...we can conclude that everyone who questions science is right and scientists are always wrong?
The Flat Earth Society will be very happy to hear this. So will the vast herds of quacks who pester scientists with ridiculous claims (and they are legion, I assure you).
Climategate only proves that the conservolibertarians are capable of manufacturing controversies out of nothing. There is no difference between "Climategate" and the "War on Christmas" or the supposed conspiracy run by "Darwinist evilutionists".
The Bush administration nobly stood up to the "anti trust" nonsense from the extreme left and allowed many smaller financial companies to merge into a small number of large financial companies that were too big to fail.
Thanks to saint Bush's great wisdom, the companies on Wall Street were too big to fail when the financial markets ran into trouble. If the far left had prevented all those mergers, then those companies would not have been too big to fail, and so they would have failed during the financial troubles that were caused by over-regulation of Wall Street by the communists in the Democrat party.
Thank god we had someone as smart as Bush in the White House back then.
Even if the Hollywood retards somehow manage to not butcher this one, didn't Tezuka specifically say he didn't want anyone remaking this story? This remake is wrong even if by some miracle it doesn't suck big sweaty donkey testes.
If 1.5% were the norm in technical fields, then there wouldn't be such a problem, but the norm for technical fields is around 25 to 30 percent. Sexism isn't the only possible explanation for that particular numerical anomaly, but it is the most obvious and consistent with past instances of similar anomalies.
If the sample size were very small, say if there were less than 100 FOSS developers in the world, you could explain it away by saying the 1.5% number were based on a statistically insignificant sample. However I'm pretty sure the 1.5% number comes from a much larger sample size.
If the 1.5% number existed because a large number of female FOSS developers were deliberately misrepresenting their gender you might have a case. Unfortunately, most of the explanations of why female FOSS developers would choose to misrepresent their gender suggest an environment that is hostile to females, which lends credence to the sexism charge.
I am not a FOSS developer, so I will not say conclusively whether or not the FOSS community is sexist, but if the 1.5% number doesn't give members of that community reason to pause and reflect, then something is very, very wrong. At the very least they should be trying to find out why that number is so much lower than the tech community in general.
...unfortunately, there are cases where lawyers do deliberately make legal language obfuscating. For instance a Harvard law professor who specializes in contracts could not make heads or tails of the contracts that credit card companies expect non-lawyers to sign. It is one thing to make a contract that the average joe off the streets can't understand, but you cannot make a contract that a Harvard law professor who teaches contracts cannot understand unless you are deliberately writing the contract so as to make it hard to understand.
Of course laws and contracts are not the same thing, but if it's happening in one, is it too much to assume that it might also be happening in the other?
...is that it ignores the fact that every Microsoft OS prior to Vista ran slower and looked prettier than its predecessor. Well, OK, they didn't all look prettier.
...to be perfectly honest it sounds like they did this just to slap Darth Jar-Jar and all those millions of Bushistas in the face. It's a well-deserved slap, but the wrong kind of slap if you ask me. They're not very good at picking up on subtlety.
...once we have a fleet of electric vehicles on the road, we can change the way we generate electricity to renewable sources. Changing all the cars (and the infrastructure that supports said cars) is the bigger hurdle right now.
I'm going to guess that computer people are over-represented here, and it's been my experience that IT people and programmers are largely self-taught, which means that while they can be quite intelligent in a lot of different areas, they tend to have really glaring gaps in their understanding of things, and statistics is one of the really common ones.
I can't tell you how many arguments I've had with people who couldn't grasp really basic things about statistics only to have them argue "I know what I'm talking about because I'm a programmer" (argument from authority fallacy).
Making a tax based on the mileage of your car is stupid. Passing laws dictating to auto manufacturers how fuel efficient their vehicles must be is stupid. Instead of all this un-needed complexity, why don't they just tax the snot out of gasoline like most of the other industrialized nations do? Then you don't have to worry about mileage-based taxes or government mandated mileage because consumers won't want to buy anything else, and you can use the money you make on those taxes to fix the damn roads around here.
