When you fail to clearly define what Extreme Neglect is you're giving crazy Helicopter Parents the excuse to be as crazy as they are. What is Extreme Neglect for 3 and under? Is leaving the child screaming for an hour in the bassinet extreme neglect, or is that just sleep training? I'd personally call hitting a child Abuse but is these also considered extreme neglect? Or is Extreme Neglect for those parents who never hold or cuddle their child, but rather just shove a bottle in the kids mouth and make sure their needs are only minimally met? Is leaving a child with their Grand Parent for the Day so you can have a night out Extreme Neglect, or is that Normal? I don't like these kinds of child studies because they overly generalize what they are looking at because they don't want to say something like we scanned the brains of children who were under the care of convicted child abusers who left their children at home unattended.
Dawkins is the one who is ignorant concerning Creationism though. The two most classical versions of Creationism (Young Earth, and ID) believe in Micro-Evolution. There is no evidence you can find that would contradict Micro-Evolution save for it is Evolution on Steroids. In fact most of the YEC and ID people are actually a result of people who, like Dawkins, argued that Evolution proves that God Doesn't Exist, thank you X Club/sarcasm. From their logic God does exist so your Evolution must be wrong in some way so they concoct a logical story to account for the error. The real error was that Evolution, Geology, and Cosmology don't actually disprove God or the Bible unless you take the Bible as Literal as Atheists demand that it should be. Which is why Catholics don't really have a problem with Evolution. Even people who say they take the Bible literally as true don't normally take it LITERALLY, and if his gripe is with those that do then Dawkins would be better off using the fundamentals of language to back hand the nut job. I've driven more Bible Thumping Baptists nuts using the logic that that the meaning of words change over time, and even if the bible really was the literal word of god at the time I have no way of knowing the real meaning of those words in the Here and Now since Context has changed and is Lost over time. That coupled with a few real world examples like how my mothers middle name is Gay, and how in just a few generations it went from meaning happy to a word my Homophobic Mormon Grandparents would never have even considered giving a child.
What type of Windows "Power User" can't install Ubuntu and run Open Office? Claiming "I install it, and I just can't accomplish anything, ever." is far too broad. If you were competent enough to install it then you should be competent enough to launch even the most basic of applications. Even my 60 year old dad can launch and run FireFox in Ubuntu and he's as far from computer literate as you can get. Now if by "accomplish" you mean that you can't get linux recognized on the network properly because some windows box is playing coy then I'd probably believe you, but Not being able to accomplish Anything is too much to believe.
Skyrim is fine as a Mature Violent game, but Dragon Age has the equivalent of soft core porn in it. Does that get it into the Adult bucket or is it still gray enough for Mature?
You're painting with awfully wide brush strokes there.
I see that throughout history that diversity -- of any form: religious, ethnic, cultural, racial -- has failed wherever it has been tried
When, and where throughout history? I can site at least 1 case where the lack of diversity was the cause the the collapse of a nations economy. France under Lois XIV under their "everyone must be Catholic" logic ended up convincing a large portion of the educated to leave the country. That lack of diversity caused a brain drain that helped to cause the financial collapse of the entire country.
The very nature of Diversity means that it will not last for long unless you keep importing it. Best example of that is China. You can go ahead and conquer it, but in a few generations your decedents will be Chinese.
Uniformity has advantages in getting everyone on board and headed the same direction, but it also has weaknesses and doesn't adapt to new things quickly. Diversity is a very good environment for creativity, but also has the drawback of generating strife between different groups. Nether solution is ideal, but that's life.
Have you seen the Original IQ Tests? They were all Picture so that Illiterate people could take them. So yes they were included and have been from the beginning, but as Literacy has expanded the tests have changed to include the higher level questions that can only be described with words and not pictures.
Yea the IQ test has to be reballanced every so often to keep 100 at average, and what 100 is now is actually higher than 50 years ago. It's not that people are getting smarter though. It's that people are getting educated. If your average 50 years ago has a 30% illiteracy rate then if you decrease the illiteracy rate then it will appear that the population has gotten smarter. In part, that is true, but having more people educated just means that we are getting closer to our potential. Our maximum potential might not be moving at all, but it's hard to say where that is until the majority gets their maximum amount of education.
The only people in that poll are 360 users who choose to watch the debate on their XBox and not just over the regular broadcast. People who didn't want to be bothered by random questions during the debate ether didn't answer, or watched it on broadcast. The given response isn't that far out of line with the US Population ether, or at least the Republican population of the US like in this talking points memo poll where 74% approve of drone strikes. The summery is clearly written by an anti-military nut job who believes that their view is the one held by the majority when the truth is clearly pointing and laughing at them.
