So one book concerning so-called outliers references one study that finds no relation between IQ and academic success. And no study has found the opposite? (I'll answer the last question for you: the correlation of IQ to academic success is well established through 100 years of empirical research. Do a Google Scholar search.)
Keep in mind that correlation to achievements in school was the validator Alfred Binet used when developing his original test questions; his interest was in mental age, though, so he didn't do a longitudinal study (others have, and have found IQ to be fairly stable).
Has the one referenced study been replicated? Otherwise, you're talking anecdotal evidence here.
I'll give you that IQ isn't an extremely strong predictor, but then there are loads of other factors that influence academic success, such as "work drive" (although others have found that cognitive abilities (i.e. IQ) were by far the best predictor of school achievement), and of course the fact that many high-IQ people are so intellectually lazy and arrogant that they turn out stupid. IQ is, of course, only an indicator and not a direct objective metric of "intelligence".
Oh, come on. You don't have the foggiest idea about the Rorschach test, and just dribble off some bullshit you've heard from others who have heard the same from others, an endless line of people who don't know what they're talking about but believe that saying that will make them sound smart. It may, to you. To others, you sound like idiots.
Christ on a bike. You pick up shit nuggets like "correlation != causation" from Slashdot and claim you have an education. Then you go on to link theology with correlation studies. You, Sir, are a moron.
Wrong. The theoretical basis for the Rorschach test might be bogus, but a theoretical basis isn't needed: the test's validity can be empirically verified by correlating its results to other and unrelated tests (that's how the IQ tests were developed, comparing IQ test results with academic success). Which has, of course, happened. People need to do research to get research grants after all. So we get papers like this:
A large body of empirical evidence supports the reliability, validity, and utility of the Rorschach. This same evidence reveals that the recent criticisms of the Rorschach are largely without merit. This article systematically addresses several significant Rorschach components: interrater and temporal consistency reliability, normative data and diversity, methodological issues, specific applications in the evaluation of thought disorder and suicide, meta-analyses, incremental validity, clinician judgment, patterns of use, and clinical utility. Strengths and weaknesses of the test are addressed, and research recommendations are made. This information should give the reader both an appreciation for the substantial, but often overlooked, research basis for the Rorschach and an appreciation of the challenges that lie ahead. (Source)
I'm sure the test has its problems, but saying there's nothing scientific to this, well, that's claptrap. Perhaps you should be less arrogant -- it makes you stupid.
No, it doesn't. Telling someone that they don't know what they're talking about isn't "attacking or appealing to a characteristic [or belief] of the person". The "belief" part of Wikipedia's definition is obviously inaccurate: responding to "I believe this is the way to the men's room" with "No, that's a broom closet" isn't an ad hominem; attacking said person's beliefs on religion due to the fact that he doesn't know a men's room from a broom closet is, OTOH, an ad hominem.
An ad hominem is structured like this: What X says is/might be wrong because X is of questionable character. Questioning someone's knowledge is something entirely different.
Well, then an ad hominem is not what you think it is. Questioning someone's knowledge isn't an ad hominem.
I don't care about your views on religion. As an atheist, I share them. I still think DNS-and-BIND is entirely correct in his assessment of gbutler69's level of knowledge on the subject. His "I believe" is a more apt description of his own views on religion than religious thinking itself. Religion is never about "just believing". Religion might be madness, but there's more method to it than that.
I just think it's a pity that those who believe(!) they defend rational thinking against the forces of irrational religion can't string together a rational argument based on facts, and rather resort to making up stuff as they go. It's stupid and embarrassing.
There's no ad hominem in DNS-and-BIND's comment, and no "stupid masturbating around ideas which lost credibility hundred years ago". What you're constructing is a strawman. Look it up.
Most distros use some patches for their kernels, and all of them use their own kernel configuration. That doesn't mean a hardware manufacturer 'supports' those distros, it's the other way around. It's not Sony that supports Ubuntu, it's Ubuntu that compiles their kernel with Sony Memory Stick Duo support. That's a fact. Now fuck off.
And? What kind of special hardware support is there in the distributions they use that isn't in all the others? None. Hardware support is not distribution specific, you drooling moron.
Yeah, replace your brain with Google and then complain when they will make hardware vendors stop supporting Linux distributions. It's only your imagination, idiot.
It does. And Google already has Gadgets, the equivalent of Apple's dashboard widgets, which can run under KDE 4 and probably (as they use Chrome's WebKit engine) will run under the Chrome OS as well.
Well, "national interest" is also defined that way: a bunch of powerful guys at the top of the hierarchy who disseminate information at their own discretion. Sometimes, they don't deserve to be trusted.
The story of Half-Life is mostly ripped from Doom: "A portal to Hell/another dimension appears. There be monsters." System Shock is an earlier game that is much more story driven.
