"Rapists drink water" is not an accurate correlation, a correlation would illustrate something different about rapists compared to the rest of society.
Let me put it this way, tech minded people are more likely to read slashdot; they also drink water. If I tell you that I read slashdot, assuming that I am tech minded is not 100% accurate but it is much, much more accurate than making that assumption if I tell you that I drink water.
I understand that correlation and causation are easily confused and misinterpreted; however, the OP implied that there was no meaningful relationship between rapists and violent pornography. A correlation is a relationship, is it a strong enough one to ban the one thing in hopes of eliminating the second? I don't think so, but I can see how other people would.
Your example isn't a very good one, homosexual behaviour does significantly increase your chances of getting AIDS and doctors still test homosexual men that come in for routine examininations.
What you say of correlation and causation is true, they are often confused and misidentified. Is the person sexually violent because he views violent porn or does he view violent porn because he is sexually violent?
I'm never said that I think that violent porn should be banned, merely that the OP's argument wasn't thought through very well.
Trust me, I get his point and I agree with his opinion but his argument is a ridiculous straw man or slippery slope argument, take your pick.
His point is that there is no proof that violent pornography leads to violent sexual practices, and I agree with him there. Of course, research should be done on the cause and effect relationship before laws are passed; but that is not the way democratic governments work.
Unfortunately, his argument tries to group anything that rapists consume or posses into a single category, which makes no sense. There is almost definatly a correlation between rape and possesion of rape porn, there is no correlation between rape and water. Correlation isn't proof but it is better than nothing.
The fact that some rapists get off on it is insufficient to justify banning it, after all, last I heard quite a few rapists drink water and eat bread. Did you just compare rape porn to bread and water? I understand your point but... c'mon really?
Speaking of Windows, why not give the patch (and that's what it is really, not a worm) to Microsoft. They can code review it and adapt it to be included in the latest Windows update. They are already granted access to everyone's computer, including any mission critical ones, so that's not such an issue. And I would hope they have the expertise to update Windows machines without killing anyone.
And that is exactly what makes Tolkien so special, the background is there even if it isn't expressly told in the story. The mythology of LotR goes back to the world's Genisis and many, many things are left out of the books for obvious reasons.
The important thing is that there are consistent rules that are being followed, not that the reader knows what they are. In Gandolf's case (if I remember from the Silmarillion correctly), he and the other sorcerers were sent the Middle earth by the Valar (essentially God's emissaries on Earth) to organize and inspire the people of Middle earth in their fight against Sauron. They were expressly forbidden from using their magic to directly opose Sauron; which explains why his powers are used only infrequently.
So what happens if researchers find a "gay gene"? Couldn't a homosexual who was worried about discrimination run the test on themselves, then make sure thier prospective employer knew what the result was?
Of course, I don't know the wording of the law; this would only work if it was vague enough.
True, I guess what it comes down to is whether you are "hurting the compitition" or just "hurting competition"; as in the spirit of a fair and even playing field. In this case, Rambus was clearly trying to tilt the field in their favor.
all those drives amounted to 79 million terabytes of capacity, enough for 158 billion hours of digital video or 1.2 trillion hours of MP3 songs. This just made me realize how much redundent data there is in the world. Think about just how many copies of some media there are and imagine what could be saved if we could find a way to do highspeed, centralized, streaming server for multimedia. Yeah, you wouldn't be able to listen to your music everywhere you go, but does the world really need a million digital copies of the new Brittany Spears cd?
I'm not sure if you realize this, but the person linked to in your sig was tyring (albiet unsuccesfully) to make a joke. You see, you were talking about jury nullification (i.e. the jury ignoring the judges guidelines and doing what they think is best despite the rules); he provided a (straw man) example to show how annoying/stupid he thinks jury nullification is.
Besides that, if he modded you down, then commented his moderation dissapears anyway so even if he was an ass, he was also stupid.
If you spend all your class time surfing the web, you should fail.
If your students are able to pass without paying any attention to you, you must not teach very much in your lectures. And if you don't teach anything, well, why should they pay attention?