I personally went that path so I can tell you that If you have better options then take the better option. However, where I lived 15 years ago if you wanted a Tech degree of any value you wouldn't have any real options. I took the tech school path only because the only real College that I could afford locally had a horrible reputation at putting out CS Majors. They were in the process of building a new Engineering department and I wasn't interested in being apart of their transition from a bad department to a good department. So I went to the Local ITT school only so I could get a piece of paper saying I could do the things I could already do. If I were to do it again I would actually choose the Local College and get a real CS degree, but at the time I wouldn't touch that school with a 10 foot poll.
Not always, but using the cell towers to locate someone doesn't require the phone to do anything but be on, and in range. Tough luck though finding me that way if I turn the phone off, or pull the battery.
My Family wasn't "forced" out of France. We left to avoid the Wars the others wanted to fight. The Wars of Religion are a bit different then your standard Catholic Persecution of Protestants you typically think of.
Your logic though is at the core of the problem with the fantasy that a world without religion would be peaceful. You justified Murder as long as it was Less than the Greater evil of "Religion" in your mind. If you use subjective morality like that then you can justify any action, and would be a major point against real peace, and real morality.
The percentage is far larger than you think, even in the US. Gallup has a running total for the percentages. 32% believe in the Theistic Evolution of Man. I object to how gallup asked the question since the people who are lumped into the "Creation" side could still believe in Evolution of Everything except Man, or Young Earth Creationism, or Intelligent Design. Lumping them together the way they have makes them seem larger than they really are. Heck the people who believe in the Evolution of Everything Except Man are actually Evolutionary Theists, but are simple refusing to side with it Because some people insist on presenting Evolution as anti-God. Which was never a good idea in the first place.
I don't exactly feel that way though. Economics covers most of our reasons for justifying our actions, but even if the world had plenty I feel we'd still have problems. The Rich and powerful will wage war to obtain more riches and more power even when they already have more than they will ever use. The Political environment in the US is a good example of two sides that have plenty, and justifying hatred for each other, and demonizing each other over excess power. This urge to dominate over your opponent even when there is no need to won't go away even if the Economic and Religious issues are covered.
I've never understood this shangri-la version of a world without religion that you insist on presenting. This might be because of my family history. Because we were Nobel French Protestants we were forced to leave during the Wars of Religion in France. The family at the time wanted to go back, and around the time of Lois the XVI at least one family member had started to reestablish the Nobel household. Luckily they came back during the American Revolution, and never went back since the French Revolutions would have put their heads on the block. First we were hated because we were Protestant, and then we were hated because we were Nobel born. The way everything played out was the basis of Napoleons Quote "Religion is what stops the poor from murdering the rich". Even when you look at other crimes in the name of religion like Witch Burning it ends up being more of a Poor vs the Rich game. A good number of people who were accused of being Witches where the Rich, and most of their accusers where the "poor" who were given the rich guys stuff after the rich guy burned, like the Salem witch trials. I don't really have any reason to believe religion is the cause of all of its crimes, and instead I have plenty of reason to believe it's just an excuse and without that excuse we'd just come up with a different excuse like economics.
I still don't agree with the argument even from the way you're presenting it. The reason you learn a variety of subject like Chemistry is that you're learning to think, and think in different ways. Most people, unless they pursue it further, will forget what they where taught, but should still remember the lessons that taught them how to think. Like testing, and experimenting. Surely this kid also has to take English, and a variety of Math courses. You won't use those skill in most jobs ether and most people will forget them just as quickly as they forget Chemistry. Personally I feel that most schools Math requirement is far too low, and I view the Anti Algebra group as nutty as this guy and his Anti Chemistry Rant. I personally watched my school hatchet their Science and English classes my Senior year in the name of Standardization, and a more well rounded curriculum. As a result I couldn't pick more focused classes to work on my issues with Writing, and instead got a generic English IV class that taught me nothing of any value, and didn't focus hard enough my my problem areas to actually improve my writing. They also took the Advanced Biology class that was 1 hour lab and 1 hour lecture, and replaced it with a 1 hour AP Biology. The 2 hour class was harder and better, but because they wanted it to have College credit they "trimmed" it down. More like they cut it down to save money and used the College Credit as a guise to hide that fact. This guy is offering only a cut down more nonsense style of learning that I completely disagree with.
