You said about physical strength: "there is a bigger gap between genders than within genders". That implies that there is no overlap, and therefore you cannot find any case where a woman is stronger than a man.
I think the GPP meant "spread", not "gap", particularly since there is no gap within genders. In that case, it does not imply that there is no overlap.
There is some indication that at least some of the difference in preference does not come from societal pressure. The preferences of 1-day old babies is influenced by sex. The difference here is not that big, but I imagine experimenting with the preferences of babies that young will always contain a lot of noise.
So, it could be that at least part of the reason we give dolls to girls and not to boys because they usually play much more with dolls, and that some of this preference comes from biology, not from society. However, culture could easily take such a preference and amplify it enormously.
Plotting wildly changing values on a linear scale is not really informative. The only relevant metric is relative change, so a logarithmic scale is the only thing that makes sense. Bitcoin does seem to be in a bubble that started mid October/start November, but in the long run, sorry, over the last three years, the price chart seems consistent with a steady increase of around a factor of 5 per year, overlayed with a number of bubbles. This slower increase could be another bubble, but then I wouldn't expect the increase to be that steady, particularly not spanning several bubble bursts. It doesn't seem consistent with the mechanisms of bubbles (but I have no training in economics, so I could very well be mistaken).
if everyone used psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin responsibly (get a babysitter) they would be legal
Why would they? It seems that there are two ways for drugs to be legal: 1) They have a medical effect, allowing for FDA approval, and 2) They have traditionally seen widespread use in the western countries. Examples of this are alcohol, caffeine and tobacco. LSD used responsibly would fit into neither of these categories.
Cyanide is not really great for poisoning. It tastes horribly, so people will know if you slip it in their food. You can make HCN, which is a gas which only around 85% of people can smell, but it is 5 times less toxic than chlorine gas which is easy to produce from common household chemicals. To get to a dangerous concentration for a small room (say,t he office I am in), you need nearly 10 g, and that is assuming that all of the gas enters the room, that none of it leaves, and that you get sufficient mixing.
All in all, it isn't a great way to kill anything but rats, or people you can force to ingest things, or people you can get to stay in a non-leaking room.
That isn't messing up. Median is on example of an average, though mean is more often used. I am not even sure the mean of "driver quality" makes sense. How do you map it onto the real numbers? On the other hand, it can be ordered (at least approximately), so median makes sense.
I don't get that part. Plausible towards who? Not towards Google, it is pretty clear who pulls the strings. It could be towards law enforcement, to avoid collusion charges, but I can't believe that the law would be that stupid. It is called anti-trust for a reason, after all. It could give a public prosecutor a fig leaf to explain why they didn't raise charges, I suppose, but that is about it.
the expected price set by pure price competition will be whatever bare subsistence costs
The expected price will be the Nth highest benefit of any employer of employing such a person, where N is the number of people on earth capable of doing the job. Any lower, and some other employer will benefit from hiring the employee at a higher pay. Globalization increases N, but it also increases the number of companies that can employ you.
The people in power positions would simply change reality so that we did their bidding without any manipulations.
There is quite a long way from "no free will" to "specific people can change your behavior". A die have no free will, but I cannot change the laws of physics that makes its outcome random and (relatively) fair.
[people holding power] have learned how to manipulate people very well in that time, but never have they been able to take away people's free will.
If that is an argument for the existence of free will, it is begging the question.
Or, put another way, is there really any difference between the illusion of free will and free will?
Still 'Yes'.
Congratulations. You've discovered the most obvious limit of behavioralism.
Are you going to explain that difference, or do you assume that people here just accept you claim without argument? In the first case, I would really like to hear it, as I don't see the difference, in the second case, everybody reading this should pay me 10 dollars.
Its not an iron ball, it's just the battery. It has to be bigger because the feet are usually cooler than the rest of the body, so more cooling is needed to make a difference, and we all know how inefficient cooling is. Preliminary testing showed it to be highly effective at increasing employee efficiency*.
*Amount of time spent at desk was used as a proxy for employee efficiency.
There is an important distinction between focusing on making as much money as you can, and focusing on making as much money you can on each of your products. It is in Googles best interest to keep all of the parts of the computer ecosystem they don't directly make money on as free and easy to use as possible, because that will make people spend more time on computers, including the parts that Google makes money on. As such, is is a huge advantage for them to have a relatively open and standadized mobile OS. If they charge the phone producers for android, they risk some of them starting to use their own, incompatible OS.
TL-DR: it might well being Google financial interest to not make money directly on Android. It is my understanding that it isn't that easy to sue a corporation for choosing a different route to make money.
The TL-DR on that link is that the dice normally seen (rounded corners, holes to mark the numbers) are horrendiously unfair, giving ones up to 30% of the time, in stead of the fair 16.7%.
I am not sure I would call the government "bigger" in the theocratic monarchies of yore. More likely to interfere with your daily life, sure. More likely to restrict what you could do economically, sure. But it employed fewer people, didn't it? I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by "bigger".