By contrast, the graphene transistors were made in the same way that silicon devices are, by etching them out of larger pieces of material. They did actually build them, and they did it using the same kinds of techniques that current transistors use.
The new graphene devices work at room temperature They work at room temperature.
If you want something to worry about, worry about power usage and heat dissapation.
How about a new tag, maybe... naive. Seriously, the way the government does stuff it would cost a billion just to implement what he's proposing. And we all know that child porn addicts never use encryption or, God Forbid, change the name of the files from "kiddy porn101" to "my cool bands music".
I think they pulled the app mostly for PR reasons; not that the app generated tons of bad PR but that it was distracting people from what google wanted them talking about. Rather than argue about their right to have the app, they simply pulled it so people wouldn't be able to argue about it on the blogosphere.
I'm not saying that the complexity of the immune system implies a cost to the organism, I am saying that this adaptation is so ridiculously advantagious that there must be some cost or it would be much more common (Of course, this conjecture falls apart if the adaptation is more common than the article implies).
Don't believe that this adaptation is that advantagious? Infections deseases are responsible for 20% of human deaths, second only to heart disease; and that is even with modern antibiotics.
All very true, evolution does tend to push towards local maximums, not absolute maximums. However, by speculating that alligators have evolved this immune system because of their fierce terrotorial battles, the researchers imply that other reptiles do not share this adaptation, even though their immune systems are presumably quite similar.
Can you think of any other adaptation that is as advantagous as this one (immunity from virtually all kinds of disease and infection) that isn't shared by a wide variety of species? The fact that alligators haven't diversified out into other ecological niches seems (to me) to indicate that there is a heavy cost associated.
Ummm, What? If you are "as much a believer in evolution as the next" how do you propose that "alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics". If you beleive in evolution, then alligators as a species haven't always existed. In fact, according to evolution they probably have a common ancestor with nearly every other animal on the planet.
The article isn't saying that they just recently evolved this immune system if that's what you are trying to say. Mearly that we have discovered this new adaptation and will probably try to take advantage of the discoveries that evolution has made.
The ability to heal quickly and fight off almost any infection would be a huge adaptation for any animal even without the territory battles. The fact that alligators are one of the few (only?) animals to evolve this adaptation indicates that it comes with a hefty price.
The question is, can we leverage this adaptation for ourselves without incurring the price? If the price is energy expended to produce the ultra efficient immune system, that's fine; but if the price is directly tied to the effects themselves this may prove worthless.
I was just about to say that Dune doesn't make for good movies because there's just too much back story and narration to have a decent screenplay adaptation. Then you had to go and remind me ove LoTR, a fantasy novel with possibly more background and narration that was made into an awesome movie that even fans of the books enjoy.
I honestly don't know how they did it. I guess part of it was not trying to explain the background in depth; the fans of the book already know it and the rest don't care. Another way was to represent as much information visually as possible (the settings in LoTR were fantasticly matched to the book, atleast in spirit if not some details). Still, I don't see them spending tens of millions for a new Dune movie; which is what it would take to make it really work.
All fair points but at the same time there are just as many logical reasons why engineers wouldn't be terrorists.
First, engineers tend to make more money and have more stable jobs than average. Most terrorist in the middle east are dissillusioned twenty-somethings with at most some college.
Second, engineers rely on a technological society which is only possible with a certain level of civilization; a level which is difficult to impossible to maintain with large numbers of terrorist incidents.
Thirdly, engineers, unlike most modern terrorists, tend to not be religious. To be fair, I don't know if this holds in other countries/cultures, it may not be true in the middle east.
If they can prove that more engineering students are turning to religious fundementalismn and terrorism than average we need to find out why. "Engineers are antisocial" is not an acceptable explanation. There has to be more to it, engineers in the West are not drawn towards violent or suicidal tendencies.
The article a few months ago I could take issue with, it basically said that engineers were more suseptible to the kind of propaganda that terrorist orginizations use to increase their number. I find that unlikely and, frankly, insulting.
This article is saying something different however. From the summary, they are saying that a good terrorist is smart, independent, with good planning and problem solving skills; a discription that your stereotypical engineer matches pretty well.