True. And the great games within the genre weren't all that innovative; Half-Life and Half-Life 2 didn't "innovate" much on Doom/Quake, they improved on it with excellent level design and a mysterious setting, giving a sense of playing through a varied story instead of the repetitive "find the key card and shoot up yet more monsters" mechanics of other FPS games. The levels work more like tracks on a roller coaster than actual levels, which limits the freedom of the player but at the same time allows the developer to pace the action more efficiently. (But naturally, there's also more interaction with the world in the newer games; I suppose that could be called innovative.)
It's not a point of view, it's a set of loyalties. He's loyal to "the economy", i.e. rich people.
I find it peculiar that economists still have the nerve to claim their bullshit pseudo-science is a better predictor than the physics used in climatology.
Blah blah blah. No one forced you to switch from KDE 3.5 to 4.0. In fact, KDE 3.5.10 came out after 4.1, so it was still maintained and still current a long time after KDE4 came out. It's still available, for free. You can run it with KDE 4 and Gnome apps installed, if you want to.
Mac OS X users seem to have stopped whinging that 10.0 was a useless, slow piece of shit OS that wasn't half ready for regular use. And why not? By 10.2, OS X was quite decent. But unlike KDE 3.5, you can't run modern software at all on OS X Jaguar.
Ray Bradbury, while one of the greatest living SF writers, is actually something of a technophobe. Not a luddite, as far as I know, just someone who doesn't care for technology outside the scope of fiction. He doesn't know how to drive a car (while living in LA!), and he was... oh, I don't remember, but old when he first travelled by airplane. So most likely, he doesn't understand the internet much. Or he understands it differently.
Konqueror 4.2.4 seems to work well enough with Slashdot. It's actually a fairly decent browser, although I use Iceweasel out of habit (and ABP+ and NoScript). The only site I have found it doesn't work properly with is Gmail. It scores better than Firefox and Iceweasel on Futuremark's Peacekeeper benchmark, but feels a bit slower in reality.
I'm posting from it now, mostly to test it with Slashdot, and everything from logging in to using the slider thingy, previewing, continuing editing and posting (hopefully) seems to work.
Also, when Slashdot suddenly stops working with something, it's most likely Slashdot's fault.
That's a very fancy and colourful benchmark, but what exactly does it measure? I tried it on hald a dozen different Linux browsers, and it came out with Firefox 3.0.11 on bottom, well below Iceweasel 3.0.11 (same codebase), with Opera 10 Beta and Konqueror 4.2.4 almost indistinguishable from each other and quite a bit faster, with some WebKit based browsers much faster than those. Problem is, Konqueror is slower than Firefox in all other benchmarks (WebKit's Sunspider, for instance) and in user experience as well. That benchmark doesn't reflect reality.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to confuse aesthetic success with bright colours. Yes, Unreal is aimed at people like you.
So one book concerning so-called outliers references one study that finds no relation between IQ and academic success. And no study has found the opposite? (I'll answer the last question for you: the correlation of IQ to academic success is well established through 100 years of empirical research. Do a Google Scholar search.)
Keep in mind that correlation to achievements in school was the validator Alfred Binet used when developing his original test questions; his interest was in mental age, though, so he didn't do a longitudinal study (others have, and have found IQ to be fairly stable).
Has the one referenced study been replicated? Otherwise, you're talking anecdotal evidence here.
I'll give you that IQ isn't an extremely strong predictor, but then there are loads of other factors that influence academic success, such as "work drive" (although others have found that cognitive abilities (i.e. IQ) were by far the best predictor of school achievement), and of course the fact that many high-IQ people are so intellectually lazy and arrogant that they turn out stupid. IQ is, of course, only an indicator and not a direct objective metric of "intelligence".
Oh, come on. You don't have the foggiest idea about the Rorschach test, and just dribble off some bullshit you've heard from others who have heard the same from others, an endless line of people who don't know what they're talking about but believe that saying that will make them sound smart. It may, to you. To others, you sound like idiots.
Christ on a bike. You pick up shit nuggets like "correlation != causation" from Slashdot and claim you have an education. Then you go on to link theology with correlation studies. You, Sir, are a moron.
Wrong. The theoretical basis for the Rorschach test might be bogus, but a theoretical basis isn't needed: the test's validity can be empirically verified by correlating its results to other and unrelated tests (that's how the IQ tests were developed, comparing IQ test results with academic success). Which has, of course, happened. People need to do research to get research grants after all. So we get papers like this:
I'm sure the test has its problems, but saying there's nothing scientific to this, well, that's claptrap. Perhaps you should be less arrogant -- it makes you stupid.
No, it doesn't. Telling someone that they don't know what they're talking about isn't "attacking or appealing to a characteristic [or belief] of the person". The "belief" part of Wikipedia's definition is obviously inaccurate: responding to "I believe this is the way to the men's room" with "No, that's a broom closet" isn't an ad hominem; attacking said person's beliefs on religion due to the fact that he doesn't know a men's room from a broom closet is, OTOH, an ad hominem.
An ad hominem is structured like this: What X says is/might be wrong because X is of questionable character. Questioning someone's knowledge is something entirely different.
Well, then an ad hominem is not what you think it is. Questioning someone's knowledge isn't an ad hominem.
