Your stats are misrepresenting the facts, and you are cherry picking. And that's besides those stats being more than a decade old, "newest" info shown there being from 2002.
2.8% of 68 million is a lot less than 1.2% of 314 million. Try those numbers when described as per mil.
UK: 2.8% of population = 1753948 = 1753â US: 1.2% of population = 3766968.48 = 3766â
USA's 1.2% is 2.1 times more than UK's 2.8 percent.
Also... Why didn't you copy those other crime stats? Like murders with firearms: UK: 14 US: 9369
Or murders committed by youths: UK: 139 US: 8226
Or prisoners: UK: 78753 US: 2019234
Or total crimes: UK: 6523706 US: 11877218
Oh and... According to those stats, you are comparing number 1 and number 2 countries in the world, by their total crimes. Now... I don't have the data right here, but something tells me that there are countries in the world where there is a LOT more crime going on than in UK and the USA.
So basically, all you've proven up there is your own bias and a proclivity to cherry pick the stats. Were you actually trying to pose as a "gun nut" in order to show them in even worse light?
There's a reason for that "You can tell it's Mattel" joke.
I've seen A1s with broken handguards and stocks from being transported neatly packed inside a crate, in the back of a truck, mostly over asphalt-paved roads, to a distance of maybe a dozen kilometers. And those were real, honesttogod, real gun factory produced and tested M16A1s.
Everything else that makes up the system is there for operation and function, rather than strength. No one is talking about printing the critical parts.
It's a gun, not a club.
Every part needed to make it operational IS critical.
Dutch got that eventuality covered already...
on
Terminator Sparrows?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That zombiecatcopter is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until they are dead.
As such, grafting a human-invented concept like economy onto basic laws that run the universe is about as arrogant and fallacious as assuming that the entire universe was made just so the humans would have a place to stay - cause they are made in the image of the creator of the said universe. And he was a white man. Who died on a cross. For our sins. Cause a woman eat an apple. A snake made her do that. Long story.
Almost twice the size of each of the next five countries on the list - except Brazil and Australia. It's MORE than twice the size of those countries. And Australia is a continent.
Or try it like this. On one side of the country, in Europe, Russia borders countries like Norway and Finland - on the other side, in Asia, it borders Japan. And on top of that, it also borders USA (Alaska) across the Bering Strait.
Russia is really, REALLY big. Lot's of space to catch nearly anything that falls into northern hemisphere.
"The research, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, found in a series of experiments that participants processed images of men and women in very different ways. When presented with images of men, perceivers tended to rely more on "global" cognitive processing, the mental method in which a person is perceived as a whole. Meanwhile, images of women were more often the subject of "local" cognitive processing, or the objectifying perception of something as an assemblage of its various parts." This was happening with both male and female survey subjects.
As the actual article is behind a paywall, I can't speak with certainty, but from what I can glean from here - it seems like another case of a badly done study.
In a new study that examined our cognitive process in how we perceive men and women, participants saw a fully clothed person from head to knee. After a brief pause, they then saw two new images on their screen: One that was unmodified and contained the original image, the other a slightly modified version of the original image with a sexual body part changed. Participants then quickly indicated which of the two images they had previously seen. They made decisions about entire bodies in some trials and body parts in other trials.
Looking at the photos in the link, the change in the edited photo is rather obvious. Which makes the following part of the results, rather a no-brainer.
Women's sexual body parts were more easily recognized when presented in isolation than when they were presented in the context of their entire bodies.
Zoomed in details more recognizable for deliberate errors, claim scientists.
As for why it wasn't the case with men... Besides the fact that all we get to work with is "But men's sexual body parts were recognized better when presented in the context of their entire bodies than they were in isolation." No actual numbers of results so that we can see if any of it is statistically significant OR correctly measured. I have a nagging feeling that "a sexual body part" on a man's body may be quite... well... flat and unremarkable. While that same body part on a woman's body is rather... curved and filled out. More detailed.
Which leaves us with a bit of an imbalance regarding the perceptibility of the changes in the details - namely, they may not be enough details to be noticed in the photos of the male upper torso. How did they control for that?
Now... That's only ONE theory going against the "women are a sum of objects, men are whole persons" hypothesis. How about the possibility that the humans (male and female) as a species have evolved a stronger reaction to female than to male breasts? As it tends to be our primary source of food very early in life. No need to pull the "objectification" card to explain that, but it could very likely skew the results of the study. How did they control for that too?
Where exactly did the "women are a sum of objects, men are whole persons" hypothesis come from? All I can see them measure is "Do people notice details more on male or on female body?" The leap from "we notice more details on women than on men" to "we all objectify women" seems to be made entirely out of confirmation bias.
As for them trying to "condition" the subjects to "perceive globally" (explained here, near the end of the article), again, we don't know if that training reduced the perception of details OR increased the recognizability of women "in the context of their whole bodies". All we know is that now "Women were more easily recognizable in the context of their whole bodies instead of their various sexual body parts."