However, that isn't a bad thing. Wouldn't these same attributes make a pretty good astronaut, office worker, soldier, doctor, or farmer? The only thing I don't understand about this article is why they singled out engineers in particular.
Slashdot Mirror
"Rapists drink water" is not an accurate correlation, a correlation would illustrate something different about rapists compared to the rest of society.
Let me put it this way, tech minded people are more likely to read slashdot; they also drink water. If I tell you that I read slashdot, assuming that I am tech minded is not 100% accurate but it is much, much more accurate than making that assumption if I tell you that I drink water.
I understand that correlation and causation are easily confused and misinterpreted; however, the OP implied that there was no meaningful relationship between rapists and violent pornography. A correlation is a relationship, is it a strong enough one to ban the one thing in hopes of eliminating the second? I don't think so, but I can see how other people would.
What? We're talking about doing research before passing a law outlawing a certain kind of porn, not before convicting someone of rape.
Your example isn't a very good one, homosexual behaviour does significantly increase your chances of getting AIDS and doctors still test homosexual men that come in for routine examininations.
What you say of correlation and causation is true, they are often confused and misidentified. Is the person sexually violent because he views violent porn or does he view violent porn because he is sexually violent?
I'm never said that I think that violent porn should be banned, merely that the OP's argument wasn't thought through very well.
Trust me, I get his point and I agree with his opinion but his argument is a ridiculous straw man or slippery slope argument, take your pick.
His point is that there is no proof that violent pornography leads to violent sexual practices, and I agree with him there. Of course, research should be done on the cause and effect relationship before laws are passed; but that is not the way democratic governments work.
Unfortunately, his argument tries to group anything that rapists consume or posses into a single category, which makes no sense. There is almost definatly a correlation between rape and possesion of rape porn, there is no correlation between rape and water. Correlation isn't proof but it is better than nothing.
Speaking of Windows, why not give the patch (and that's what it is really, not a worm) to Microsoft. They can code review it and adapt it to be included in the latest Windows update. They are already granted access to everyone's computer, including any mission critical ones, so that's not such an issue. And I would hope they have the expertise to update Windows machines without killing anyone.
And that is exactly what makes Tolkien so special, the background is there even if it isn't expressly told in the story. The mythology of LotR goes back to the world's Genisis and many, many things are left out of the books for obvious reasons.
The important thing is that there are consistent rules that are being followed, not that the reader knows what they are. In Gandolf's case (if I remember from the Silmarillion correctly), he and the other sorcerers were sent the Middle earth by the Valar (essentially God's emissaries on Earth) to organize and inspire the people of Middle earth in their fight against Sauron. They were expressly forbidden from using their magic to directly opose Sauron; which explains why his powers are used only infrequently.
So what happens if researchers find a "gay gene"? Couldn't a homosexual who was worried about discrimination run the test on themselves, then make sure thier prospective employer knew what the result was?
Of course, I don't know the wording of the law; this would only work if it was vague enough.
True, I guess what it comes down to is whether you are "hurting the compitition" or just "hurting competition"; as in the spirit of a fair and even playing field. In this case, Rambus was clearly trying to tilt the field in their favor.
Hurting competition in and of itself hurts consumers. I thought that was the whole idea behind antitrust laws in the first place.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but the person linked to in your sig was tyring (albiet unsuccesfully) to make a joke. You see, you were talking about jury nullification (i.e. the jury ignoring the judges guidelines and doing what they think is best despite the rules); he provided a (straw man) example to show how annoying/stupid he thinks jury nullification is.
Besides that, if he modded you down, then commented his moderation dissapears anyway so even if he was an ass, he was also stupid.
Exactly how important is this data that you haven't needed for the past 5 years?
If you spend all your class time surfing the web, you should fail.
If your students are able to pass without paying any attention to you, you must not teach very much in your lectures. And if you don't teach anything, well, why should they pay attention?
If you want something to worry about, worry about power usage and heat dissapation.
And people complain about firefox being bloated? You should not need a dedicated graphics card to check your email.
