognises what is being satirised.
Yeah, with students paying for the class who cares if they make it or not?
Actually, I'm in the UK and I'm old, which means that I didn't pay for the class, the taxpayer did.
Because there is none. Quit confounding parody and satire with humour. Both are often very unfunny (which is not to say they should not be protected: they should).
I think that to count as satire or parody it does have to be funny, otherwise it's pastiche, reductio ad absurdam, tu quoque or something like that. And I think that instance was funny.
... and why does the first link in the summary go to very very NSFW porn?
Explain what SFW porn is, please.
Depends where you work. I expect that if you work for the Playboy organisation, SFW porn is stuff produced by your employer, NSFW porn is that produced by competitors (unless you're in market research).
I don't think fascism belongs on the right side of the scale.
There are different ways in which one can measure left-right distinctions. I was thinking of social rather than economic, and I see "an aggressive nationalism and often racism" as socially right wing. In terms of the movement towards it in the USA, as an outside observer I see the move towards (though not all the way to) "a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism" and "emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism" was more a tendency of the previous administration, with measures such as the Patriot Act (the very name of which suggests "aggressive nationalism"), and I think it would be fair to call that administration "conservative". Obama might turn out to be more inclined to be more inclined to "regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.", although I don't see it yet. I'd be interested to know what actions of the current administration fit your description of a move in that direction, because it's quite possible I've missed something.
There's a RIGHT way to use a computerized slides, and a WRONG way.
I once attended a presentation at which the presenter had been ordered by the organisers to use a Powerpoint presentation. The powerpoint presentation he used was just a slideshow of classic artworks (unrelated to the presentation) which went on in the background while he gave an excellent talk on the actual subject. I file that under "RIGHT way".
Apparently he was doing some highly lucrative and cutting-edge research, which is why he was kept on. The problem isn't powerpoint, the problem is professors who can't (or can't be bothered to) teach.
The term "thought police" comes from Orwell's "1984", set in what "had once been called England or Britain", so it makes sense that it's happening here. And according to Orwell, "1984" was a criticism of the perversions of communism and fascism. Interesting that you pick up on the extreme left but not the extreme right...
Correct. But that doesn't contradict what I wrote.
I think I can spot a few further assumptions in there...
Because they still believe in the Bible.
Some do, some don't.
Anybody that applied serious scientific thinking to it wouldn't take it any more seriously than they do Greek mythology.
Firstly, although I realise this is an unpopular view on /., "scientific" thinking isn't necessarily the only type of thinking that is relevant (hint: what sort of thinking would you need to use to determine that "scientific" thinking is the only relevant sort of thinking?) Secondly, although I doubt a strictly literalist fundamentalist reading of the Bible would stand up to "scientific" thinking (if we grant that it would have to), there are more nuanced ways of "believing" in the Bible that do seem to stand up to "scientific" thinking -- witness the number of major scientists who profess and defend Christian faith. We might disagree with them about their faith, but it's hard to argue, for example, that John Polkinghorne hasn't subjected his belief to a very high level of "scientific" thinking.
You mean they disagree with you, so they must be stupid?
No, I mean they believe implausible things without proof, and are thus operating on faith.
They believe things that you (and quite possibly I) find implausible but that they do not find implausible, without proof but with what they believe to be good evidence.
If you seriously study the philosophy of religion
Why do I have a feeling you mean, if I seriously study the philosophy of one religion, without regard to others?
I have no idea why you have that feeling. When I formally studied Philosophy of Religion we covered, for example, the belief that there is no life after death, that there is non-material individual life after death, the belief that there is material individual life after death and the belief that there is reincarnation. Which religion would that be?
The most convincing argument from this latter (and indeed for most of the religions I've mentioned) is an uninterrupted chain of witness, a collective memory vouchsafed by a trust network.
Presumably you mean the argument that you find most convincing. I don't find that convincing on its own, only in conjunction with the subjective evidence of religious experience (which is why I asked the question about CF).
The problem is that religions with entirely incompatible cosmologies use the same justification (which boils down to an uncomfirmable appeal to authority), which suggests that this justification is an insufficient means of arriving at the truth, which must be faulty in at least one case, and thus is likely faulty in all cases.
Yes, it can only possibly be a partial and uncertain means of arriving at the truth. Unfortunately, when you get down to metaphysics, that's as good as it gets, and even science has its metaphysical assumptions.
If one is generous, one might conclude that Religion is True, but beyond that...
Yes. But did you read the James lecture? If you have a forced decision then it is rational to take a decision not on the basis of absolute truth but on the basis of the best hypothesis you can form. Any of the well intellectualised religions can rationally form that hypothesis.
It's been a while since I've studied epistemology; I gave it up after recognizing that most philosophical fields are obviated by the cognitive-neuroscientific study of human thought.
Only if you have already decided what can be known about the cognitive-neuroscientific basis of human thought!
Add to that the observation that, whether or not there's something beyond the illusory curtain of our (technologically enhanced) senses, we're constrained to acting within the real world as though it is the real world, and you'll realize that there are far more interesting matters of study crying out for one's time.
Actually, I find examining and testing the underlying assumptions of that "real" world very interesting indeed.
But if you're interested in my epistemological views, I suppose you could say I'm a contingent reformed logical positivist (barring all that universal-rational-language claptrap)
So you reject Popper? Or is that part of the "reformed"?
I would contend that we do not and cannot have access to a non-contingent universal Truth. We may have axiomatic beliefs (a la foundationalists) but they are simply beliefs, and no Truer for our believing them.
Agreed. But if the religious have different axiomatic beliefs to us, is there any rational ground for criticising them for believing valid conclusions from those axioms?
And we could always just be brains in vats. But, our perceptions of reality are real to us; so it is perfectly possible to cons
You mean they disagree with you, so they must be stupid? If you seriously study the philosophy of religion you will find that it is very well founded indeed. Inconveniently, the counter arguments are also very well founded indeed. That's why it remains a genuine hot area of intellectual debate, although you won't know that if you only read one side or the other. If you think religion can't be well founded, what is your view on the debate over Classical Foundationalism? For example, is memory a rational basis for belief?
Doom didn't just teach me how to spell "cacodemon", it taught me how to annihilate them!
1 - Click browser's search box. 2 - Type 'P', 'O', 'R', 'N'. 3 - Press 'Enter'.
I can't imagine a scenario where a search stimulates brain acti... Ohhh, ok. I get it now.
It stimulates "parts of the brain that control decision-making and reasoning" when they try to work out how to pay off their credit card bill and how to explain their browser history to their wives.
I never said they disregarded reason... just that it wouldn't matter to them if the works were "written by the same person" because people of faith already recognize that it wasn't directly written by God or whatever name they call their god.
That wasn't the bit I was disagreeing with. I was disagreeing with
Most people with such beliefs don't need confirmation from some "outside source" as to whether their beliefs are well founded.
In general religious people seem as dependent on outside sources for their beliefs as everybody else.