I don't care about your views on religion. As an atheist, I share them. I still think DNS-and-BIND is entirely correct in his assessment of gbutler69's level of knowledge on the subject. His "I believe" is a more apt description of his own views on religion than religious thinking itself. Religion is never about "just believing". Religion might be madness, but there's more method to it than that.
I just think it's a pity that those who believe(!) they defend rational thinking against the forces of irrational religion can't string together a rational argument based on facts, and rather resort to making up stuff as they go. It's stupid and embarrassing.
There's no ad hominem in DNS-and-BIND's comment, and no "stupid masturbating around ideas which lost credibility hundred years ago". What you're constructing is a strawman. Look it up.
There are loads of 22" LCDs with 1920x1080. How about this: Link.
Most distros use some patches for their kernels, and all of them use their own kernel configuration. That doesn't mean a hardware manufacturer 'supports' those distros, it's the other way around. It's not Sony that supports Ubuntu, it's Ubuntu that compiles their kernel with Sony Memory Stick Duo support. That's a fact. Now fuck off.
And? What kind of special hardware support is there in the distributions they use that isn't in all the others? None. Hardware support is not distribution specific, you drooling moron.
Yeah, replace your brain with Google and then complain when they will make hardware vendors stop supporting Linux distributions. It's only your imagination, idiot.
So fucking what? What distro is supported by which hardware vendor anyway? None of them! So nothing will change!
People like you really need to be beaten with a cluestick until you're unable to form your idiotic opinions.
I'll elaborate for him: He's read something like it in earlier comments, and thought re-stating it would give him an automatic +1, interesting.
It does. And Google already has Gadgets, the equivalent of Apple's dashboard widgets, which can run under KDE 4 and probably (as they use Chrome's WebKit engine) will run under the Chrome OS as well.
Who cares whether they care? They will care to make it useful on real hardware, and that means improved hardware support.
So, do you think Windows and Mac OS X apps don't need to be compiled?
Well, "national interest" is also defined that way: a bunch of powerful guys at the top of the hierarchy who disseminate information at their own discretion. Sometimes, they don't deserve to be trusted.
The story of Half-Life is mostly ripped from Doom: "A portal to Hell/another dimension appears. There be monsters." System Shock is an earlier game that is much more story driven.
Look up the definition of "define".
True. And the great games within the genre weren't all that innovative; Half-Life and Half-Life 2 didn't "innovate" much on Doom/Quake, they improved on it with excellent level design and a mysterious setting, giving a sense of playing through a varied story instead of the repetitive "find the key card and shoot up yet more monsters" mechanics of other FPS games. The levels work more like tracks on a roller coaster than actual levels, which limits the freedom of the player but at the same time allows the developer to pace the action more efficiently. (But naturally, there's also more interaction with the world in the newer games; I suppose that could be called innovative.)
It's not a point of view, it's a set of loyalties. He's loyal to "the economy", i.e. rich people.
I find it peculiar that economists still have the nerve to claim their bullshit pseudo-science is a better predictor than the physics used in climatology.
Blah blah blah. No one forced you to switch from KDE 3.5 to 4.0. In fact, KDE 3.5.10 came out after 4.1, so it was still maintained and still current a long time after KDE4 came out. It's still available, for free. You can run it with KDE 4 and Gnome apps installed, if you want to.
Mac OS X users seem to have stopped whinging that 10.0 was a useless, slow piece of shit OS that wasn't half ready for regular use. And why not? By 10.2, OS X was quite decent. But unlike KDE 3.5, you can't run modern software at all on OS X Jaguar.
Ray Bradbury, while one of the greatest living SF writers, is actually something of a technophobe. Not a luddite, as far as I know, just someone who doesn't care for technology outside the scope of fiction. He doesn't know how to drive a car (while living in LA!), and he was ... oh, I don't remember, but old when he first travelled by airplane. So most likely, he doesn't understand the internet much. Or he understands it differently.
Konqueror 4.2.4 seems to work well enough with Slashdot. It's actually a fairly decent browser, although I use Iceweasel out of habit (and ABP+ and NoScript). The only site I have found it doesn't work properly with is Gmail. It scores better than Firefox and Iceweasel on Futuremark's Peacekeeper benchmark, but feels a bit slower in reality.
I'm posting from it now, mostly to test it with Slashdot, and everything from logging in to using the slider thingy, previewing, continuing editing and posting (hopefully) seems to work.
Also, when Slashdot suddenly stops working with something, it's most likely Slashdot's fault.
That's a very fancy and colourful benchmark, but what exactly does it measure? I tried it on hald a dozen different Linux browsers, and it came out with Firefox 3.0.11 on bottom, well below Iceweasel 3.0.11 (same codebase), with Opera 10 Beta and Konqueror 4.2.4 almost indistinguishable from each other and quite a bit faster, with some WebKit based browsers much faster than those. Problem is, Konqueror is slower than Firefox in all other benchmarks (WebKit's Sunspider, for instance) and in user experience as well. That benchmark doesn't reflect reality.