....doesn't anyone remember the Smurfs? Well, I smurfin' well remember those smurfy Smurfs! And if your memory's too smurfed up to smurf it, then you can just go smurf yourself, right up the smurfster! Smurf you, you smurfing smurfer!
That's where my curiosity lies. If they're taking the time to do this, it's all fine and dandy that they can say white avatars get 20% compliance for DITF, whereas black avatars get only 8%; however, I think it's important to note the color of the User's avatar, as well as the gender. Were User's with white avatar's MORE or LESS biased against black avatars? What about User's with black avatar's? How about User's with a female avatar? Were they more likely to give compliance, or less? Were the researcher's Avatars always male, or did they use equal white/black/male/female? I would guess that any female avatar would be more likely to get compliance, as men are still chivalrous, for the most part, and will comply with a woman when they wouldn't with a man. I think that this would have been important to note. In our world, racial/gender bias can be presumed to exist without much difficulty; we all know it's there. However, I think it would very interesting to see whether it was a cross-cultural or cross-gender phenomenon, and not just that it exists. Also, I've known just as many black people that were more suspicious of a black man than of a white man! Normally that has come from those that grew up in, shall we say, less-than-upscale areas, and who have dealt with bad male role models, etc. I think the experiment was interesting, but pointless without more depth. Proving the existence of racial bias, even VIRTUAL racial bias, is a lot like trying to prove that the majority of people enjoy sex. It's more of a "No, really?!"
Exactly what site do you think you're on? Blaming the US is like blaming religion; it's almost certain to get you modded up, even if it's a non-sequitur or blatantly false.
That statement is the exact sort of bigotry I'd expect from a Christian in America!
Ah, yes. Every time I buy a fishing lure or product (sinkers, leader, etc) I get the warning:
"WARNING!: This product conatins lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm. Harmful if swallowed."
Well, thank goodness I live in Indiana, then! Whew! It only causes cancer in CALIFORNIA! Not to mention the "harmful if swallowed" tag; a fishing lure is harmful if I swallow it? REALLY?!
And they occasionally do fact checking... more than can be said for the "establishment" mouthpieces that are the newspapers and media "outlets" of today.
Do you find that when you say that face to face, people nod as if they agree with you, then their eyes sort of glaze over, then they start glancing at their watch and... umm, gotta go - dental appointment!
Ahh, yes. Here in Indiana, we have an I-69 (which often gets it's signs pilfered, of course). The best part was about 10 years ago, when everyone here was pushing for a widening of the road to help out commerce. The billboards all said (and I quote!):
So there isn't any magical digital crack in these games that forces you to play.
Ooohhhh, see, THAT's the problem! If you had bought the "Complete WoW Platinum Ruby Gold Edition v3.14159", it actually DID come with Magical Digital Crack. It was a little usb device that you strapped around your arm (after carefully inserting the needle), and whenever you were in-game, it gave you the occasional shot of BlizzardDust(tm). See, you just bought the wrong Edition!
I was totally behind you, right up to the point where you got possessed by William Shatner:
Also, if you already know what will people respond to you, why do you ask your, fairly inflammatory, I might add, question, even if you intended it to be a rhetorical one?
Actually, even if it WASN'T meant as ironic, it IS the Old English spelling of the word, and it's possible it's still in use in the UK. I'm just saying.
1) Just because you perform both tasks worse, doesn't mean it's less efficient. An example would be driving while talking on the cell phone. There's little debate that your driving skills are worsened when you do this, as you simply have less concentration to go around. Ok, fine, but that doesn't in fact mean it is detrimental to efficiency. If you need to drive somewhere that takes 20 minutes, and you need to set up something over the phone that takes 20 minutes, you save time doing both at once. Even if because you aren't concentrating as much on either it takes 25 minutes to complete both, you are still ahead.
I think something that many people overlook is the amount of concentration a given task requires. Going along with your stated example, let's say I'm driving while talking on my cell phone (via my BT headset, of course). I have been driving for over a decade, and the typical 45 minutes on the interstate at 6am takes about 10% of my concentration on a typical day. Discussing fishing with a buddy on my cell takes about 30% of my concentration, if we are REALLY into the conversation. That still leaves me with 60% of my resources free, meaning I am well under my load limit. You have made a great example, but I wanted to make sure that people consider the AMOUNT of concentration driving takes before telling others that it's too dangerous to try and add another task.
Outside the USA, particularly in Britain and Ireland, "Yank" (NOT the same as "yankee", though same root) is used as pejorative slang for all USA citizens regardless of intra-USA north vs. south alignment.