Were there changes in results with men, too? If the training works there should be SOME change. Could
No, you wouldn't; these compromises arise from your cutting the workforce. I didn't suggest that.
No, those compromises arise from the fact that the human world record in running is 27.79 mph, set by Usain Bolt, while average walking speed is about 3 mph. 3 mph times 6 hour shifts equals 18 miles of street per policeman per shift. And it is rather obvious that you won't be seeing them jogging during all those 6 hours, running from one crime scene to the other. In fact, at best you'd get 3 crime scenes per shift - say, if it's a case of shoplifting or purse-snatching and they're just there to write up the complaint after the criminal is long gone.
You can increase the number of policemen all you want, have 20 of them covering those same 18 miles - they'd still be moving at around 3 mph. Meaning that they'd still need ~1-6 hours to answer to an emergency.
Irrelevant. Criminals can have access to all manner of faster transport, that doesn't mean we provide the cops with same. Furthermore, chases cause tons of collateral damage. We need those to stop as well.
Tracking should do fine in most cases. Like with drones. Or helicopters. Problem is, you can't always have access to those. So, unless you're advocating that police should let criminals and offenders go free cause it is "hard" to chase them...
Oh, you mean like now? LOL. There's a truism about cops: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
So the solution is to have them move slower, letting the cases they didn't even get to check pile up until it's days before they get to take a peek at the crime scene - cause it takes 6 hours for them to walk from one side of their beat to the other? Right.
The cop on the street will learn to know what looks right, who's normally cheerful, who's normally taciturn, what businesses are busy and which aren't, etc. All the things they've completely lost touch with. That at least gives the cop an edge if the officer is in the area when something goes down. If not, it's no different than now.
You seem to have a vision of all cops walking along a busy city street minding the shops so beggars and street urchins don't steal anything. That's rent-a-cop's job.
Domestic violence alone is around 210000+ cases (yearly) in a city like Chicago - you don't get to anticipate that or see it "go down". It's not even happening "on the street" but in people's homes where cops can't just barge in anytime they please. They can walk the beat all day long and not see a damn thing happening on the second floor of the building they're camping in front of, not to mention 5th, 10th or 15th floor. Or behind closed doors. Or drawn curtains. Still, they must respond to those calls.
Same way they must respond to calls from someone complaining that their neighbors are trying to kill them by reflecting light through their windows. Or to a case of someone's kid being lost. Or to a drunk driver wrapping his car around a telephone pole. Or to someone lying drunk in front of a bar. Harassment. Assault. Rape. Property damage. Suicide...
None of those are foreseeable and there is no "lost touch" to be found again. Yet, cops must respond to ALL those cases. At 3 miles per hour.
Remove them. Studies show they work better that way anyhow. Anyone can direct traffic if need be, but probably, it isn't needed anyway.
Citation needed. Oh and... make sure those studies include into account existence of pedestrians, bicycle riders and other forms of transportation AND the effects of such unregulated traffic on ALL commuters, not just the car drivers.
Besides, I was presenting you with a case that a cop must respond to, keeping him/her busy while a more serious crime takes place elsewhere. Replace breaking a traffic light with someone ramming a car through a store window causing cops to gather the
Just put them on the street, walking. They get to know their little neighborhood, and vice-versa. The only need for cars is for traffic enforcement, and 99% of that is purest bullshit anyway.
Indeed.
According to New York City Department of Transportation, there are about "6,300 miles of streets and highways" in NYC. Walking at 3 miles per hour, 6 hour shifts, a two cop team would be covering about 18 miles of street per shift. That means that, theoretically, you could cover the entire New York city with only 2800 cops working in four shifts. Which is a hell of a lot less than 34,500 police officers in NYPD today. Clearly, they're just there to get fat on the taxpayer's money.
You'd only have to accept certain compromises of such a "lean local law enforcement". Like... A police station every 18 miles (I'm sure no one would mind all the taxes to build, equip and maintain all that), a response time of an hour or so (that is unless there is already a crime in progress somewhere down the road - then you'd just have to wait your turn), cops not dealing with cases where there are more than two suspects - until their backup arrives on foot from the next station over, or not responding at all if it is raining or snowing, no actual detective work as these are after all just beat cops and the detectives will arrive (on foot) when they find the time. And naturally, you could completely cripple your local police force for hours by breaking a traffic light at an intersection. And there are 12000 signalized intersections in NYC.
But yeah, sure. I see no reason why cops shouldn't still operate the way the god intended them too - like the 17th century Bow Street Runners. All criminals are pedestrians anyway, right?
Sorry for the delay. Was either rather busy or AFK these last days.
It's the mouse's money, and the mouse's properties, and they have a perfect right to do whatever they want with them. And we have a perfect right to say "that's crap, and they'd have to duct tape me to the chair to get me to watch it" if appropriate.