Artificially large blooms are not new, and if we use them to counter global warming without knowing what they do we could be in more trouble then just a few extra feet of sea. One possible thing is over oxygenating the ocean. That could kill off a large amount of ocean life and effectively neutralize any benefit. This kind of thing has been done before not too long ago, and everyone was waiting for the test results. Instead this rich exploitive nit wit thinks he can make a quick buck on just preliminary data.
What if there are unintended consequences? The reason for not allowing Geo Engineering is that you can set off an uncontrollable self feeding cycle. What if what he's doing sets off a cycle that prevents Global Warming and triggers an Ice Age instead? You really should figure out what the possible consequences are before you do something on a global scale. Which normally means more research. If you could stop a Hurricane from hitting Florida but as a consequence Mexico has a drought do you stop the Hurricane?
We can blame ether side all we want, but the truth is that without a perceived threat there isn't any political power to throw to NASA. If their was a known killer asteroid that was going to hit in 10 years we'd put every penny of the defense budget towards stopping it. If North Korea were building a lunar station we'd do everything to get one up first. But without the credible threat of something like what USSR presented we have no motivation other than just "to do it". I'm sorry but as much as we like to think we do things just because we can we do things a lot faster when you're in fear for your life.
Stop giving them tips. I prefer it when my enemies destroy themselves from within. Quickly is preferable but I'll go for the slow inevitable destruction from too.
I'll agree that the 80% figure is probably just PR hype, but part of the argument seems to be the notion that only 1% of our DNA codes for Proteins and that's the only important part. I believe that notion has already been discredited with epigenetics, and unless I'm mistaken that is the reason for the ENCODE Project in the first place.
JPEG compression artifacts? That's absurd! How would a random compression artifact contain the UserID, Time, and IP address? I'd be more likely to believe that was an actual picture of Jesus in my Sandwich. The reason the lossy compression just reveals the pattern.
True, but at least it's an indication that they might move in the right direction. I'll be happy if they prove it before the Wii U comes out so I can remove them from my Ban list and buy ZombieU. I've been missing out on things like Assassins Creed and other thing over the years because of their DRM so I'll just be glad it's over if they follow through.
But unlike Applets JavaScript and JPEGs are actually used. Applets serve no valid purpose on the web any more. Letting them sit there rarely used except for off case uses and exploits is foolish. When was the last time you saw an applet being used productively in a web page that couldn't have been solved by using WebStart or just prompting the user for permission to run?
Slashdot Mirror
You can easily argue that Epigenetics has put doubt into every twin study ever done.
When you fail to clearly define what Extreme Neglect is you're giving crazy Helicopter Parents the excuse to be as crazy as they are. What is Extreme Neglect for 3 and under? Is leaving the child screaming for an hour in the bassinet extreme neglect, or is that just sleep training? I'd personally call hitting a child Abuse but is these also considered extreme neglect? Or is Extreme Neglect for those parents who never hold or cuddle their child, but rather just shove a bottle in the kids mouth and make sure their needs are only minimally met? Is leaving a child with their Grand Parent for the Day so you can have a night out Extreme Neglect, or is that Normal? I don't like these kinds of child studies because they overly generalize what they are looking at because they don't want to say something like we scanned the brains of children who were under the care of convicted child abusers who left their children at home unattended.
Dawkins is the one who is ignorant concerning Creationism though. The two most classical versions of Creationism (Young Earth, and ID) believe in Micro-Evolution. There is no evidence you can find that would contradict Micro-Evolution save for it is Evolution on Steroids. In fact most of the YEC and ID people are actually a result of people who, like Dawkins, argued that Evolution proves that God Doesn't Exist, thank you X Club /sarcasm. From their logic God does exist so your Evolution must be wrong in some way so they concoct a logical story to account for the error. The real error was that Evolution, Geology, and Cosmology don't actually disprove God or the Bible unless you take the Bible as Literal as Atheists demand that it should be. Which is why Catholics don't really have a problem with Evolution. Even people who say they take the Bible literally as true don't normally take it LITERALLY, and if his gripe is with those that do then Dawkins would be better off using the fundamentals of language to back hand the nut job. I've driven more Bible Thumping Baptists nuts using the logic that that the meaning of words change over time, and even if the bible really was the literal word of god at the time I have no way of knowing the real meaning of those words in the Here and Now since Context has changed and is Lost over time. That coupled with a few real world examples like how my mothers middle name is Gay, and how in just a few generations it went from meaning happy to a word my Homophobic Mormon Grandparents would never have even considered giving a child.
