Written like someone who has never driven or lived in a high population deer area. Hunters: 1) provide food in my home state for many less well-off people, 2) limit deer-car accidents and 3) prevent over-population.
I think that sadly this is not just limited to tech articles. I've seen pieces from a wide-range of topics that appear to be un-sourced, Wikipedia sourced or single-sourced. All of these are substandard both for academia, professional work-related technical writing and any effort of journalism. Otherwise, one may as well relegate these stories/articles to opinion/editorial sections.
Geez the mods are idiots. We need a training course on being a mod that you actually have to understand the moderation system before you can become one. Now this part of the post is off-topic.
To reply to your response (mods, this is informative): Thanks--yes. I'm aware of the data. I've actually spent some time reading about this topic. The data is not mysteriously adjusted--they actually explained in scientific journals exactly what they have done and why they do it. Your sources are both right-leaning and non-scientific in their approach.
Now to educate the mods on flamebait: You (Anomalyst) are being obviously pedantic and biased in your reply. Please and kindly do go bugger off.
Now then mods, my original comment was intended to be funny, but it may also have had a tone of trolling to it, which is why Anomalyst responded the way s/he did.
Now, assume I'm trying to amuse you, and have this post also modded funny. A typical slashdot modder will find the "There's no way Anomalyst is a girl. There aren't any on/. anyway." Or perhaps if I wrote something about/.ers living in basements.
Oddly enough this post will likely be unnoticed and unmodded, in which case it might deserve the underrated mod. On the off chance that this post actually gets some attention, it may be moderated every which way, in which case, I'd say it was probably overrated as we all should read the moderation rules better (insightful).
Hopefully, in the end, my rant will also be to some degree interesting to the/. editors, because the mod system is to some degree still broken(redundant). Out of curiosity, I looked back at some stories from around 2000. Even on stories that have around 200-300 posts only 1 or 2 comments actually achieve a "5" rating. This is just like grade inflation in our schools--we don't all need or deserve a "5" post. A comment should be something truly remarkable to deserve it.
I agree with the openness and sharing concept--don't get me wrong. Just hope it can truly be used for the "greater good" without abusing the "minor good".
No. This is a common approach for younger children. Sometimes there is just a "___" instead of parens. Regardless, a basic concept that all children would ideally be learning early on.
Correction: Prisons are a government (tax-payer) funded *private* enterprise in the majority of situations now. The fact that for-profit entities may own and operate prisons is still outrageous to me.
...which makes good sense in a very dry, wild-fire prone area. We had to get burn-permits when clearing some brush on our property not so long ago during drought conditions.
Only trouble is most college educated people in the US have already gotten into a lot of debt... paying that off takes a long time. Another advantage to a European educational system, from what I understand.
Yeah--I always forget that needs are relative and that many needs are socialized in Europe. Just jealous from my American ignorance and wage-slavery.:-)
Where is bad analogy guy when you need him? No--this isn't like that at all. This is the people actually doing the work not getting paid while the owner of said "team", who incidentally has no risk due to tax-payer bailouts and no need to provide the initial capital due to it being investors money, getting the largest take of the credit and financial reward.
If you go deep enough with science, there no way to falsify certain claims made in the scientific studies as well. At a certain point, if you are doing pure research and have an open mind, you will come to a point where something is unexplainable, but that you must assume or take on faith. Science is a tool for understanding "God's green earth", just as philosophy and religion are also tools for understanding the self, human interaction, etc. Sometimes, people choose a different tool because it works better for them.
This is sheer nonsense. The point of many religions is to gain a better spiritual understanding and continue a religious journey--one that continues to ask questions. Some people don't want to examine that and that is their choice.
Thanks for the link--same quality as Wikipedia...;-)
I think there are probably very good arguments to be made about bias on any test. However, bias and impact are two very different things. If the impact of the decisions made from said tests "does no harm", as the link you point to indicates, than I'd say it's okay to acknowledge, but it's time to move on. What troubles me more is that people don't necessarily know enough about using test scores and their appropriate usage (e.g., the point of this article). Tests are so often co-opted into uses for which they were never intended.
With respect to your dyslexia comment, I'd argue that the tests I pointed to (PISA, especially) would be a better fit for someone with dyslexia. Looking at this: http://www.iqtestexperts.com/dyslexic-geniuses.php, would seem to indicate that a properly designed test would be a more visual one. If you took a test that had 20 points of negative bias for your subgroup, then yes--you are probably a genius on the Wechsler scale.
Um... yeah. That's why it's purportedly a test of innate aptitude. Not an assessment of achievement. See Gattica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca for how people can overcome aptitude with effort.
Yes. Test-wiseness is always a factor. This is the whole aptitude vs. achievement debate in psychometrics. Which is it that you wish to measure? The SAT used to be known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test and then the Scholastic Assessment Test--not so anymore. It is simply "the SAT", sometimes with "Reasoning Test" thrown in as well. Test-wiseness does not always help with some measures of reasoning (e.g., some tests use non-language dependent items). Some times, the effect of test-wiseness is simply evidence of something you wanted to measure in the first place--e.g., the ability to learn. In this case, it seems they are just simply using the test as a first pass to cull a large applicant pool--a potentially useful but likely invalid use (read psychometrically ill-advised usage) of whichever IQ test they are using.
Slashdot Mirror
Written like someone who has never driven or lived in a high population deer area. Hunters: 1) provide food in my home state for many less well-off people, 2) limit deer-car accidents and 3) prevent over-population.
Perhaps they're not as dumb as we think they are. They have bills to pay, too.
I think that sadly this is not just limited to tech articles. I've seen pieces from a wide-range of topics that appear to be un-sourced, Wikipedia sourced or single-sourced. All of these are substandard both for academia, professional work-related technical writing and any effort of journalism. Otherwise, one may as well relegate these stories/articles to opinion/editorial sections.