See, there's a problem with that. And not just of the "permanent copyright" kind which always lurks in the background of everything related to Disney or the kind related to hoarding global culture in order to maximize profit.
The real problem regarding Jar Jar Abrams and the House of Mouse is the same one people had with Lucas. Colloquially known as "raping our childhood", or more accurately - distortion and butchering of the global mythology and culture.
And it's not just that, either. Sure, Star Wars and Star Trek are a part of popular culture and mythology (i.e. stories we tell ourselves to describe our vision of the world and our place in it) BUT being science fiction they are also representations of what we expect of the future - our very own self-fulfilling prophecy. Or a blueprint if you like that more.
And here's the problem with Jar Jar. Underneath all the effects and starships and action and whatnot - those stories have ideas. Ideas like "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together." or "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity." It is not what those movies are about but without those (and other) ideas Star Wars and Star Trek would be just another cheap SciFi popcorn flick - and not a global cultural phenomenon that they are.
Whether Lucas and Roddenberry meant to include every single one of those ideas or whether they got included by accident doesn't really matter - they work, the stories work, the movies work. Jar Jar and friends on the other hand only seen the shallow parts (action, effects, costumes...) and they are trying to replicate that. They are copying the cover of the book - not it's contents. And then there's the "mystery box" issue - Jar Jar (with his friends) "creates stories" by constantly piling on "mysteries". Until they write themselves in the corner.
It's about the fact that the time travel they use CLEARLY allows for changes to be made in the past. A predetermined, destined past. Well... at least to the effect that the crew of the Enterprise MUST become the crew of the Enterprise - all those Vulcans clearly had no destiny.
As in... Americans? They are foreigners where I live so...
The issue here is not with Lucas using traditionally exaggerated Hollywood representations of various races and cultures for inspiration - it's about people seeing those representations through the prism of the hostile media effect.
Yes, because nothing I'm Star Trek was an egregious affront to scientific credibility or reason.
They spend every episode sending small teams of high ranking officers down to deadly planets. They have replicators yet they carry almost everything they use but food as cargo. They have a computer that can take natural language queries and translate arbitrary languages but they do archaeology as a profession. They have FTL communications but delegate civilisation-deciding acts to ship captains.
Let me rephrase what I said earlier.
It is NOT ABOUT particular technology having X buttons instead of Y buttons or having it work in a very specific imaginary way.
It is about BAD AND LAZY WRITING, which has ALWAYS been a characteristic of Jar Jar and his cohorts - Kurtzman, Orcish and Lilliput. They don't write - they hype.
Sorry for the delay. I'm not really the master of my own waking hours these days. Also, sorry if the following seems smug, condescending or unnecessarily sarcastic. Plain text + Poe's law + hostile media effect + confirmation bias does that. Aaaand I guess that saying "See, this is why you are wrong - it's in your brain." doesn't help much either. Just trying to set the stage and explain myself as a "trying to be helpful asshole" instead of a "condescending jerkoff". Also, sorry for the length of this reply. Just trying to be extra clear this time around. No guarantees though... It's late and I've been yawning for quite some time now.
First, I must correct you on the cognitive dissonance part. I do not think it means what you think it means. It's either that or this is the case of a bit of projection happening here. And from that second paragraph of yours... I'm afraid that is exactly the case.
Perhaps instead of feeling like your masculinity is somehow threatened by the fact that... MEN tend to be worse actors... you could instead put your energy into... something actually useful. And if you're afraid that the numbers about a specific subset of powerful people might lead people to draw unfair conclusions about your gender as a whole, well, gee. What on earth would make you think people might respond so unfairly. Perhaps, I don't know, maybe the fact that this is what people do to women all the time?? How about that -- maybe the problem, then, isn't the facts, but the sexism. Almost like the feminists have a point or something.
You clearly went full emotional there and I'm a bit inclined to give you a pass on those ad hominems. If for no other reasons then for the fact that your assumptions of my "masculinity being somehow threatened" made me laugh. My gripe with the article is related purely to it being yet another example of bad science - cause there's plenty of that out there already.
Then again I simply MUST point out a very dangerous error in your logic there. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, I'm just rephrasing that last part up there. Basically, you are saying "So what if bad statistics lead to faulty conclusions about one gender? People make faulty conclusions about other gender based on its "otherness" all the time."
Three wrongs somehow making a right. It's OK to present bad science as facts, cause it's representing only MEN in a bad light. Which is OK. Cause it's OK to be sexist against men - cause "people" are sexist against women. Then, you follow that up with "Sexism is bad."
Screw facts. Sexism is OK because sexism IS. Sexism bad. So basically, once that entire thing runs it course and cancels itself out it boils down to just "Screw facts". And that really isn't much of a motto to live by.
they weren't cherry picking a damn thing. They didn't need to limit it to life sciences to find the disproportionate misconduct. That's just where it was most egregious.
