I was referring to the Y, not the X. Though having an unpaired chromosome (the X) also leads to differences in the form of a wider variance between individuals. Paired chromosomes have a moderating effect where even if one gene is defective the other can sometimes cover for it. Hence why men tend to be found more on the long tails of distribution graphs for various attributes while women show less variance from the mean. Also why the birth rate for men is lower despite Y sperm having a higher rate of fertilization.
There may well be more differences between two men than between the average between men and women, but that's not a meaningful comparison for precisely the reason you describe. The better comparison would be the differences (on average) between unrelated men and women vs. those between unrelated men and men (or women and women). You'll find, of course, that men and women differ from each other more, on average, than they differ from members of their own sex.
Men and women differ by an entire chromosome. That's more than differentiates many species from each other. How much more genetic difference do you need? But the memo in question mentioned that genetics was only one of the factors involved and that culture and bias undoubtedly played a role as well. Again, did you really read it?
As to the shift in engineering demographics, perhaps it's not men and women that have changed in the past 40 years but rather the nature of the job.
Paying attention to politics is only important if everyone does it (and reacts the same way to it). Otherwise, it's just a quick recipe for disappointment.
I remember the Daily Show used to have a tag line that said, "Where more Americans get their news than probably should." It seems quite apt. That might have even been back in the Craig Kilborn days, before Jon Stewart.
Even with the explanation, I'm not getting the joke there. I'm guessing there's a cultural context that I'm lacking. Is the implication that SJWs are more likely to be French than German?
Looks like for maps at least this is only for the phone app so far. The google maps website still doesn't show the Live or Plan your visit sections. The search website just updated to include it, however.
Sure, once someone invents matter replicators and discovers an unlimited energy source. The article didn't say when you'd get everything you want, just that income would gradually increase towards that point. It might be hundreds or thousands of years down the line, assuming the economic system in question even lasts that long. It might never plateau if the right technology doesn't come along and human greed remains unbounded. Doesn't mean the system isn't working so long as it's still growing towards that point.
Nonsense. That sort of Marxist wet dream has never happened anyplace at the scale of nations. This country was founded to wrest control away from the rich and powerful in England and give it to the rich and powerful over here. The only role the working man played in the revolution was cannon fodder.
The idea of abuse of power in government didn't really take off in this country until the Watergate scandal. After that, the genie was out of the bottle and the government has never been able to fully regain the people's trust. Before that, anyone who thought the government might not have our best interests at heart was generally regarded as a kook.
Actually, the report that article links to lists the figure as 2-8%, not 2-5%. And the problem with that figure, as with all such figures for false accusations, is that that is the percentage of people who get caught making false accusations. It doesn't include the people who successfully get away with it. The actual percentage of false accusations is necessarily going to be higher, since the successful ones are never counted as false accusations.
Similarly, there are "all sorts of clues" when someone does it badly. Those naturally wouldn't be there if someone was doing it well.
"Liberals" in the US believe in liberal government spending on programs designed to remove individual liberty. Of course, so do "conservatives" in the US these days.
Except that isn't what the issue is here. The issue is that Hulu sends the information to Facebook just by loading the like button on the page, regardless if the user ever clicks on it. The linked article gets it wrong, but the article that article links to explains it better.
And which one of those two reactions sounds less traumatic for everyone involved?
Perhaps if certain people would stop being so uptight, this whole issue would just go away. If you're not interested in the booth babes then just ignore them. And if someone grabs your ass without permission, just tell them off and walk away.
People who make statements need to provide evidence that they are true. Until they do, you must assume they are false.
Why should I assume they are false? To assume anything is foolish, particularly in the given example where it is more likely the statements are true. The correct answer to the question of whether any of those statements is true is "Probably". Claiming something is false because you don't have all the facts is just as bad as claiming it's true.
This "critical thinking" you espouse sounds more like simple contrariness.
Slashdot Mirror
I was referring to the Y, not the X. Though having an unpaired chromosome (the X) also leads to differences in the form of a wider variance between individuals. Paired chromosomes have a moderating effect where even if one gene is defective the other can sometimes cover for it. Hence why men tend to be found more on the long tails of distribution graphs for various attributes while women show less variance from the mean. Also why the birth rate for men is lower despite Y sperm having a higher rate of fertilization.