Actually, I knew that, although I *do* appreciate the polite explanation. However, don't be alarmed if you hear a large *whoosh*, as that was the joke going over your head!
That's fine, but are you going to do something about it or just bitch online? You yanks always make a big deal about your right to keep and bear arms. Well, that right isn't worth much if once in a while you don't start actually putting bullets through the brains of those treasonous authoritarian fucks.
Wow! You Georgia boys really get fired up! Hey, we Yankees aren't THAT far North of you. Yeah, we trumped you in the War, but let's let bygones be bygones, what say?
As far as I'm concerned, every single member of Congress who votes in favor of this bill is guilty of treason.
And by the wonder of the Right of Free Speech, you are certainly entitled to that opinion! However, the Constitution would argue with you. Article III states:
"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Not treason. Sorry. Illegal, immoral, or unethical? Possibly. However, I'd still like to know why the NYTimes weren't called up for treason when they published our Troop movements in ADVANCE, thereby "giving Aid" to our enemies.
Thing is, most of the "smaller government" people want government out of the places they want their private craven, corrupt, superstituous, hateful ideologies to rule instead. They consider it "judicial activism" when the courts say that government should stay out of proscriptive definitions of marriage, for example.
How would that be any different from the places being governed by your craven, corrupt, superstitious, hateful ideologies?
Puts it in a bit of a different light now, doesn't it? How about we all agree to NOT let the Government think for us, and we can hash out the rest of it later?
Any of you ever put a pocket knife in... your pocket? Concealed weapon. Highly illegal. Not necessarily. Even assuming that you DON'T have a concealed weapons permit, there's no Statute classifying a knife as an illegal or concealed weapon, at least in my home state of Indiana. For more info check out: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/USKnife.pdf.
1 in 3 is a completely made up number for the benefit of the company trying to SELL PRODUCT That's true; surveys show that 72% of all statistics are made up.
I'd like to see a study covering the correlation of cell phone use while driving and road rage in other drivers. Personally, I'd like to see a study on the number of cell-phone users that were driving reckless because they weren't paying attention to the road. When someone drifts into my lane (and almost into my car) because they *HAD* to tell Tiffany "OMG, Tiffy, the new boy in class is SO CUTE!", it tends to make me a little irate, as well.
Slower traffic should keep right. if you are doing 50 on an interstate, you are slower traffic (slowest traffic.) I couldn't agree with you more. If the speed limit is 70, and you're only comfortable doing 50, go 50, by all means, but stay in the farthest right lane. On the other side of that, though, is the person that is doing 70 (the speed limit) in the left lane, while passing the guy doing 50, and some jerk comes and tailgates him. If the speed limit is 70, folks, it applies to both lanes. If the guy in the left lane is doing the speed limit while passing someone, then get off his tail, and wait your turn. Just because he's not going as fast as you want to go doesn't mean he needs to yield. However, the the guy doing 70 is just tooling along in the left lane for the fun of it, when traffic is going 70 in the right lane, then he needs to yield and get back in the right lane. Passing lanes are for passing, not for Sunday joyrides. All right, I'm through ranting!
Slashdot Mirror
....doesn't anyone remember the Smurfs? Well, I smurfin' well remember those smurfy Smurfs! And if your memory's too smurfed up to smurf it, then you can just go smurf yourself, right up the smurfster! Smurf you, you smurfing smurfer!
That's where my curiosity lies. If they're taking the time to do this, it's all fine and dandy that they can say white avatars get 20% compliance for DITF, whereas black avatars get only 8%; however, I think it's important to note the color of the User's avatar, as well as the gender. Were User's with white avatar's MORE or LESS biased against black avatars? What about User's with black avatar's? How about User's with a female avatar? Were they more likely to give compliance, or less? Were the researcher's Avatars always male, or did they use equal white/black/male/female? I would guess that any female avatar would be more likely to get compliance, as men are still chivalrous, for the most part, and will comply with a woman when they wouldn't with a man. I think that this would have been important to note. In our world, racial/gender bias can be presumed to exist without much difficulty; we all know it's there. However, I think it would very interesting to see whether it was a cross-cultural or cross-gender phenomenon, and not just that it exists. Also, I've known just as many black people that were more suspicious of a black man than of a white man! Normally that has come from those that grew up in, shall we say, less-than-upscale areas, and who have dealt with bad male role models, etc. I think the experiment was interesting, but pointless without more depth. Proving the existence of racial bias, even VIRTUAL racial bias, is a lot like trying to prove that the majority of people enjoy sex. It's more of a "No, really?!"
Exactly what site do you think you're on? Blaming the US is like blaming religion; it's almost certain to get you modded up, even if it's a non-sequitur or blatantly false.