Holy bad title--or bad reading on my part. Really is the hacker against the US? Or hacking the US (as in government and business interests)?
Well at least it's Fucking gay pr0n. That shit is hot. I mean, the cuddling-and-smoking-after-the-act pr0n is soooo l@m3.
Seriously, potential homophobia aside, thanks for the tip.
Geez the mods are idiots. We need a training course on being a mod that you actually have to understand the moderation system before you can become one. Now this part of the post is off-topic.
/. anyway." Or perhaps if I wrote something about /.ers living in basements.
/. editors, because the mod system is to some degree still broken(redundant). Out of curiosity, I looked back at some stories from around 2000. Even on stories that have around 200-300 posts only 1 or 2 comments actually achieve a "5" rating. This is just like grade inflation in our schools--we don't all need or deserve a "5" post. A comment should be something truly remarkable to deserve it.
To reply to your response (mods, this is informative): Thanks--yes. I'm aware of the data. I've actually spent some time reading about this topic. The data is not mysteriously adjusted--they actually explained in scientific journals exactly what they have done and why they do it. Your sources are both right-leaning and non-scientific in their approach.
Now to educate the mods on flamebait: You (Anomalyst) are being obviously pedantic and biased in your reply. Please and kindly do go bugger off.
Now then mods, my original comment was intended to be funny, but it may also have had a tone of trolling to it, which is why Anomalyst responded the way s/he did.
Now, assume I'm trying to amuse you, and have this post also modded funny. A typical slashdot modder will find the "There's no way Anomalyst is a girl. There aren't any on
Oddly enough this post will likely be unnoticed and unmodded, in which case it might deserve the underrated mod. On the off chance that this post actually gets some attention, it may be moderated every which way, in which case, I'd say it was probably overrated as we all should read the moderation rules better (insightful).
Hopefully, in the end, my rant will also be to some degree interesting to the
I agree with the openness and sharing concept--don't get me wrong. Just hope it can truly be used for the "greater good" without abusing the "minor good".
No. This is a common approach for younger children. Sometimes there is just a "___" instead of parens. Regardless, a basic concept that all children would ideally be learning early on.
unfortunately, the splash on this page: http://www.gnu.org/ still shows openoffice as the main way of being productive on a GnuOS computer.
Just imagine if we shared global climate data with everyone... oh wait...
also see the new show on USA Covert Affairs for current tech for the blind.
Correction: Prisons are a government (tax-payer) funded *private* enterprise in the majority of situations now. The fact that for-profit entities may own and operate prisons is still outrageous to me.
...which makes good sense in a very dry, wild-fire prone area. We had to get burn-permits when clearing some brush on our property not so long ago during drought conditions.
Only trouble is most college educated people in the US have already gotten into a lot of debt... paying that off takes a long time. Another advantage to a European educational system, from what I understand.
Yeah--I always forget that needs are relative and that many needs are socialized in Europe. Just jealous from my American ignorance and wage-slavery. :-)
I doubt seriously you can live well on $15.000 a year.
where is this mysterious country where this is true?
Where is bad analogy guy when you need him? No--this isn't like that at all. This is the people actually doing the work not getting paid while the owner of said "team", who incidentally has no risk due to tax-payer bailouts and no need to provide the initial capital due to it being investors money, getting the largest take of the credit and financial reward.
Yes, all students are above average and all students will be proficient by 2014. Good thing the world is ending in 2012.
If you go deep enough with science, there no way to falsify certain claims made in the scientific studies as well. At a certain point, if you are doing pure research and have an open mind, you will come to a point where something is unexplainable, but that you must assume or take on faith. Science is a tool for understanding "God's green earth", just as philosophy and religion are also tools for understanding the self, human interaction, etc. Sometimes, people choose a different tool because it works better for them.
This is sheer nonsense. The point of many religions is to gain a better spiritual understanding and continue a religious journey--one that continues to ask questions. Some people don't want to examine that and that is their choice.
right then. so pretty much close enough for a non-technical audience like /.
Thanks for the link--same quality as Wikipedia... ;-)
I think there are probably very good arguments to be made about bias on any test. However, bias and impact are two very different things. If the impact of the decisions made from said tests "does no harm", as the link you point to indicates, than I'd say it's okay to acknowledge, but it's time to move on. What troubles me more is that people don't necessarily know enough about using test scores and their appropriate usage (e.g., the point of this article). Tests are so often co-opted into uses for which they were never intended.
With respect to your dyslexia comment, I'd argue that the tests I pointed to (PISA, especially) would be a better fit for someone with dyslexia. Looking at this: http://www.iqtestexperts.com/dyslexic-geniuses.php, would seem to indicate that a properly designed test would be a more visual one. If you took a test that had 20 points of negative bias for your subgroup, then yes--you are probably a genius on the Wechsler scale.
Cheers.
Um... yeah. That's why it's purportedly a test of innate aptitude. Not an assessment of achievement. See Gattica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca for how people can overcome aptitude with effort.
Yes. Test-wiseness is always a factor. This is the whole aptitude vs. achievement debate in psychometrics. Which is it that you wish to measure? The SAT used to be known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test and then the Scholastic Assessment Test--not so anymore. It is simply "the SAT", sometimes with "Reasoning Test" thrown in as well. Test-wiseness does not always help with some measures of reasoning (e.g., some tests use non-language dependent items). Some times, the effect of test-wiseness is simply evidence of something you wanted to measure in the first place--e.g., the ability to learn. In this case, it seems they are just simply using the test as a first pass to cull a large applicant pool--a potentially useful but likely invalid use (read psychometrically ill-advised usage) of whichever IQ test they are using.