. Feminists have reasonable cause to feel aggrieved. But then anyone interested in science or who believes in a meritocracy should also feel aggrieved. Points should make prizes, not penises, unless you can show me that you have to use your penis to hold a test tube over a bunsen burner.
Well now - you are a pretty disgusting sexist there, Well considered that you post as an AC.
I am pretty certain that the only cure you would accept is for a special division of Nobel prizes exclusively for women.
At that point, your utter fixation on the specific genitalia a person is wielding might be assuaged.
After that we can consider Nobel prizes only for gay people, trans people (would male to female and female to male be the rule, or would one encompassing group be okay?)
A meritocracy based on what is between people's legs, and how they mentally define who they want to have sex with. In the race to eliminate sexism, y'all have become more focused on sex than your enemies. You have become your enemy.
iPhone had colors, and marketed that you had a choice of colors. Now they're boring again these days. Because boring is the new black.
Are you disagreeing or agreeing with me? This is not phone nor brand specific. It is phones, cameras, mp3 players, and a lot of other things that matured, and were hard to come up with anything new.
The rule preventing posthumous awards was introduced in 1974. Crick et al received the prize in 1962. What was your point again?
Doen't matter. Of the 923 Awardees, there are only 2 Awards given out after they were dead. They hate giving awards to dead people. They just made it official.
And apparently you missed everything else > Why don't you read and refute that? I'll wait.
I would love to hear Pences knowledgable insightful analysis of the results of the first space battle. Say 25 ships destroyed by presumably nuclear weapons.
The effects of a satellite destroyed by a regular explosive device puts a large region out of use. The Electromagnetic pulses of nucs, and the debris orbiting the earth from large vessels destroyed will make this clusterfuck of an idea pointless after it's first use.
Not to worry. With a stable genius at the helm, I'm sure he has some plan to mitigate the effects of large and tiny chunks orbiting. Perhaps the Evangelicals who approve of everything he does will pray and their gawd will rain them down on whoever dear leader is pissed at that day.
This isn't even trying to troll. This is just an idea that is so stupid that it makes spontaneous generation look like a Nobel winning idea.
But the smartphone market is unique! No other major product has an annual update of existing products that's pretty much the same as what went before. *cough* cars
Color. Anytime the marketing droids introduce colors, Colors, COLORS!!! it is a dead giveaway that the market has matured.
Poor example, as in 1903 Mrs. Curie was originally NOT going to be awarded the prize as she was a woman.
And what about Rosalind Franklin?
Rosalind Franklin - she did not receive a Nobel Prize for a very good reason. She was dead.
In 1958, when she died, DNA structure was not yet proven. After a few more years, in 1962, the Nobel was awarded to Crick, Watson and Wilkins for their body of work on nucleic acid.
Crick had even suggested that Franklin be awarded a Nobel in Chemistry. However, Nobel rules prohibit posthumous awards.
So the good doctor Franklin has been awarded many other honors for her work, including a University bearing her name.
And the sad thing is that this researcher has been elevated to Joan of Arc persecution status by angry feminists who are foaming at the mouth because she didn't get one prize that she was not eligible for because of being dead.
And that's the pity of it all. If y'all have a problem with the Nobel Prize rules, talk to them.
Not even necessary to read the whole article to come to that conclusion. After I read blah who should be (vulgo deserves here comes the white knighting) on Wikipedia it was a dead giveaway that this smells of politics of identity politics to be precise. Wah wah women deserve to be treated equally. Women are as good wah wah. Excuse me but who wants to research the ratio of male to female scientists that are active at the moment. Or overall. Ok is guess that gets hard to find out but I bet the ratio is similar to the ratio of male to female scientists listed on Wikipedia.
The female scientists and engineers I worked with hated the identity politics terribly. Getting trotted out for talks when visitors came through because it was suppposed to promote women. As one said to me. "I wanted to be an engineer, and I've become a nerd fashion model."
I think that so many identity politics people don't understand that women who become scientists can't stand being looked at a sex objects by the feminists. And yes, if a woman is looked at as a woman before being looked at as a scientist or engineer, the people who are insisting on that are indeed looking at her as a sex object.
