"And as we know, the hardware is only half the battle." no, that's the point. Is it half? or is it 20%? 70%? 0%? Is it having more of a certain protein type that 'walks' the DNA chain? Is it just getting interested in something at a young age develops your brain in different ways? some of each?
"How many of them were PhDs? How many were prolific inventors? How many where self-made *gasp* one-percenters?" none of which is an actual indication of intelligence. It's likely to be a strong indication of motivation.
"Its central argument is that human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, chance of unwanted pregnancy, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level." And "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."
It's a perfectly valid premise to investigate. That's all the book is. Just like some groups have predisposition to certain diseases, maybe some groups have a genetic limitation to the likely of above average intelligence.
Please note: I am saying some groups. I am not saying my group would be smarter. People tend to project that idea.
That said, I hope not. But not looking into it is a massive disservice to humanity.
Their intent is to sell to local families, not be a restaurant supply business. The women intentional abused the intent. When the spelled it out to her, she still abused the intent. So they banned her. They chose to put families over a business, and good for them.
No, I wont because it's stupid. As a whole, and there are exceptions, dem favor research funding and educational funding more the pubs. So, between the two, vote for the one that isn't anti-science. If you don't want to read there voting record/history then go with the odds and vote dem.
I prefer you read up tho'. a dem is trying to get insurance to cover homeopathy. if that person is your rep, vote against him.
You're premise assumes the next person will be better.
" somehow less ignorant and anti-intellectual 30 years ago, or 100? " yes. People are much more ignorant now then they were in the 60's and 70's. They have been lied to by media, they think that opinions based on nothing are just as valid as opinion based on facts, they believe a media personality before actual experts, the refuse to undertand the to have good schools again, they need to pay taxes, and so on.
No, there are not too many PhD recipients. The scientific field is wide enough to handle all we have and many more.
The military is finally allowing gay people to serve. IN side the demographics, a group is unusually obese. Since the military dress, feeds, trains, gives healthcare to them, then studying why a group is out of bound on anything is the SMART thing to do.
Why has gone wrong? Why don't you people think? The federal government has very little actual waste. But people can make political points by pointing out some headline instead of figuring out why the study was done. That is the key. It's not WHAT was studied, but WHY it was studied.
United States Department of the Army for a 1981 study on how to buy Worcestershire sauce
The ESDoA is a fairly large organization. Studying the logistics, methods, and process of buying something is well worth the money. They but this stuff but the ton. So looking at it is well worth while. Should they have just assumed they had the best process? That the logistic are fine? That no new way could possible come out? that no unforeseen errors in the process had cropped up?
How do you think people find waste? Personally, I think it was a good use of 6000 dollars.
Of course, all this assume it's actually true because I couldn't find the study. I hope it is, I want an organization for needs to provide the tens of thousands of people to look at their process and methods.
"Assuming that oil companies fund studies that disprove man-made global warming and governments fund studies that prove it, " There are no studies that disprove it. Their are papers that cherry pick one thing and then go on about it being a reason to doubt AGW. Fact of the matter, AGW is EASY science, and easy to test. AGWs exact impact on climate is harder science.
The vast majority of people who go to prison for weed are non-violent offenders.
Frankly, non-violent offender shouldn't go to jail. They should be fined, work weekend crews and be monitored. But they didn't hurt anyone, so don't lock them up. It's just a huge waste of money and potential. The goal should be to get them so they don't do it again.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you use to connect the device to your telescope?
Yes, all nerds are master of OS's and tablet recognition.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say they enjoy astronomy more then what ever the hell you think a nerd should do.
"And as we know, the hardware is only half the battle."
no, that's the point. Is it half? or is it 20%? 70%? 0%? Is it having more of a certain protein type that 'walks' the DNA chain?
Is it just getting interested in something at a young age develops your brain in different ways? some of each?
Having poor fine motor skills in no way indicates intelligence.
"See who's smart enough to simply survive."
Simple surviving does not require above average intelligence.
"How many of them were PhDs? How many were prolific inventors? How many where self-made *gasp* one-percenters?"
none of which is an actual indication of intelligence.
It's likely to be a strong indication of motivation.
Nope. Some people are born smart, or dumb. Mostly average. Why is that? that's the question.