If you could make a program bug-free just by choosing a particular language, don't you think all programmers would use that language to the exclusion of all others?
Al Gore and James Hansen aren't just making this stuff up. They're simply relaying what 90% of scientists in related fields and what 90% of all scientists agree with. This is what folks in the world of science call a "scientific consensus". Unfortunately, because this particular scientific consensus is ideologically inconvenient for you, you want us to believe that 90% of all scientists in the world are part of a massive international conspiracy run by Al Gore.
No offense, you are exactly the problem that is being discussed here.
I've met people from West Virginia. I refuse to believe that any of you are capable of using a computer. Fess up: you're actually a clever macro/script running on a computer in Hungary, aren't you?
Of course it doesn't bring back the dead. If that were a valid argument against crimes that result in the death of human beings, we wouldn't have any laws against murder, much less manslaughter. I've always found that an absurd observation/argument to make in discussions of this nature.
Cut the crap. Even MS Windows can handle giving me two different numbers for a file's size: one number tells me how much data is actually in the file, and the other number tells me how much space the file occupies on disk (or whatever storage device it's currently on). Both numbers are useful, both numbers are relevant, so why not include both when it is trivial to do so?
...how they have any credibility left after arguing in court that they have the constitutional right to fire reporters for refusing to lie. Sure, they do have such a constitutional right, but they can't exercise that right and claim to be a credibly journalism operation at the same time.
Despite this, there are plenty of stupid people in this country who are aware of this court case and its ramifications, and still continue to fall to their knees, open their mouths, and swallow whatever Rupert Murdoch chooses to feed them.
Slashdot Mirror
...we can conclude that everyone who questions science is right and scientists are always wrong?
The Flat Earth Society will be very happy to hear this. So will the vast herds of quacks who pester scientists with ridiculous claims (and they are legion, I assure you).
Climategate only proves that the conservolibertarians are capable of manufacturing controversies out of nothing. There is no difference between "Climategate" and the "War on Christmas" or the supposed conspiracy run by "Darwinist evilutionists".
The Bush administration nobly stood up to the "anti trust" nonsense from the extreme left and allowed many smaller financial companies to merge into a small number of large financial companies that were too big to fail.
Thanks to saint Bush's great wisdom, the companies on Wall Street were too big to fail when the financial markets ran into trouble. If the far left had prevented all those mergers, then those companies would not have been too big to fail, and so they would have failed during the financial troubles that were caused by over-regulation of Wall Street by the communists in the Democrat party.
Thank god we had someone as smart as Bush in the White House back then.
[/strawman]
I for one welcome our new Jellyfish overlords.
Freedom isn't free, you damned America-hating, terrorist-loving hippie! If you don't like it, GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY! [/conservolibertarian]
Even if the Hollywood retards somehow manage to not butcher this one, didn't Tezuka specifically say he didn't want anyone remaking this story? This remake is wrong even if by some miracle it doesn't suck big sweaty donkey testes.
The best part is that if we complain about things like this, we get accused of being communists.
If 1.5% were the norm in technical fields, then there wouldn't be such a problem, but the norm for technical fields is around 25 to 30 percent. Sexism isn't the only possible explanation for that particular numerical anomaly, but it is the most obvious and consistent with past instances of similar anomalies.
If the sample size were very small, say if there were less than 100 FOSS developers in the world, you could explain it away by saying the 1.5% number were based on a statistically insignificant sample. However I'm pretty sure the 1.5% number comes from a much larger sample size.
If the 1.5% number existed because a large number of female FOSS developers were deliberately misrepresenting their gender you might have a case. Unfortunately, most of the explanations of why female FOSS developers would choose to misrepresent their gender suggest an environment that is hostile to females, which lends credence to the sexism charge.
I am not a FOSS developer, so I will not say conclusively whether or not the FOSS community is sexist, but if the 1.5% number doesn't give members of that community reason to pause and reflect, then something is very, very wrong. At the very least they should be trying to find out why that number is so much lower than the tech community in general.