There may well be more differences between two men than between the average between men and women, but that's not a meaningful comparison for precisely the reason you describe. The better comparison would be the differences (on average) between unrelated men and women vs. those between unrelated men and men (or women and women). You'll find, of course, that men and women differ from each other more, on average, than they differ from members of their own sex.
Who says the work output of these two hypothetical people is the same?
Maybe you should question what biases you are bringing to the table yourself. Different != inferior.
Men and women differ by an entire chromosome. That's more than differentiates many species from each other. How much more genetic difference do you need? But the memo in question mentioned that genetics was only one of the factors involved and that culture and bias undoubtedly played a role as well. Again, did you really read it?
As to the shift in engineering demographics, perhaps it's not men and women that have changed in the past 40 years but rather the nature of the job.
Did you read what he wrote? He didn't denigrate anyone. He just pointed out that people aren't homogeneous in their aptitudes and interests.
Paying attention to politics is only important if everyone does it (and reacts the same way to it). Otherwise, it's just a quick recipe for disappointment.
I remember the Daily Show used to have a tag line that said, "Where more Americans get their news than probably should." It seems quite apt. That might have even been back in the Craig Kilborn days, before Jon Stewart.
That should be easy. Google already has all your personal information, so you won't need to give them anything.
Even with the explanation, I'm not getting the joke there. I'm guessing there's a cultural context that I'm lacking. Is the implication that SJWs are more likely to be French than German?
Just because your head isn't wet yet doesn't mean a storm isn't coming.
This is the wisest comment I've read all day. I wish I had mod points.
Looks like for maps at least this is only for the phone app so far. The google maps website still doesn't show the Live or Plan your visit sections. The search website just updated to include it, however.
Sure, once someone invents matter replicators and discovers an unlimited energy source. The article didn't say when you'd get everything you want, just that income would gradually increase towards that point. It might be hundreds or thousands of years down the line, assuming the economic system in question even lasts that long. It might never plateau if the right technology doesn't come along and human greed remains unbounded. Doesn't mean the system isn't working so long as it's still growing towards that point.
Perhaps they should investigate replacing the TSA with a potted plant, instead.
None of this would be a problem if prostitution was just legalized. There's no need for such puritanical laws to still exist.
Nonsense. That sort of Marxist wet dream has never happened anyplace at the scale of nations. This country was founded to wrest control away from the rich and powerful in England and give it to the rich and powerful over here. The only role the working man played in the revolution was cannon fodder.
The idea of abuse of power in government didn't really take off in this country until the Watergate scandal. After that, the genie was out of the bottle and the government has never been able to fully regain the people's trust. Before that, anyone who thought the government might not have our best interests at heart was generally regarded as a kook.
Whoosh!
Actually, the report that article links to lists the figure as 2-8%, not 2-5%. And the problem with that figure, as with all such figures for false accusations, is that that is the percentage of people who get caught making false accusations. It doesn't include the people who successfully get away with it. The actual percentage of false accusations is necessarily going to be higher, since the successful ones are never counted as false accusations.
Similarly, there are "all sorts of clues" when someone does it badly. Those naturally wouldn't be there if someone was doing it well.
"Liberals" in the US believe in liberal government spending on programs designed to remove individual liberty. Of course, so do "conservatives" in the US these days.
Except that isn't what the issue is here. The issue is that Hulu sends the information to Facebook just by loading the like button on the page, regardless if the user ever clicks on it. The linked article gets it wrong, but the article that article links to explains it better.
This is why we can't have nice things.
If you make it undesirable for women to wear skirts, then women won't wear skirts.
And which one of those two reactions sounds less traumatic for everyone involved?
Perhaps if certain people would stop being so uptight, this whole issue would just go away. If you're not interested in the booth babes then just ignore them. And if someone grabs your ass without permission, just tell them off and walk away.
If (straight) men treated women the same way they treat other men, our species would be extinct pretty quickly.
I think you're confusing "True or False" with immortals again.
People who make statements need to provide evidence that they are true. Until they do, you must assume they are false.
Why should I assume they are false? To assume anything is foolish, particularly in the given example where it is more likely the statements are true. The correct answer to the question of whether any of those statements is true is "Probably". Claiming something is false because you don't have all the facts is just as bad as claiming it's true.
This "critical thinking" you espouse sounds more like simple contrariness.