As for the changes to the meaning of political labels, we in Denmark have them enshrined in the names of our parties. The party "venstre", litterally "left", is a right wing party, while the party "det radikale venstre", literally "the radical left", is a center party, at least as far as that they have been in governments with both sides within the last decades.
In older eras, change was toward smaller government,
When, and measured how? I would imagine that government spending as a percentage of BNP have always been rising, but would love to be corrected, or told what other measures of size of government there is.
I shouldn't have said anybody, but it isn't, strictly speaking, wrong. I have no way of knowing whether my vaccines are effective, so people potentially spreading diseases are a risk to me, and anybody else.
For the second time, I've had my shots, the important ones. I wouldn't stop my children from having them either. But I do believe no external party has a right to dictate what I let bypass by body's natural filters and enter my blood stream.
Right, so let's remove the "you" form my statement, and restate it as "People can choose whether they want to be vaccinated, but if they choose not to, they might not have the right to go to any specific public place."
you're trying to bring [...] [a] world where you have no rights *at all*, where you're a property of the state for the state to do with what they wish [into existence]
And you are the one complaining that I am using hyperbole and straw men.
Why should you or anyone who's had their vaccinations care what I do with my own fucking body?
Because no vaccine is 100% effective.
Because we might care about children too young to be vaccinated.
Because we might care about immunodeficent people.
How dare you presume to have any say at all in the matter.
We wont if you will stop posing a risk to everybody, i.e. going anywhere public. It will also protect you from physical interaction with people with an active empathy, who are apparently like a disease.
It was both, actually. Wakefield got money from the lawyer to make up evidence, and he was patenting (I think) an alternate vaccine at the same time. He was recently (2010) stripped of his license in the UK.
Not necessarily. Brushing too much can be hard on the teeth and gums (but I think this is more related to brushing too hard), and brushing also removes the amoebas that feed off of the bacteria in your mouth (or so I have heard, but it might just be somebody extrapolating), so you might be worse off brushing 10-15 times a day.
Slashdot Mirror
You said about physical strength: "there is a bigger gap between genders than within genders". That implies that there is no overlap, and therefore you cannot find any case where a woman is stronger than a man.
I think the GPP meant "spread", not "gap", particularly since there is no gap within genders. In that case, it does not imply that there is no overlap.
Not to say that this is all nature's fault, but you left out "less interested" as a possible explanation in your second and third paragraph.
Of course, testing to what extent interest is biological as opposed to cultural is even harder than testing whether ability is.
There is some indication that at least some of the difference in preference does not come from societal pressure. The preferences of 1-day old babies is influenced by sex. The difference here is not that big, but I imagine experimenting with the preferences of babies that young will always contain a lot of noise.
So, it could be that at least part of the reason we give dolls to girls and not to boys because they usually play much more with dolls, and that some of this preference comes from biology, not from society. However, culture could easily take such a preference and amplify it enormously.
Plotting wildly changing values on a linear scale is not really informative. The only relevant metric is relative change, so a logarithmic scale is the only thing that makes sense. Bitcoin does seem to be in a bubble that started mid October/start November, but in the long run, sorry, over the last three years, the price chart seems consistent with a steady increase of around a factor of 5 per year, overlayed with a number of bubbles. This slower increase could be another bubble, but then I wouldn't expect the increase to be that steady, particularly not spanning several bubble bursts. It doesn't seem consistent with the mechanisms of bubbles (but I have no training in economics, so I could very well be mistaken).
I'm not stating how it should be, I'm stating how it seems to work.
if everyone used psychedelics like LSD and psilocybin responsibly (get a babysitter) they would be legal
Why would they? It seems that there are two ways for drugs to be legal: 1) They have a medical effect, allowing for FDA approval, and 2) They have traditionally seen widespread use in the western countries. Examples of this are alcohol, caffeine and tobacco. LSD used responsibly would fit into neither of these categories.
On route for the synthesis of mescaline from common chemicals includes it as a reagent.
Cyanide is not really great for poisoning. It tastes horribly, so people will know if you slip it in their food. You can make HCN, which is a gas which only around 85% of people can smell, but it is 5 times less toxic than chlorine gas which is easy to produce from common household chemicals. To get to a dangerous concentration for a small room (say,t he office I am in), you need nearly 10 g, and that is assuming that all of the gas enters the room, that none of it leaves, and that you get sufficient mixing.
All in all, it isn't a great way to kill anything but rats, or people you can force to ingest things, or people you can get to stay in a non-leaking room.
That isn't messing up. Median is on example of an average, though mean is more often used. I am not even sure the mean of "driver quality" makes sense. How do you map it onto the real numbers? On the other hand, it can be ordered (at least approximately), so median makes sense.