Ugh... I am really sorry... but you are taking that quote out of context and using faulty logic on it.
However, the gender predominance varied according to academic rank. An overwhelming 88% of faculty members committing misconduct were male, compared with 69% of postdocs, 58% of students, and 42% of other research personnel (Fig. 1). The male-female distribution of postdocs and students corresponds with the gender distribution of postdocs and students in science and engineering fields (4). However, nearly all instances of misconduct investigated by the ORI involved research in the life sciences, and the proportion of male trainees among those committing misconduct was greater than would be predicted from the gender distribution of life sciences trainees. Males also were substantially overrepresented among faculty committing misconduct in comparison to their proportion among
Erschreckend ist auch die rot-schwarze Teufels-Fratze auf der Schachtel rechts oben, die zumindest ein augenfÃlliges Signal ist, dass das Spiel nicht unter dem Christbaum am Weihnachtsabend - Auch Türken feiern Weihnachten - liegen sollte.
Translation:
Also frightening is a grotesque red-and-black devil's face in the right corner of the box, which is at least an obvious hint that the toy is not something one should lay down under the (Christmas) tree on Christmas Eve - Turks celebrate Christmas too.
The "red-black devil's face" is a drawing of - you guessed it - Dart Maul. Now to me that indicates that the article was written by someone who hasn't actually seen (at least) Episode I, or quite possibly hadn't had ANY contact with the Star Wars franchise until now.
And yes, however unbelievable that may seem to us - there are people out there who've managed to live through the last couple of decades without actually watching or having any interest in Star Wars. Or science fiction. Or movies.
It is not about particular technology having X buttons instead of Y buttons or having it work in a very specific imaginary way.
It is about bad and lazy writing, which has ALWAYS been a characteristic of Jar Jar and his cohorts - Kurtzman, Orcish and Lilliput. They don't write - they hype.
Unfortunately, a story does not run on hype alone. Which is where they employ Deus ex Machinae and handwaves.
Like transwarp beaming - which basically eliminated the need for ships and the Starfleet. Who needs them when you can beam anywhere? Like Stargate, only you don't need a Stargate at the other end.
Or "red matter" - a lazy name for a lazy device, a drop of which can create a black hole. So Spock hauls around a metric ton of it. Why? Because it looks cool. Also, it will create black holes out of planets, but first you must drill a huge hole in the planet to drop it inside. Why? So that we could have a skydiving sequence followed by a fight sequence on the giant drill.
Or building a starship on the ground - literally just so we could have that one shot of Kirk looking at it. Because that would be cool.
Spock Jr. literally ejects Kirk out of the ship, just so Kirk could meet up with Spock Sr. and Scotty. Why? Because it's their DESTINY!
Which may be the biggest fuckup of all. Destiny is just another way of saying absence of choice. Everything is predestined. They are all just puppets of destiny. Kirk WILL be captain of the Enterprise whether he likes it or not. Future is fucking set in stone! That is, disregarding all the little differences caused by FUCKING TIME TRAVEL!
OK, maybe I should have elaborated on that a bit more.
No.. they aren't. Women are better at a type of social interaction revolving around one or two people... they aren't better at maintaining large networks of colleagues. In fact, men are much better at that.
I'm guessing that you are thinking about the Dunbar's number and its relation to the volume of neocortex, which should, perhaps, maybe, be a little bigger in men. Thing is, on average, Dunbar's number still boils down to about 150, while varying among men as well as among women. But regardless of that - that's NOT social interaction in itself. That's the number of social interactions with and among other people, a person can handle in their head without additional effort.
And again, that's a biological thing. Hardware. What women have is better SOFTWARE for social interaction. Or training in societal and cultural norms.
Or to be more precise, women have OK software which they keep upgrading through life - most men have to change theirs completely after puberty. Or adolescence. Or whenever they start interacting with the world outside their little pack and their local playground. Almost everything a boy learns about human interaction goes out the window when he goes to college, or gets a regular job, or joins the army. All those places have an organizational structure that does not revolve around the fact how "tough" or "bad" or "cool" or "crazy" you are among your peers. Unless they plan to have a career in crime - there the rules of the playground still apply, and they need only be slightly patched for prison.
On the other hand, some of the things drilled into girl's mind in our culture, in most cases, don't ever change. They just get upgraded. Stuff like being a wife, mother, taking care of the family... Actual expectations and results may change through life, but in most cases, things they were taught in kindergarten still apply later in life.
How many boys are constantly being reminded and cheered on to be husbands and fathers and providers for the family? Instead they are brought up being taught they'll be professional athletes, heroes (preferably Batman), chick-magnets, all-around tough guys... Most of them will end up being none of the above.
Not really... the type of relationships needed to manage large firms and network are the ones men are demonstrably and scientifically proven to be better at.
As I can't say that I've heard of that before from any reliable source, I'll reserve my judgment on that subject until you provide citations for those proves.
