For example, you could display separate images of a tire, a bumper, and a hood, and ask what all of the images are used to build.
If the captcha systems used a collection of otherwise random images that collectively determined the correct answer, not only would it keep the test simple for humans, but it would make the cipher that much harder for the bots.
Pardon my hypocrisy about not fanning the flames, but this post could use some levity on the topic, courtesy of an admired comedian, George Carlin...enjoy.
Speaking as a statistician, this poll bodes well for the bell curve, given the fact that half of all respondents (on average) are of above average intelligence, and the other half are below. So it does not surprise me that nearly half of the respondents articulated a faith in an invisible avenger, while a little more than half thought otherwise. I would be interested to see a t-test of correlation with the typical sociological questions asked in polls, such as geographic location, age, schooling, etc. This would better encourage me to finish reading such a loaded poll. And after reading the many responses to this post, it's no surprise that people who read this blog are inclined to fall into the "scientist" label.
Speaking as an operant conditioner (i.e., a behaviorist), B.F. Skinner points out that we are products of our environment. But I am in both of the "nature vs. nurture" clans. Lemark posited that all life has the ability to pass on behavior through genes. That's not a shock to me, any more than the belief that our environment is remarkably responsible for our current thought processes.
The term "social Darwinist" came from those politically bent toward the right, not from Darwin. Darwin never said "survival of the fittest." This is a common misnomer. What he actually said was those species which can best adapt to their environments do well enough to procreate, thus passing on their genes. He also never said that the genes passed on were superior to those of their predecessor, only that they were better suited for survivability in the current environment.
Speaking as a theologian, I cannot. I am not one who believes in theology...call me agnostic. In fact, I agree with one's former comment that routinely bashing religion is to fan the flames of perpetuity for people who would be much better served to just forget about religion.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, you could display separate images of a tire, a bumper, and a hood, and ask what all of the images are used to build. If the captcha systems used a collection of otherwise random images that collectively determined the correct answer, not only would it keep the test simple for humans, but it would make the cipher that much harder for the bots.
Pardon my hypocrisy about not fanning the flames, but this post could use some levity on the topic, courtesy of an admired comedian, George Carlin...enjoy.
Speaking as a statistician, this poll bodes well for the bell curve, given the fact that half of all respondents (on average) are of above average intelligence, and the other half are below. So it does not surprise me that nearly half of the respondents articulated a faith in an invisible avenger, while a little more than half thought otherwise. I would be interested to see a t-test of correlation with the typical sociological questions asked in polls, such as geographic location, age, schooling, etc. This would better encourage me to finish reading such a loaded poll. And after reading the many responses to this post, it's no surprise that people who read this blog are inclined to fall into the "scientist" label. Speaking as an operant conditioner (i.e., a behaviorist), B.F. Skinner points out that we are products of our environment. But I am in both of the "nature vs. nurture" clans. Lemark posited that all life has the ability to pass on behavior through genes. That's not a shock to me, any more than the belief that our environment is remarkably responsible for our current thought processes. The term "social Darwinist" came from those politically bent toward the right, not from Darwin. Darwin never said "survival of the fittest." This is a common misnomer. What he actually said was those species which can best adapt to their environments do well enough to procreate, thus passing on their genes. He also never said that the genes passed on were superior to those of their predecessor, only that they were better suited for survivability in the current environment. Speaking as a theologian, I cannot. I am not one who believes in theology...call me agnostic. In fact, I agree with one's former comment that routinely bashing religion is to fan the flames of perpetuity for people who would be much better served to just forget about religion.