Women do equally well with men and women patients precisely BECAUSE they have so many male colleagues. Yours is typical modern feminist thinking: it's only a problem if it's happening to women. Removing men from being physicians will eventually make women just as bad at treating men as men are currently at treating women. The solution isn't reducing the number of male physicians, but increasing the number of their female colleagues.
Gee, some times I can't write sarcastically enough. Looks like you've been Poe'd.
Look, the whole article in here is a troll job, so I was adding to the trolling. And Poe's Law tells us that at a certain point of ridiculousness , sarcasm becomes indistinguishable from what people with extreme views would write.
Marie Curie is famous not because the is a female. She is famous for what she accomplished. Until the present day, that is
Do you understand the difference? This AI bot that writes Wiki articles is stated to give women more exposure. It isn't necessarily because they are doing world class work, it is because of their sex.
Marie Curie said "I'm gonna find out what the ray emitting substance is in pitchblende - hold my Beer!"
And she collected 2 well deserved frickin' Nobel Prizes for her efforts. She's one of the most incredible scientists ever put on the earth. But today, with pop culturalization as the zenith to aspire to, and the ascendency of gender identity politics, she is more attributed with being a woman than a scientific gift from the cosmos.
This just seems pointless and will probably end up with outdated information (since no one cares to make the page to start with) and will likely get vandalized by mischievous students.
After reading the article,it is a political thing. The point is to "increase the representation of women scientists on Wikipedia".
But seriously, this is all being done without consent, so starts off on shaky ground.
Is the AI article writer sufficiently non-male biased?
Should the AI article writer be precluded from writing about males?
Transgender scientists?
What about names that are not easily assigned to a sex - we don't want to assume gender.
Silly? You betchya. But if you introduce gender identity politics into science, you will get Gender identity politics demanding control of the science.
Sport is clearly more important than science it would seem...
No, not more important, just more popular. But the solution is more articles about scientists, not fewer about sports. It is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is no inherent limit to the number of articles.
Going to the PopSci article, this is apparently a gender issue - which brings up some other issues.
I haven't yet seen mention any mention whether or not the woman has given consent to someone or something writing a Wikipedia article about her. I can see some real trouble brewing there.
What if she doesn't want a Wikipedia page? What if she disagrees with the Wikipedia article?
Aside from the article's intent to focus on women, its obvious the same issues can apply to men.
I dunno, a sexist Ai bot writing Wiki pages about women scientists and researchers. That gets cringeworthy real quickly. First problem, is the sex of anyone editing the Wiki article going to be weighted or whole disallowed? I digress though, so let's get away from hoo-hoos or peens.
Regardless my original question still holds. Does Professor Economos want an article? She could easily have a grad student write one if she's focused on her work. Maybe she doesn't want to be there
The AI articles might contain mistakes, irrelevancies, or just stuff she or her department or dean don't want out there. What I've seen of AI doesn't impress me much.
So this whole idea of some bot writing Wiki articles about people who don't have any is just forcing these people onto Wikipedia to edit the mistakes the AI makes.
So we need to see what she wants before forcing her into the world of wiki editing.
Roughly 2/3 of all ER doctors (in the US) are men, and we already don't have enough of them.
That's just one problem.
This is one of those cases where you can cure 100 percent of the problems by eliminating 2/3rds of the people. This is pretty simple - eliminate male doctors, and better outcomes are in store.
The summary said that female patients had a higher mortality from heart attacks when treated in the ER by male doctors. Statistically female doctors had similar outcomes for heart attack patients as male doctors with the exception that male doctors who didn't have much experience with female patients had worse outcomes in treating female heart attack patients.
I think there is a strong possibility that male doctors are purposely killing female patients. Whether it is the innate stupidity of males, or the natural superiority of women doctors, we have to start eliminating male physicians. Women are dying, and men are killing them!
Both of your arguments have a fundamental flaw that suggest you didn't really read the article summary, much less the article: your first argument requires a premise that women are more likely to die than men regardless of the gender of their doctor; and your second argument requires a premise that female doctors are less likely to have patients die regardless of the gender of their patient. But neither of those are true - this study found an increased death rate only when two variables coincide: female doctor and female patient.