...and confirmation bias. Also, the article is VERY light on data and heavy on rationalization for its theories.
But let's address the "scientific/engineering academia" issue first.
An overwhelming 88% of faculty members committing misconduct were male, compared with 69% of postdocs, 58% of students, and 42% of other research personnel (Fig. 1). The male-female distribution of postdocs and students corresponds with the gender distribution of postdocs and students in science and engineering fields (4).
"88% of male faculty members" is clearly NOT a trend. In all other cases male-female distribution of misconduct MATCHES the general male-female distribution. If anything, this indicates that faculty members in general are held to higher standards of scrutiny. Or that students and postdocs are held to lower standards than the faculty members - if you want to look at it that way.
So, no. Neither men nor women commit more misconduct than "their average fair share".
Now... the other thing. This is a clear case of a study NOT finding results it went looking for, so instead it changes the goal. I.e. Percentages match in the case of "all science and engineering fields" - let' narrow the field to only "life sciences". Whoomp! There it is! There are more misconducts among males in general, than there are males in life sciences. Ergo - Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct.
Hold on a second... I do not think it means what they think it means.
There are 58% of male students committing misconduct, but only about 45% of students in life sciences are male? There are 69% of male postdocs committing misconduct, but only about 61% of postdocs in life sciences are male? There are a whooping 88% of male faculty members committing misconduct, but only about 71% of faculty members in life sciences are male?
Where does any of that say how many male (or female) LIFE SCIENCE RESEARCHERS (of any academic level) have committed misconduct? NOWHERE.
They are taking the entire set A, extracting a subset B out of it, then comparing the sizes of incidences of characteristic C in the entire set TO THE SIZE OF THE SUBSET B. Not to the incidence of C in the subset B.
They are presenting us that Ca > B. NOT that Ca => Cb NOR that Ca <= Cb.
Meanwhile, they are claiming that Cb > Ca.
I.e. "Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct."
Oh and... Those 72 cases (9 of them women) of misconduct in academia, women being only one third of their "predicted number among life sciences faculty"? Life sciences faculty has male-female distribution of about 70% to 30%, right? 70% of 72 people is 50 people. 88% is 63 people.
That's 13 more guys "then there should be", or 13 less gals, when using the faulty math comparing 88% overall numbers with unrelated numbers in life sciences. Compared to "ALL science and engineering" distribution of 74-26%, or 53-19 people - those 63 guys are 10 more guys "than there should be".
You wanna know how many "science, engineering, and health doctorate holders employed full time in academic institutions" article's main source claims there were in 2006?
72.500 females, 161.200 males, 233.700 total. Out of that, 39,3%, 30,9% and 33,5%, respectfully, were employed in life sciences. Or 28492, 49810, and 78289.
10 more guys "than there should be". See? There they are, right there. Forty-nine thousand eight hundred AND TEN. Assholes.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes it's hard making subtle jokes.
Your stats are misrepresenting the facts, and you are cherry picking.
And that's besides those stats being more than a decade old, "newest" info shown there being from 2002.
2.8% of 68 million is a lot less than 1.2% of 314 million.
Try those numbers when described as per mil.
UK: 2.8% of population = 1753948 = 1753â
US: 1.2% of population = 3766968.48 = 3766â
USA's 1.2% is 2.1 times more than UK's 2.8 percent.
Also...
Why didn't you copy those other crime stats?
Like murders with firearms:
UK: 14
US: 9369
Or murders committed by youths:
UK: 139
US: 8226
Or prisoners:
UK: 78753
US: 2019234
Or total crimes:
UK: 6523706
US: 11877218
Oh and... According to those stats, you are comparing number 1 and number 2 countries in the world, by their total crimes.
Now... I don't have the data right here, but something tells me that there are countries in the world where there is a LOT more crime going on than in UK and the USA.
So basically, all you've proven up there is your own bias and a proclivity to cherry pick the stats.
Were you actually trying to pose as a "gun nut" in order to show them in even worse light?
"Need is irrelevent. I have a natural right to own them.
You were born with a gun instead of a hand? Poor you...
Puberty must have been a really difficult age for you.
There's a reason for that "You can tell it's Mattel" joke.
I've seen A1s with broken handguards and stocks from being transported neatly packed inside a crate, in the back of a truck, mostly over asphalt-paved roads, to a distance of maybe a dozen kilometers.
And those were real, honesttogod, real gun factory produced and tested M16A1s.
Everything else that makes up the system is there for operation and function, rather than strength. No one is talking about printing the critical parts.
It's a gun, not a club.
Every part needed to make it operational IS critical.
Taxes?
That zombiecatcopter is out there.
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until they are dead.
...and keep your hands and other appendages where we can see them. Beardo.
If that is really your name...
every product is as valuable as the energy used to craft it
Maybe in the world where humans are perfectly rational and communism works.
In this world however, cognitive biases like endowment effect, hyperbolic discounting, loss aversion and money illusion don't allow such simplistic definition of value.