That statement is the exact sort of bigotry I'd expect from a Christian in America!
Because we all know what a flop that was for Nintendo, right? http://nexgenwars.com/
A very small, very shallow koi pond, of course...
"WARNING!: This product conatins lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm. Harmful if swallowed."
Well, thank goodness I live in Indiana, then! Whew! It only causes cancer in CALIFORNIA! Not to mention the "harmful if swallowed" tag; a fishing lure is harmful if I swallow it? REALLY?!
2) Get your fingers in the pie via the back door by working a deal with one of the existing publishers
Isn't anyone else disturbed by that image? Brrrrr.
And they occasionally do fact checking... more than can be said for the "establishment" mouthpieces that are the newspapers and media "outlets" of today.
Do you find that when you say that face to face, people nod as if they agree with you, then their eyes sort of glaze over, then they start glancing at their watch and ... umm, gotta go - dental appointment!
Obligatory:XKCD
all people above a certain level, such as managers of departments and such, are supposed to be completely bilingual.
Sweet! I've been looking for a place where I can use my English AND my German!
"I-69; for the children!"
Not sure HOW that helps the kids...
So there isn't any magical digital crack in these games that forces you to play.
Ooohhhh, see, THAT's the problem! If you had bought the "Complete WoW Platinum Ruby Gold Edition v3.14159", it actually DID come with Magical Digital Crack. It was a little usb device that you strapped around your arm (after carefully inserting the needle), and whenever you were in-game, it gave you the occasional shot of BlizzardDust(tm). See, you just bought the wrong Edition!Actually, it embiggens us all.
There's only one thing worthy of all that sheer, godly processing power, my friend: Run Zork, of course!
Actually, even if it WASN'T meant as ironic, it IS the Old English spelling of the word, and it's possible it's still in use in the UK. I'm just saying.
:
1) Just because you perform both tasks worse, doesn't mean it's less efficient. An example would be driving while talking on the cell phone. There's little debate that your driving skills are worsened when you do this, as you simply have less concentration to go around. Ok, fine, but that doesn't in fact mean it is detrimental to efficiency. If you need to drive somewhere that takes 20 minutes, and you need to set up something over the phone that takes 20 minutes, you save time doing both at once. Even if because you aren't concentrating as much on either it takes 25 minutes to complete both, you are still ahead.
I think something that many people overlook is the amount of concentration a given task requires. Going along with your stated example, let's say I'm driving while talking on my cell phone (via my BT headset, of course). I have been driving for over a decade, and the typical 45 minutes on the interstate at 6am takes about 10% of my concentration on a typical day. Discussing fishing with a buddy on my cell takes about 30% of my concentration, if we are REALLY into the conversation. That still leaves me with 60% of my resources free, meaning I am well under my load limit. You have made a great example, but I wanted to make sure that people consider the AMOUNT of concentration driving takes before telling others that it's too dangerous to try and add another task.Outside the USA, particularly in Britain and Ireland, "Yank" (NOT the same as "yankee", though same root) is used as pejorative slang for all USA citizens regardless of intra-USA north vs. south alignment.
Actually, I knew that, although I *do* appreciate the polite explanation. However, don't be alarmed if you hear a large *whoosh*, as that was the joke going over your head!That's fine, but are you going to do something about it or just bitch online? You yanks always make a big deal about your right to keep and bear arms. Well, that right isn't worth much if once in a while you don't start actually putting bullets through the brains of those treasonous authoritarian fucks.
Wow! You Georgia boys really get fired up! Hey, we Yankees aren't THAT far North of you. Yeah, we trumped you in the War, but let's let bygones be bygones, what say?As far as I'm concerned, every single member of Congress who votes in favor of this bill is guilty of treason.
And by the wonder of the Right of Free Speech, you are certainly entitled to that opinion! However, the Constitution would argue with you. Article III states:
"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Not treason. Sorry. Illegal, immoral, or unethical? Possibly. However, I'd still like to know why the NYTimes weren't called up for treason when they published our Troop movements in ADVANCE, thereby "giving Aid" to our enemies.
Thing is, most of the "smaller government" people want government out of the places they want their private craven, corrupt, superstituous, hateful ideologies to rule instead. They consider it "judicial activism" when the courts say that government should stay out of proscriptive definitions of marriage, for example.
How would that be any different from the places being governed by your craven, corrupt, superstitious, hateful ideologies?
Puts it in a bit of a different light now, doesn't it? How about we all agree to NOT let the Government think for us, and we can hash out the rest of it later?Pa-dum-pum!