The answer is so simple I'm surprised that no one sees it. Perhaps a forest for thye trees situation.
At the bery least, men doctors should not be allowed to treat female patients.
The actual solution is to remove males as physicians. Only allow females to be physicians. The problem will go away.
Can anyone come up with a reason why my solution will not work?
Now, to your comments regarding the good Dr's Peterson and Chomsky - sure - both are an interesting listen. Having listened more to Peterson, it is obvious that he's put in a lot of thought - even if his mannerisms are studied - to his lectures and interviews.
But the big problem is that the liberal arts encompasses a huge number of fields, much more separated than the two we're talking about. When the term liberal arts is used, perhaps 90 percent of people think of arts, philosophy, religious and gender studies, and social sciences.
In the meantime - some of the highest paid fields like Chemistry and biology, physics and the earth sciences - also liberal arts!!!
So we are left with some of the least likely of bedfellows under a huge tent. Related disciplines such as Mechanical and Electronics Engineering make perfect sense as a group, I've worked with enough, and they mostly understand each other.
But the concept that any programming project or vehicle research needs a gender studies or philosophy professor as an integral part of the project is perhaps mind boggling. At least to my tiny brain.
I'm educated both in Electronics and Art - an interesting mix and a long story. I've worked directly with Mech Engineers, EE's of course, and Physicists of the NucE nature. That works. My broad education has served me well. But I'm trying to imagine that philosophy person coming in and making a contribution except in ethics consideration, and if my experience with gender studies profs means anything, they would just yell at us.
I'll bite - what are the career paths for English majors?
Ones involving words.
If you can't come up with at least 50 examples on your own, fuck off.;)
Har, so you are kinda correct - I've seen English majors at the McDonald's drive through's. "You want fries with that?" is definitely words.
My son was an English major until he decided he wanted to support himself after graduation. The prospects are severely limited. Your best bet is to take the professor's job when she or he retires.
Wind, solar and grid storage have already trashed coal and are in the process of out competing natural gas.
That is the idea. We have wind farms just southwest of where I live, and they are in constant energy production, producing both regular and peaking electricity. The only time they stop is when birds or bats are in the near neighborhood, and after that, they get right back to work. Of really important note is that they are handling both peaking and normal output. We don't need new nuc plants.
Meanwhile Nuclear is expensive and extremely unpopular. You are never going to be able to sell a solution that is more expensive than the cheapest alternative fossil fuel source, that needs massive amounts of subsidies and is regarded suspiciously by the public (fairly or not) as a potential ticking time bomb.
You forgot to add that nuclear power plants are an incredibly poor strategic power source.
Let's say there was a country I was at war with. The paradigm of nuclear power production is huge plants generating a lot of power to service a large area.
I would want my enemy to generate their power that way. One, maybe two cruise missiles, and I not only take out much of my enemie's power, but the site is contaminated to hell and back.
There is no non-nuclear option to take out our local wind farms in one fell swoop other than several moabs.
This dear friends is why you want decentralized power production for yourself, and centralized power production for your enemy.
Slashdot Mirror
. Feminists have reasonable cause to feel aggrieved. But then anyone interested in science or who believes in a meritocracy should also feel aggrieved. Points should make prizes, not penises, unless you can show me that you have to use your penis to hold a test tube over a bunsen burner.
Well now - you are a pretty disgusting sexist there, Well considered that you post as an AC.
I am pretty certain that the only cure you would accept is for a special division of Nobel prizes exclusively for women.
At that point, your utter fixation on the specific genitalia a person is wielding might be assuaged.
After that we can consider Nobel prizes only for gay people, trans people (would male to female and female to male be the rule, or would one encompassing group be okay?)
A meritocracy based on what is between people's legs, and how they mentally define who they want to have sex with. In the race to eliminate sexism, y'all have become more focused on sex than your enemies. You have become your enemy.
I approve! Though I have homebrewed IPA instead of tequila.