"Its central argument is that human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, chance of unwanted pregnancy, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level."
And
"The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."
It's a perfectly valid premise to investigate. That's all the book is. Just like some groups have predisposition to certain diseases, maybe some groups have a genetic limitation to the likely of above average intelligence.
Please note: I am saying some groups. I am not saying my group would be smarter. People tend to project that idea.
That said, I hope not. But not looking into it is a massive disservice to humanity.
"...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
which part of the do you not understand?
Their intent is to sell to local families, not be a restaurant supply business. The women intentional abused the intent. When the spelled it out to her, she still abused the intent. So they banned her. They chose to put families over a business, and good for them.
he is right becasue you can't be bothered to read the subject?
So you subscribe the Vimes boot theory of economics ?
Of course, if saving up to buy longer lasting shoes means you won't have shoes today, or food tomorrow, it kind of changes things, don't it?
NDAs, for the most part, aren't legal in Ca. There are some companies, military, that are exempt.
As there should be.
People will read the post that say 'one star no DIJON!!!!!!11!!!!!' And evaluate it properly.
If someone is malicious and lying, then there are already laws in place for that.
no, those are nougat. As far as my family knows, the never come with caramal :)
No software patents? that is incorrect. For example: Amazon.com one click patent was issued in Canada.
You also have a DMCA, but not as 'bad' as the US one.
and bullshit: http://canadianbullshit.com/
No, I wont because it's stupid.
As a whole, and there are exceptions, dem favor research funding and educational funding more the pubs.
So, between the two, vote for the one that isn't anti-science. If you don't want to read there voting record/history then go with the odds and vote dem.
I prefer you read up tho'. a dem is trying to get insurance to cover homeopathy. if that person is your rep, vote against him.
You're premise assumes the next person will be better.
" somehow less ignorant and anti-intellectual 30 years ago, or 100? "
yes. People are much more ignorant now then they were in the 60's and 70's. They have been lied to by media, they think that opinions based on nothing are just as valid as opinion based on facts, they believe a media personality before actual experts, the refuse to undertand the to have good schools again, they need to pay taxes, and so on.
No, there are not too many PhD recipients. The scientific field is wide enough to handle all we have and many more.
Yeah, but that's not important like social media. I mean, social media companies sell for a lot of money, therefore more important QED~
Yes, it pisses me of as well.
That's funny you mention PARC.
PARC got it's people from SRI ARC. Those people got there knowledge, ideas and experience form government funding.
And the idea the Ma Bell didn't get anything form the government is laughable, at best.
The military is finally allowing gay people to serve.
IN side the demographics, a group is unusually obese.
Since the military dress, feeds, trains, gives healthcare to them, then studying why a group is out of bound on anything is the SMART thing to do.
Why has gone wrong? Why don't you people think?
The federal government has very little actual waste. But people can make political points by pointing out some headline instead of figuring out why the study was done. That is the key. It's not WHAT was studied, but WHY it was studied.
And in hind sight, they where correct!
Yes, I do, and here is why:
United States Department of the Army for a 1981 study on how to buy Worcestershire sauce
The ESDoA is a fairly large organization. Studying the logistics, methods, and process of buying something is well worth the money.
They but this stuff but the ton. So looking at it is well worth while.
Should they have just assumed they had the best process? That the logistic are fine? That no new way could possible come out? that no unforeseen errors in the process had cropped up?
How do you think people find waste?
Personally, I think it was a good use of 6000 dollars.
Of course, all this assume it's actually true because I couldn't find the study. I hope it is, I want an organization for needs to provide the tens of thousands of people to look at their process and methods.
"Assuming that oil companies fund studies that disprove man-made global warming and governments fund studies that prove it, "
There are no studies that disprove it. Their are papers that cherry pick one thing and then go on about it being a reason to doubt AGW.
Fact of the matter, AGW is EASY science, and easy to test. AGWs exact impact on climate is harder science.
Tough guy in the internet. Well done, you unthinking ape.
The vast majority of people who go to prison for weed are non-violent offenders.
Frankly, non-violent offender shouldn't go to jail. They should be fined, work weekend crews and be monitored. But they didn't hurt anyone, so don't lock them up. It's just a huge waste of money and potential.
The goal should be to get them so they don't do it again.