How about a new tag, maybe... naive. Seriously, the way the government does stuff it would cost a billion just to implement what he's proposing. And we all know that child porn addicts never use encryption or, God Forbid, change the name of the files from "kiddy porn101" to "my cool bands music".
I think they pulled the app mostly for PR reasons; not that the app generated tons of bad PR but that it was distracting people from what google wanted them talking about. Rather than argue about their right to have the app, they simply pulled it so people wouldn't be able to argue about it on the blogosphere.
I'm not saying that the complexity of the immune system implies a cost to the organism, I am saying that this adaptation is so ridiculously advantagious that there must be some cost or it would be much more common (Of course, this conjecture falls apart if the adaptation is more common than the article implies).
Don't believe that this adaptation is that advantagious? Infections deseases are responsible for 20% of human deaths, second only to heart disease; and that is even with modern antibiotics.
All very true, evolution does tend to push towards local maximums, not absolute maximums. However, by speculating that alligators have evolved this immune system because of their fierce terrotorial battles, the researchers imply that other reptiles do not share this adaptation, even though their immune systems are presumably quite similar.
Can you think of any other adaptation that is as advantagous as this one (immunity from virtually all kinds of disease and infection) that isn't shared by a wide variety of species? The fact that alligators haven't diversified out into other ecological niches seems (to me) to indicate that there is a heavy cost associated.
Ummm, What? If you are "as much a believer in evolution as the next" how do you propose that "alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics". If you beleive in evolution, then alligators as a species haven't always existed. In fact, according to evolution they probably have a common ancestor with nearly every other animal on the planet.
The article isn't saying that they just recently evolved this immune system if that's what you are trying to say. Mearly that we have discovered this new adaptation and will probably try to take advantage of the discoveries that evolution has made.
The ability to heal quickly and fight off almost any infection would be a huge adaptation for any animal even without the territory battles. The fact that alligators are one of the few (only?) animals to evolve this adaptation indicates that it comes with a hefty price.
The question is, can we leverage this adaptation for ourselves without incurring the price? If the price is energy expended to produce the ultra efficient immune system, that's fine; but if the price is directly tied to the effects themselves this may prove worthless.
I was just about to say that Dune doesn't make for good movies because there's just too much back story and narration to have a decent screenplay adaptation. Then you had to go and remind me ove LoTR, a fantasy novel with possibly more background and narration that was made into an awesome movie that even fans of the books enjoy.
I honestly don't know how they did it. I guess part of it was not trying to explain the background in depth; the fans of the book already know it and the rest don't care. Another way was to represent as much information visually as possible (the settings in LoTR were fantasticly matched to the book, atleast in spirit if not some details). Still, I don't see them spending tens of millions for a new Dune movie; which is what it would take to make it really work.
All fair points but at the same time there are just as many logical reasons why engineers wouldn't be terrorists.
First, engineers tend to make more money and have more stable jobs than average. Most terrorist in the middle east are dissillusioned twenty-somethings with at most some college.
Second, engineers rely on a technological society which is only possible with a certain level of civilization; a level which is difficult to impossible to maintain with large numbers of terrorist incidents.
Thirdly, engineers, unlike most modern terrorists, tend to not be religious. To be fair, I don't know if this holds in other countries/cultures, it may not be true in the middle east.
If they can prove that more engineering students are turning to religious fundementalismn and terrorism than average we need to find out why. "Engineers are antisocial" is not an acceptable explanation. There has to be more to it, engineers in the West are not drawn towards violent or suicidal tendencies.
The article a few months ago I could take issue with, it basically said that engineers were more suseptible to the kind of propaganda that terrorist orginizations use to increase their number. I find that unlikely and, frankly, insulting.
This article is saying something different however. From the summary, they are saying that a good terrorist is smart, independent, with good planning and problem solving skills; a discription that your stereotypical engineer matches pretty well.
However, that isn't a bad thing. Wouldn't these same attributes make a pretty good astronaut, office worker, soldier, doctor, or farmer? The only thing I don't understand about this article is why they singled out engineers in particular.