A great alternative. Prosit!
Sitting back and muching popcorn and a shot of tquila as Slashdot erupts in 3...2....1....
"What if she doesn't want a Wikipedia page?"
If you are famous enough, you get a Wikipedia page like it or not. There certainly are people who wish they didn't have one.
If you are not very famous and complain, you can get your page deleted.
No argument there.
I have also written pages for 3 people (who did not ask me, but I asked them) and maintain one.
Which is why posting anon.
Oooh! could you write an Ol Olsoc page?
iPhone had colors, and marketed that you had a choice of colors. Now they're boring again these days. Because boring is the new black.
Are you disagreeing or agreeing with me? This is not phone nor brand specific. It is phones, cameras, mp3 players, and a lot of other things that matured, and were hard to come up with anything new.
The rule preventing posthumous awards was introduced in 1974. Crick et al received the prize in 1962. What was your point again?
Doen't matter. Of the 923 Awardees, there are only 2 Awards given out after they were dead. They hate giving awards to dead people. They just made it official.
And apparently you missed everything else > Why don't you read and refute that? I'll wait.
The effects of a satellite destroyed by a regular explosive device puts a large region out of use. The Electromagnetic pulses of nucs, and the debris orbiting the earth from large vessels destroyed will make this clusterfuck of an idea pointless after it's first use.
Not to worry. With a stable genius at the helm, I'm sure he has some plan to mitigate the effects of large and tiny chunks orbiting. Perhaps the Evangelicals who approve of everything he does will pray and their gawd will rain them down on whoever dear leader is pissed at that day.
This isn't even trying to troll. This is just an idea that is so stupid that it makes spontaneous generation look like a Nobel winning idea.
But the smartphone market is unique! No other major product has an annual update of existing products that's pretty much the same as what went before. *cough* cars
Color. Anytime the marketing droids introduce colors, Colors, COLORS!!! it is a dead giveaway that the market has matured.
Poor example, as in 1903 Mrs. Curie was originally NOT going to be awarded the prize as she was a woman.
And what about Rosalind Franklin?
Rosalind Franklin - she did not receive a Nobel Prize for a very good reason. She was dead.
In 1958, when she died, DNA structure was not yet proven. After a few more years, in 1962, the Nobel was awarded to Crick, Watson and Wilkins for their body of work on nucleic acid.
Crick had even suggested that Franklin be awarded a Nobel in Chemistry. However, Nobel rules prohibit posthumous awards.
So the good doctor Franklin has been awarded many other honors for her work, including a University bearing her name.
And the sad thing is that this researcher has been elevated to Joan of Arc persecution status by angry feminists who are foaming at the mouth because she didn't get one prize that she was not eligible for because of being dead.
And that's the pity of it all. If y'all have a problem with the Nobel Prize rules, talk to them.
Next?
Not even necessary to read the whole article to come to that conclusion. After I read blah who should be (vulgo deserves here comes the white knighting) on Wikipedia it was a dead giveaway that this smells of politics of identity politics to be precise. Wah wah women deserve to be treated equally. Women are as good wah wah. Excuse me but who wants to research the ratio of male to female scientists that are active at the moment. Or overall. Ok is guess that gets hard to find out but I bet the ratio is similar to the ratio of male to female scientists listed on Wikipedia.
The female scientists and engineers I worked with hated the identity politics terribly. Getting trotted out for talks when visitors came through because it was suppposed to promote women. As one said to me. "I wanted to be an engineer, and I've become a nerd fashion model."
I think that so many identity politics people don't understand that women who become scientists can't stand being looked at a sex objects by the feminists. And yes, if a woman is looked at as a woman before being looked at as a scientist or engineer, the people who are insisting on that are indeed looking at her as a sex object.
Women do equally well with men and women patients precisely BECAUSE they have so many male colleagues. Yours is typical modern feminist thinking: it's only a problem if it's happening to women. Removing men from being physicians will eventually make women just as bad at treating men as men are currently at treating women. The solution isn't reducing the number of male physicians, but increasing the number of their female colleagues.