What type of Windows "Power User" can't install Ubuntu and run Open Office? Claiming "I install it, and I just can't accomplish anything, ever." is far too broad. If you were competent enough to install it then you should be competent enough to launch even the most basic of applications. Even my 60 year old dad can launch and run FireFox in Ubuntu and he's as far from computer literate as you can get. Now if by "accomplish" you mean that you can't get linux recognized on the network properly because some windows box is playing coy then I'd probably believe you, but Not being able to accomplish Anything is too much to believe.
Skyrim is fine as a Mature Violent game, but Dragon Age has the equivalent of soft core porn in it. Does that get it into the Adult bucket or is it still gray enough for Mature?
I see that throughout history that diversity -- of any form: religious, ethnic, cultural, racial -- has failed wherever it has been tried
When, and where throughout history? I can site at least 1 case where the lack of diversity was the cause the the collapse of a nations economy. France under Lois XIV under their "everyone must be Catholic" logic ended up convincing a large portion of the educated to leave the country. That lack of diversity caused a brain drain that helped to cause the financial collapse of the entire country.
The very nature of Diversity means that it will not last for long unless you keep importing it. Best example of that is China. You can go ahead and conquer it, but in a few generations your decedents will be Chinese.
Uniformity has advantages in getting everyone on board and headed the same direction, but it also has weaknesses and doesn't adapt to new things quickly. Diversity is a very good environment for creativity, but also has the drawback of generating strife between different groups. Nether solution is ideal, but that's life.
Have you seen the Original IQ Tests? They were all Picture so that Illiterate people could take them. So yes they were included and have been from the beginning, but as Literacy has expanded the tests have changed to include the higher level questions that can only be described with words and not pictures.
Yea the IQ test has to be reballanced every so often to keep 100 at average, and what 100 is now is actually higher than 50 years ago. It's not that people are getting smarter though. It's that people are getting educated. If your average 50 years ago has a 30% illiteracy rate then if you decrease the illiteracy rate then it will appear that the population has gotten smarter. In part, that is true, but having more people educated just means that we are getting closer to our potential. Our maximum potential might not be moving at all, but it's hard to say where that is until the majority gets their maximum amount of education.
The only people in that poll are 360 users who choose to watch the debate on their XBox and not just over the regular broadcast. People who didn't want to be bothered by random questions during the debate ether didn't answer, or watched it on broadcast. The given response isn't that far out of line with the US Population ether, or at least the Republican population of the US like in this talking points memo poll where 74% approve of drone strikes. The summery is clearly written by an anti-military nut job who believes that their view is the one held by the majority when the truth is clearly pointing and laughing at them.
I personally went that path so I can tell you that If you have better options then take the better option. However, where I lived 15 years ago if you wanted a Tech degree of any value you wouldn't have any real options. I took the tech school path only because the only real College that I could afford locally had a horrible reputation at putting out CS Majors. They were in the process of building a new Engineering department and I wasn't interested in being apart of their transition from a bad department to a good department. So I went to the Local ITT school only so I could get a piece of paper saying I could do the things I could already do. If I were to do it again I would actually choose the Local College and get a real CS degree, but at the time I wouldn't touch that school with a 10 foot poll.
Not always, but using the cell towers to locate someone doesn't require the phone to do anything but be on, and in range. Tough luck though finding me that way if I turn the phone off, or pull the battery.
Your logic though is at the core of the problem with the fantasy that a world without religion would be peaceful. You justified Murder as long as it was Less than the Greater evil of "Religion" in your mind. If you use subjective morality like that then you can justify any action, and would be a major point against real peace, and real morality.
The percentage is far larger than you think, even in the US. Gallup has a running total for the percentages. 32% believe in the Theistic Evolution of Man. I object to how gallup asked the question since the people who are lumped into the "Creation" side could still believe in Evolution of Everything except Man, or Young Earth Creationism, or Intelligent Design. Lumping them together the way they have makes them seem larger than they really are. Heck the people who believe in the Evolution of Everything Except Man are actually Evolutionary Theists, but are simple refusing to side with it Because some people insist on presenting Evolution as anti-God. Which was never a good idea in the first place.
I don't exactly feel that way though. Economics covers most of our reasons for justifying our actions, but even if the world had plenty I feel we'd still have problems. The Rich and powerful will wage war to obtain more riches and more power even when they already have more than they will ever use. The Political environment in the US is a good example of two sides that have plenty, and justifying hatred for each other, and demonizing each other over excess power. This urge to dominate over your opponent even when there is no need to won't go away even if the Economic and Religious issues are covered.