I don't get that part. Plausible towards who? Not towards Google, it is pretty clear who pulls the strings. It could be towards law enforcement, to avoid collusion charges, but I can't believe that the law would be that stupid. It is called anti-trust for a reason, after all. It could give a public prosecutor a fig leaf to explain why they didn't raise charges, I suppose, but that is about it.
the expected price set by pure price competition will be whatever bare subsistence costs
The expected price will be the Nth highest benefit of any employer of employing such a person, where N is the number of people on earth capable of doing the job. Any lower, and some other employer will benefit from hiring the employee at a higher pay. Globalization increases N, but it also increases the number of companies that can employ you.
The people in power positions would simply change reality so that we did their bidding without any manipulations.
There is quite a long way from "no free will" to "specific people can change your behavior". A die have no free will, but I cannot change the laws of physics that makes its outcome random and (relatively) fair.
[people holding power] have learned how to manipulate people very well in that time, but never have they been able to take away people's free will.
If that is an argument for the existence of free will, it is begging the question.
Or, put another way, is there really any difference between the illusion of free will and free will?
Still 'Yes'.
Congratulations. You've discovered the most obvious limit of behavioralism.
Are you going to explain that difference, or do you assume that people here just accept you claim without argument? In the first case, I would really like to hear it, as I don't see the difference, in the second case, everybody reading this should pay me 10 dollars.
Its not an iron ball, it's just the battery. It has to be bigger because the feet are usually cooler than the rest of the body, so more cooling is needed to make a difference, and we all know how inefficient cooling is. Preliminary testing showed it to be highly effective at increasing employee efficiency*.
*Amount of time spent at desk was used as a proxy for employee efficiency.
There is an important distinction between focusing on making as much money as you can, and focusing on making as much money you can on each of your products. It is in Googles best interest to keep all of the parts of the computer ecosystem they don't directly make money on as free and easy to use as possible, because that will make people spend more time on computers, including the parts that Google makes money on. As such, is is a huge advantage for them to have a relatively open and standadized mobile OS. If they charge the phone producers for android, they risk some of them starting to use their own, incompatible OS.
TL-DR: it might well being Google financial interest to not make money directly on Android. It is my understanding that it isn't that easy to sue a corporation for choosing a different route to make money.
Are you saying that the NSA have gotten to Games Workshop?.
The TL-DR on that link is that the dice normally seen (rounded corners, holes to mark the numbers) are horrendiously unfair, giving ones up to 30% of the time, in stead of the fair 16.7%.
I am not sure I would call the government "bigger" in the theocratic monarchies of yore. More likely to interfere with your daily life, sure. More likely to restrict what you could do economically, sure. But it employed fewer people, didn't it? I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by "bigger".
As for the changes to the meaning of political labels, we in Denmark have them enshrined in the names of our parties. The party "venstre", litterally "left", is a right wing party, while the party "det radikale venstre", literally "the radical left", is a center party, at least as far as that they have been in governments with both sides within the last decades.
In older eras, change was toward smaller government,
When, and measured how? I would imagine that government spending as a percentage of BNP have always been rising, but would love to be corrected, or told what other measures of size of government there is.
Everybody? Hyperbole much?
I shouldn't have said anybody, but it isn't, strictly speaking, wrong. I have no way of knowing whether my vaccines are effective, so people potentially spreading diseases are a risk to me, and anybody else.
For the second time, I've had my shots, the important ones. I wouldn't stop my children from having them either. But I do believe no external party has a right to dictate what I let bypass by body's natural filters and enter my blood stream.
Right, so let's remove the "you" form my statement, and restate it as "People can choose whether they want to be vaccinated, but if they choose not to, they might not have the right to go to any specific public place."
you're trying to bring [...] [a] world where you have no rights *at all*, where you're a property of the state for the state to do with what they wish [into existence]
And you are the one complaining that I am using hyperbole and straw men.
Chicken pox fails (3).
Depending on how you define "usually", so does polio: 90-95% of the infections are asymptomatic, according to Wikipedia.
Why should you or anyone who's had their vaccinations care what I do with my own fucking body?
Because no vaccine is 100% effective.
Because we might care about children too young to be vaccinated.
Because we might care about immunodeficent people.
How dare you presume to have any say at all in the matter.
We wont if you will stop posing a risk to everybody, i.e. going anywhere public. It will also protect you from physical interaction with people with an active empathy, who are apparently like a disease.
It was both, actually. Wakefield got money from the lawyer to make up evidence, and he was patenting (I think) an alternate vaccine at the same time. He was recently (2010) stripped of his license in the UK.
Plutonium wasn't, radium was. Plutonium wasn't available until it was synthesized in 1941.
A non-sequitor to a site calling itself GMwatch. Is this a Poe?
Not necessarily. Brushing too much can be hard on the teeth and gums (but I think this is more related to brushing too hard), and brushing also removes the amoebas that feed off of the bacteria in your mouth (or so I have heard, but it might just be somebody extrapolating), so you might be worse off brushing 10-15 times a day.