Gee, some times I can't write sarcastically enough. Looks like you've been Poe'd.
Look, the whole article in here is a troll job, so I was adding to the trolling. And Poe's Law tells us that at a certain point of ridiculousness , sarcasm becomes indistinguishable from what people with extreme views would write.
Did Marie Curie give consent for her page?
She dead.
Anyhow - here is some sit down truth for you.
Marie Curie is famous not because the is a female. She is famous for what she accomplished. Until the present day, that is
Do you understand the difference? This AI bot that writes Wiki articles is stated to give women more exposure. It isn't necessarily because they are doing world class work, it is because of their sex.
Marie Curie said "I'm gonna find out what the ray emitting substance is in pitchblende - hold my Beer!"
And she collected 2 well deserved frickin' Nobel Prizes for her efforts. She's one of the most incredible scientists ever put on the earth. But today, with pop culturalization as the zenith to aspire to, and the ascendency of gender identity politics, she is more attributed with being a woman than a scientific gift from the cosmos.
This just seems pointless and will probably end up with outdated information (since no one cares to make the page to start with) and will likely get vandalized by mischievous students.
After reading the article,it is a political thing. The point is to "increase the representation of women scientists on Wikipedia".
But seriously, this is all being done without consent, so starts off on shaky ground.
Is the AI article writer sufficiently non-male biased?
Should the AI article writer be precluded from writing about males?
Transgender scientists?
What about names that are not easily assigned to a sex - we don't want to assume gender.
Silly? You betchya. But if you introduce gender identity politics into science, you will get Gender identity politics demanding control of the science.
Sport is clearly more important than science it would seem...
No, not more important, just more popular. But the solution is more articles about scientists, not fewer about sports. It is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is no inherent limit to the number of articles.
Going to the PopSci article, this is apparently a gender issue - which brings up some other issues.
I haven't yet seen mention any mention whether or not the woman has given consent to someone or something writing a Wikipedia article about her. I can see some real trouble brewing there.
What if she doesn't want a Wikipedia page? What if she disagrees with the Wikipedia article?
Aside from the article's intent to focus on women, its obvious the same issues can apply to men.
I dunno, a sexist Ai bot writing Wiki pages about women scientists and researchers. That gets cringeworthy real quickly. First problem, is the sex of anyone editing the Wiki article going to be weighted or whole disallowed? I digress though, so let's get away from hoo-hoos or peens.
Regardless my original question still holds. Does Professor Economos want an article? She could easily have a grad student write one if she's focused on her work. Maybe she doesn't want to be there
The AI articles might contain mistakes, irrelevancies, or just stuff she or her department or dean don't want out there. What I've seen of AI doesn't impress me much.
So this whole idea of some bot writing Wiki articles about people who don't have any is just forcing these people onto Wikipedia to edit the mistakes the AI makes.
So we need to see what she wants before forcing her into the world of wiki editing.
Roughly 2/3 of all ER doctors (in the US) are men, and we already don't have enough of them.
That's just one problem.
This is one of those cases where you can cure 100 percent of the problems by eliminating 2/3rds of the people. This is pretty simple - eliminate male doctors, and better outcomes are in store.
lol every single one of your comments is a troll today lol. Did you break up with your girlfriend?
Trolling can be fun, especially with this particular story. There are some groups in which those couple posts of mine would be a true Poe event.
But hell, the whole story is a troll, donchya know?
The summary said that female patients had a higher mortality from heart attacks when treated in the ER by male doctors. Statistically female doctors had similar outcomes for heart attack patients as male doctors with the exception that male doctors who didn't have much experience with female patients had worse outcomes in treating female heart attack patients.
I think there is a strong possibility that male doctors are purposely killing female patients. Whether it is the innate stupidity of males, or the natural superiority of women doctors, we have to start eliminating male physicians. Women are dying, and men are killing them!
Both of your arguments have a fundamental flaw that suggest you didn't really read the article summary, much less the article: your first argument requires a premise that women are more likely to die than men regardless of the gender of their doctor; and your second argument requires a premise that female doctors are less likely to have patients die regardless of the gender of their patient. But neither of those are true - this study found an increased death rate only when two variables coincide: female doctor and female patient.