As such, grafting a human-invented concept like economy onto basic laws that run the universe is about as arrogant and fallacious as assuming that the entire universe was made just so the humans would have a place to stay - cause they are made in the image of the creator of the said universe.
And he was a white man.
Who died on a cross.
For our sins.
Cause a woman eat an apple.
A snake made her do that.
Long story.
All hail Space Pope!
Almost twice the size of each of the next five countries on the list - except Brazil and Australia. It's MORE than twice the size of those countries. And Australia is a continent.
Or try it like this. On one side of the country, in Europe, Russia borders countries like Norway and Finland - on the other side, in Asia, it borders Japan.
And on top of that, it also borders USA (Alaska) across the Bering Strait.
Russia is really, REALLY big. Lot's of space to catch nearly anything that falls into northern hemisphere.
"The research, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, found in a series of experiments that participants processed images of men and women in very different ways. When presented with images of men, perceivers tended to rely more on "global" cognitive processing, the mental method in which a person is perceived as a whole. Meanwhile, images of women were more often the subject of "local" cognitive processing, or the objectifying perception of something as an assemblage of its various parts." This was happening with both male and female survey subjects.
As the actual article is behind a paywall, I can't speak with certainty, but from what I can glean from here - it seems like another case of a badly done study.
In a new study that examined our cognitive process in how we perceive men and women, participants saw a fully clothed person from head to knee. After a brief pause, they then saw two new images on their screen: One that was unmodified and contained the original image, the other a slightly modified version of the original image with a sexual body part changed. Participants then quickly indicated which of the two images they had previously seen. They made decisions about entire bodies in some trials and body parts in other trials.
Looking at the photos in the link, the change in the edited photo is rather obvious. Which makes the following part of the results, rather a no-brainer.
Women's sexual body parts were more easily recognized when presented in isolation than when they were presented in the context of their entire bodies.
Zoomed in details more recognizable for deliberate errors, claim scientists.
As for why it wasn't the case with men...
Besides the fact that all we get to work with is "But men's sexual body parts were recognized better when presented in the context of their entire bodies than they were in isolation."
No actual numbers of results so that we can see if any of it is statistically significant OR correctly measured.
I have a nagging feeling that "a sexual body part" on a man's body may be quite... well... flat and unremarkable.
While that same body part on a woman's body is rather... curved and filled out. More detailed.
Which leaves us with a bit of an imbalance regarding the perceptibility of the changes in the details - namely, they may not be enough details to be noticed in the photos of the male upper torso.
How did they control for that?
Now... That's only ONE theory going against the "women are a sum of objects, men are whole persons" hypothesis.
How about the possibility that the humans (male and female) as a species have evolved a stronger reaction to female than to male breasts? As it tends to be our primary source of food very early in life.
No need to pull the "objectification" card to explain that, but it could very likely skew the results of the study.
How did they control for that too?
Where exactly did the "women are a sum of objects, men are whole persons" hypothesis come from?
All I can see them measure is "Do people notice details more on male or on female body?"
The leap from "we notice more details on women than on men" to "we all objectify women" seems to be made entirely out of confirmation bias.
As for them trying to "condition" the subjects to "perceive globally" (explained here, near the end of the article), again, we don't know if that training reduced the perception of details OR increased the recognizability of women "in the context of their whole bodies".
All we know is that now "Women were more easily recognizable in the context of their whole bodies instead of their various sexual body parts."
Were there changes in results with men, too? If the training works there should be SOME change.
Could
No, you wouldn't; these compromises arise from your cutting the workforce. I didn't suggest that.
No, those compromises arise from the fact that the human world record in running is 27.79 mph, set by Usain Bolt, while average walking speed is about 3 mph.
3 mph times 6 hour shifts equals 18 miles of street per policeman per shift.
And it is rather obvious that you won't be seeing them jogging during all those 6 hours, running from one crime scene to the other.
In fact, at best you'd get 3 crime scenes per shift - say, if it's a case of shoplifting or purse-snatching and they're just there to write up the complaint after the criminal is long gone.
You can increase the number of policemen all you want, have 20 of them covering those same 18 miles - they'd still be moving at around 3 mph. Meaning that they'd still need ~1-6 hours to answer to an emergency.
Irrelevant. Criminals can have access to all manner of faster transport, that doesn't mean we provide the cops with same. Furthermore, chases cause tons of collateral damage. We need those to stop as well.
Tracking should do fine in most cases. Like with drones. Or helicopters.
Problem is, you can't always have access to those.
So, unless you're advocating that police should let criminals and offenders go free cause it is "hard" to chase them...
Oh, you mean like now? LOL. There's a truism about cops: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
So the solution is to have them move slower, letting the cases they didn't even get to check pile up until it's days before they get to take a peek at the crime scene - cause it takes 6 hours for them to walk from one side of their beat to the other?
Right.