...unfortunately, there are cases where lawyers do deliberately make legal language obfuscating. For instance a Harvard law professor who specializes in contracts could not make heads or tails of the contracts that credit card companies expect non-lawyers to sign. It is one thing to make a contract that the average joe off the streets can't understand, but you cannot make a contract that a Harvard law professor who teaches contracts cannot understand unless you are deliberately writing the contract so as to make it hard to understand.
Of course laws and contracts are not the same thing, but if it's happening in one, is it too much to assume that it might also be happening in the other?
...is that it ignores the fact that every Microsoft OS prior to Vista ran slower and looked prettier than its predecessor. Well, OK, they didn't all look prettier.
...to be perfectly honest it sounds like they did this just to slap Darth Jar-Jar and all those millions of Bushistas in the face. It's a well-deserved slap, but the wrong kind of slap if you ask me. They're not very good at picking up on subtlety.
ACORN! SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! Hussama is not a citizen! Death panels! The president wants 2 tell mai children to stay in skool! [/conservolibertarian]
I believe someone invented some kind of water chute that the salmon can use to get around the dam. So you can have your cake and eat it too.
...once we have a fleet of electric vehicles on the road, we can change the way we generate electricity to renewable sources. Changing all the cars (and the infrastructure that supports said cars) is the bigger hurdle right now.
I'm going to guess that computer people are over-represented here, and it's been my experience that IT people and programmers are largely self-taught, which means that while they can be quite intelligent in a lot of different areas, they tend to have really glaring gaps in their understanding of things, and statistics is one of the really common ones.
I can't tell you how many arguments I've had with people who couldn't grasp really basic things about statistics only to have them argue "I know what I'm talking about because I'm a programmer" (argument from authority fallacy).
Making a tax based on the mileage of your car is stupid. Passing laws dictating to auto manufacturers how fuel efficient their vehicles must be is stupid. Instead of all this un-needed complexity, why don't they just tax the snot out of gasoline like most of the other industrialized nations do? Then you don't have to worry about mileage-based taxes or government mandated mileage because consumers won't want to buy anything else, and you can use the money you make on those taxes to fix the damn roads around here.
Any normal person would have been satisfied to use a GPS device like everyone else, but noooooooooooo. This woman had to build an electronic bracelet.
...have worked better for that joke?
If you could make a program bug-free just by choosing a particular language, don't you think all programmers would use that language to the exclusion of all others?
...with all due respect it is highly unlikely that any other homosexuals contributed more to Britain than Turing did.
Al Gore and James Hansen aren't just making this stuff up. They're simply relaying what 90% of scientists in related fields and what 90% of all scientists agree with. This is what folks in the world of science call a "scientific consensus". Unfortunately, because this particular scientific consensus is ideologically inconvenient for you, you want us to believe that 90% of all scientists in the world are part of a massive international conspiracy run by Al Gore.
No offense, you are exactly the problem that is being discussed here.
I've met people from West Virginia. I refuse to believe that any of you are capable of using a computer. Fess up: you're actually a clever macro/script running on a computer in Hungary, aren't you?
Of course it doesn't bring back the dead. If that were a valid argument against crimes that result in the death of human beings, we wouldn't have any laws against murder, much less manslaughter. I've always found that an absurd observation/argument to make in discussions of this nature.
Cut the crap. Even MS Windows can handle giving me two different numbers for a file's size: one number tells me how much data is actually in the file, and the other number tells me how much space the file occupies on disk (or whatever storage device it's currently on). Both numbers are useful, both numbers are relevant, so why not include both when it is trivial to do so?
...how they have any credibility left after arguing in court that they have the constitutional right to fire reporters for refusing to lie. Sure, they do have such a constitutional right, but they can't exercise that right and claim to be a credibly journalism operation at the same time.
Despite this, there are plenty of stupid people in this country who are aware of this court case and its ramifications, and still continue to fall to their knees, open their mouths, and swallow whatever Rupert Murdoch chooses to feed them.
Well, you know what they say: even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.