I've never understood this shangri-la version of a world without religion that you insist on presenting. This might be because of my family history. Because we were Nobel French Protestants we were forced to leave during the Wars of Religion in France. The family at the time wanted to go back, and around the time of Lois the XVI at least one family member had started to reestablish the Nobel household. Luckily they came back during the American Revolution, and never went back since the French Revolutions would have put their heads on the block. First we were hated because we were Protestant, and then we were hated because we were Nobel born. The way everything played out was the basis of Napoleons Quote "Religion is what stops the poor from murdering the rich". Even when you look at other crimes in the name of religion like Witch Burning it ends up being more of a Poor vs the Rich game. A good number of people who were accused of being Witches where the Rich, and most of their accusers where the "poor" who were given the rich guys stuff after the rich guy burned, like the Salem witch trials. I don't really have any reason to believe religion is the cause of all of its crimes, and instead I have plenty of reason to believe it's just an excuse and without that excuse we'd just come up with a different excuse like economics.
I still don't agree with the argument even from the way you're presenting it. The reason you learn a variety of subject like Chemistry is that you're learning to think, and think in different ways. Most people, unless they pursue it further, will forget what they where taught, but should still remember the lessons that taught them how to think. Like testing, and experimenting. Surely this kid also has to take English, and a variety of Math courses. You won't use those skill in most jobs ether and most people will forget them just as quickly as they forget Chemistry. Personally I feel that most schools Math requirement is far too low, and I view the Anti Algebra group as nutty as this guy and his Anti Chemistry Rant. I personally watched my school hatchet their Science and English classes my Senior year in the name of Standardization, and a more well rounded curriculum. As a result I couldn't pick more focused classes to work on my issues with Writing, and instead got a generic English IV class that taught me nothing of any value, and didn't focus hard enough my my problem areas to actually improve my writing. They also took the Advanced Biology class that was 1 hour lab and 1 hour lecture, and replaced it with a 1 hour AP Biology. The 2 hour class was harder and better, but because they wanted it to have College credit they "trimmed" it down. More like they cut it down to save money and used the College Credit as a guise to hide that fact. This guy is offering only a cut down more nonsense style of learning that I completely disagree with.
Artificially large blooms are not new, and if we use them to counter global warming without knowing what they do we could be in more trouble then just a few extra feet of sea. One possible thing is over oxygenating the ocean. That could kill off a large amount of ocean life and effectively neutralize any benefit. This kind of thing has been done before not too long ago, and everyone was waiting for the test results. Instead this rich exploitive nit wit thinks he can make a quick buck on just preliminary data.
What if there are unintended consequences? The reason for not allowing Geo Engineering is that you can set off an uncontrollable self feeding cycle. What if what he's doing sets off a cycle that prevents Global Warming and triggers an Ice Age instead? You really should figure out what the possible consequences are before you do something on a global scale. Which normally means more research. If you could stop a Hurricane from hitting Florida but as a consequence Mexico has a drought do you stop the Hurricane?
Yea but if I found them with a dban disk and not a Linux disk I wouldn't believe that it was Accidentally AUTONUKE'd
We can blame ether side all we want, but the truth is that without a perceived threat there isn't any political power to throw to NASA. If their was a known killer asteroid that was going to hit in 10 years we'd put every penny of the defense budget towards stopping it. If North Korea were building a lunar station we'd do everything to get one up first. But without the credible threat of something like what USSR presented we have no motivation other than just "to do it". I'm sorry but as much as we like to think we do things just because we can we do things a lot faster when you're in fear for your life.
Stop giving them tips. I prefer it when my enemies destroy themselves from within. Quickly is preferable but I'll go for the slow inevitable destruction from too.
I'll agree that the 80% figure is probably just PR hype, but part of the argument seems to be the notion that only 1% of our DNA codes for Proteins and that's the only important part. I believe that notion has already been discredited with epigenetics, and unless I'm mistaken that is the reason for the ENCODE Project in the first place.
JPEG compression artifacts? That's absurd! How would a random compression artifact contain the UserID, Time, and IP address? I'd be more likely to believe that was an actual picture of Jesus in my Sandwich. The reason the lossy compression just reveals the pattern.
True, but at least it's an indication that they might move in the right direction. I'll be happy if they prove it before the Wii U comes out so I can remove them from my Ban list and buy ZombieU. I've been missing out on things like Assassins Creed and other thing over the years because of their DRM so I'll just be glad it's over if they follow through.
But unlike Applets JavaScript and JPEGs are actually used. Applets serve no valid purpose on the web any more. Letting them sit there rarely used except for off case uses and exploits is foolish. When was the last time you saw an applet being used productively in a web page that couldn't have been solved by using WebStart or just prompting the user for permission to run?