The cop on the street will learn to know what looks right, who's normally cheerful, who's normally taciturn, what businesses are busy and which aren't, etc. All the things they've completely lost touch with. That at least gives the cop an edge if the officer is in the area when something goes down. If not, it's no different than now.
You seem to have a vision of all cops walking along a busy city street minding the shops so beggars and street urchins don't steal anything. That's rent-a-cop's job.
Domestic violence alone is around 210000+ cases (yearly) in a city like Chicago - you don't get to anticipate that or see it "go down".
It's not even happening "on the street" but in people's homes where cops can't just barge in anytime they please.
They can walk the beat all day long and not see a damn thing happening on the second floor of the building they're camping in front of, not to mention 5th, 10th or 15th floor. Or behind closed doors. Or drawn curtains.
Still, they must respond to those calls.
Same way they must respond to calls from someone complaining that their neighbors are trying to kill them by reflecting light through their windows.
Or to a case of someone's kid being lost.
Or to a drunk driver wrapping his car around a telephone pole.
Or to someone lying drunk in front of a bar.
Harassment. Assault. Rape. Property damage. Suicide...
None of those are foreseeable and there is no "lost touch" to be found again. Yet, cops must respond to ALL those cases.
At 3 miles per hour.
Remove them. Studies show they work better that way anyhow. Anyone can direct traffic if need be, but probably, it isn't needed anyway.
Citation needed.
Oh and... make sure those studies include into account existence of pedestrians, bicycle riders and other forms of transportation AND the effects of such unregulated traffic on ALL commuters, not just the car drivers.
Besides, I was presenting you with a case that a cop must respond to, keeping him/her busy while a more serious crime takes place elsewhere.
Replace breaking a traffic light with someone ramming a car through a store window causing cops to gather the
Just put them on the street, walking. They get to know their little neighborhood, and vice-versa. The only need for cars is for traffic enforcement, and 99% of that is purest bullshit anyway.
Indeed.
According to New York City Department of Transportation, there are about "6,300 miles of streets and highways" in NYC.
Walking at 3 miles per hour, 6 hour shifts, a two cop team would be covering about 18 miles of street per shift.
That means that, theoretically, you could cover the entire New York city with only 2800 cops working in four shifts.
Which is a hell of a lot less than 34,500 police officers in NYPD today. Clearly, they're just there to get fat on the taxpayer's money.
You'd only have to accept certain compromises of such a "lean local law enforcement".
Like... A police station every 18 miles (I'm sure no one would mind all the taxes to build, equip and maintain all that), a response time of an hour or so (that is unless there is already a crime in progress somewhere down the road - then you'd just have to wait your turn), cops not dealing with cases where there are more than two suspects - until their backup arrives on foot from the next station over, or not responding at all if it is raining or snowing, no actual detective work as these are after all just beat cops and the detectives will arrive (on foot) when they find the time.
And naturally, you could completely cripple your local police force for hours by breaking a traffic light at an intersection. And there are 12000 signalized intersections in NYC.
But yeah, sure.
I see no reason why cops shouldn't still operate the way the god intended them too - like the 17th century Bow Street Runners.
All criminals are pedestrians anyway, right?
Sorry for the delay. Was either rather busy or AFK these last days.
It's the mouse's money, and the mouse's properties, and they have a perfect right to do whatever they want with them. And we have a perfect right to say "that's crap, and they'd have to duct tape me to the chair to get me to watch it" if appropriate.
See, there's a problem with that. And not just of the "permanent copyright" kind which always lurks in the background of everything related to Disney or the kind related to hoarding global culture in order to maximize profit.
The real problem regarding Jar Jar Abrams and the House of Mouse is the same one people had with Lucas.
Colloquially known as "raping our childhood", or more accurately - distortion and butchering of the global mythology and culture.
And it's not just that, either.
Sure, Star Wars and Star Trek are a part of popular culture and mythology (i.e. stories we tell ourselves to describe our vision of the world and our place in it) BUT being science fiction they are also representations of what we expect of the future - our very own self-fulfilling prophecy.
Or a blueprint if you like that more.
And here's the problem with Jar Jar.
Underneath all the effects and starships and action and whatnot - those stories have ideas.
Ideas like "an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together." or "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity."
It is not what those movies are about but without those (and other) ideas Star Wars and Star Trek would be just another cheap SciFi popcorn flick - and not a global cultural phenomenon that they are.
Whether Lucas and Roddenberry meant to include every single one of those ideas or whether they got included by accident doesn't really matter - they work, the stories work, the movies work.
Jar Jar and friends on the other hand only seen the shallow parts (action, effects, costumes...) and they are trying to replicate that. They are copying the cover of the book - not it's contents.
And then there's the "mystery box" issue - Jar Jar (with his friends) "creates stories" by constantly piling on "mysteries".
Until they write themselves in the corner.
It's not about plausibility of time travel.