The answer is so simple I'm surprised that no one sees it. Perhaps a forest for thye trees situation.
At the bery least, men doctors should not be allowed to treat female patients.
The actual solution is to remove males as physicians. Only allow females to be physicians. The problem will go away.
Can anyone come up with a reason why my solution will not work?
Yes, an interesting point. Men die earlier. How is this effect accounted for?
Married men die younger than their wives. The reason?
They want to.
See also: XKCD 386
Now, to your comments regarding the good Dr's Peterson and Chomsky - sure - both are an interesting listen. Having listened more to Peterson, it is obvious that he's put in a lot of thought - even if his mannerisms are studied - to his lectures and interviews.
But the big problem is that the liberal arts encompasses a huge number of fields, much more separated than the two we're talking about. When the term liberal arts is used, perhaps 90 percent of people think of arts, philosophy, religious and gender studies, and social sciences.
In the meantime - some of the highest paid fields like Chemistry and biology, physics and the earth sciences - also liberal arts!!!
So we are left with some of the least likely of bedfellows under a huge tent. Related disciplines such as Mechanical and Electronics Engineering make perfect sense as a group, I've worked with enough, and they mostly understand each other.
But the concept that any programming project or vehicle research needs a gender studies or philosophy professor as an integral part of the project is perhaps mind boggling. At least to my tiny brain.
I'm educated both in Electronics and Art - an interesting mix and a long story. I've worked directly with Mech Engineers, EE's of course, and Physicists of the NucE nature. That works. My broad education has served me well. But I'm trying to imagine that philosophy person coming in and making a contribution except in ethics consideration, and if my experience with gender studies profs means anything, they would just yell at us.
You just stated an environmental refutation of globalism. Expect to be called a racist nationalist with sour cream any second.
I think that will move me up a few notches in many people's estimation.....
I'll bite - what are the career paths for English majors?
Ones involving words.
If you can't come up with at least 50 examples on your own, fuck off. ;)
Har, so you are kinda correct - I've seen English majors at the McDonald's drive through's. "You want fries with that?" is definitely words.
My son was an English major until he decided he wanted to support himself after graduation. The prospects are severely limited. Your best bet is to take the professor's job when she or he retires.
> Infowars called - they want you back
I'm not sure if you're being voluntarily ignorant, or you're just letting your personal opinions take over your ability to read poll data.
I'm not sure if you are confusing me with someone who bases much of anything on "poll data".
If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Chill, my dude. You have me more convinced than ever that you need to be on infowars.
Wind, solar and grid storage have already trashed coal and are in the process of out competing natural gas.
That is the idea. We have wind farms just southwest of where I live, and they are in constant energy production, producing both regular and peaking electricity. The only time they stop is when birds or bats are in the near neighborhood, and after that, they get right back to work. Of really important note is that they are handling both peaking and normal output. We don't need new nuc plants.
Meanwhile Nuclear is expensive and extremely unpopular. You are never going to be able to sell a solution that is more expensive than the cheapest alternative fossil fuel source, that needs massive amounts of subsidies and is regarded suspiciously by the public (fairly or not) as a potential ticking time bomb.
You forgot to add that nuclear power plants are an incredibly poor strategic power source.
Let's say there was a country I was at war with. The paradigm of nuclear power production is huge plants generating a lot of power to service a large area.
I would want my enemy to generate their power that way. One, maybe two cruise missiles, and I not only take out much of my enemie's power, but the site is contaminated to hell and back.
There is no non-nuclear option to take out our local wind farms in one fell swoop other than several moabs.
This dear friends is why you want decentralized power production for yourself, and centralized power production for your enemy.
US externalities are way up
I've always thought that we have to produce solutions to problems. So let's say you are correct.
The USA is at fault here, because the county buys goods made in countries that don't care how much CO2 they generate.
The solution is for the USA to stop forcing these countries to make and sell the USA their production. Make it illegal to do this.
Then these countries will enjoy less pollution, and less of the Oppression of the USA forcing them to make things.