It's about the fact that the time travel they use CLEARLY allows for changes to be made in the past.
A predetermined, destined past.
Well... at least to the effect that the crew of the Enterprise MUST become the crew of the Enterprise - all those Vulcans clearly had no destiny.
As in... Americans?
They are foreigners where I live so...
The issue here is not with Lucas using traditionally exaggerated Hollywood representations of various races and cultures for inspiration - it's about people seeing those representations through the prism of the hostile media effect.
I.e. Is Watto a Jew or an Arab?
Yes, because nothing I'm Star Trek was an egregious affront to scientific credibility or reason.
They spend every episode sending small teams of high ranking officers down to deadly planets. They have replicators yet they carry almost everything they use but food as cargo. They have a computer that can take natural language queries and translate arbitrary languages but they do archaeology as a profession. They have FTL communications but delegate civilisation-deciding acts to ship captains.
Let me rephrase what I said earlier.
It is NOT ABOUT particular technology having X buttons instead of Y buttons or having it work in a very specific imaginary way.
It is about BAD AND LAZY WRITING, which has ALWAYS been a characteristic of Jar Jar and his cohorts - Kurtzman, Orcish and Lilliput.
They don't write - they hype.
Sorry for the delay. I'm not really the master of my own waking hours these days.
Also, sorry if the following seems smug, condescending or unnecessarily sarcastic.
Plain text + Poe's law + hostile media effect + confirmation bias does that.
Aaaand I guess that saying "See, this is why you are wrong - it's in your brain." doesn't help much either.
Just trying to set the stage and explain myself as a "trying to be helpful asshole" instead of a "condescending jerkoff".
Also, sorry for the length of this reply. Just trying to be extra clear this time around. No guarantees though... It's late and I've been yawning for quite some time now.
First, I must correct you on the cognitive dissonance part. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's either that or this is the case of a bit of projection happening here.
And from that second paragraph of yours... I'm afraid that is exactly the case.
Perhaps instead of feeling like your masculinity is somehow threatened by the fact that ... MEN tend to be worse actors ... you could instead put your energy into... something actually useful. And if you're afraid that the numbers about a specific subset of powerful people might lead people to draw unfair conclusions about your gender as a whole, well, gee. What on earth would make you think people might respond so unfairly. Perhaps, I don't know, maybe the fact that this is what people do to women all the time?? How about that -- maybe the problem, then, isn't the facts, but the sexism. Almost like the feminists have a point or something.
You clearly went full emotional there and I'm a bit inclined to give you a pass on those ad hominems.
If for no other reasons then for the fact that your assumptions of my "masculinity being somehow threatened" made me laugh.
My gripe with the article is related purely to it being yet another example of bad science - cause there's plenty of that out there already.
Then again I simply MUST point out a very dangerous error in your logic there. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, I'm just rephrasing that last part up there.
Basically, you are saying "So what if bad statistics lead to faulty conclusions about one gender? People make faulty conclusions about other gender based on its "otherness" all the time."
Three wrongs somehow making a right.
It's OK to present bad science as facts, cause it's representing only MEN in a bad light. Which is OK.
Cause it's OK to be sexist against men - cause "people" are sexist against women.
Then, you follow that up with "Sexism is bad."
Screw facts. Sexism is OK because sexism IS. Sexism bad.
So basically, once that entire thing runs it course and cancels itself out it boils down to just "Screw facts".
And that really isn't much of a motto to live by.
they weren't cherry picking a damn thing. They didn't need to limit it to life sciences to find the disproportionate misconduct. That's just where it was most egregious.
Ugh... I am really sorry... but you are taking that quote out of context and using faulty logic on it.
However, the gender predominance varied according to academic
rank. An overwhelming 88% of faculty members committing
misconduct were male, compared with 69% of postdocs, 58%
of students, and 42% of other research personnel (Fig. 1). The
male-female distribution of postdocs and students corresponds
with the gender distribution of postdocs and students in science
and engineering fields (4). However, nearly all instances of misconduct
investigated by the ORI involved research in the life sciences,
and the proportion of male trainees among those committing
misconduct was greater than would be predicted from the
gender distribution of life sciences trainees. Males also were substantially
overrepresented among faculty committing misconduct
in comparison to their proportion among
...and culture clash. Also, possibly trolling.
The original text at www.turkischegemeinde.at also mentions that:
Erschreckend ist auch die rot-schwarze Teufels-Fratze auf der Schachtel rechts oben, die zumindest ein augenfÃlliges Signal ist, dass das Spiel nicht unter dem Christbaum am Weihnachtsabend - Auch Türken feiern Weihnachten - liegen sollte.
Translation:
Also frightening is a grotesque red-and-black devil's face in the right corner of the box, which is at least an obvious hint that the toy is not something one should lay down under the (Christmas) tree on Christmas Eve - Turks celebrate Christmas too.
The "red-black devil's face" is a drawing of - you guessed it - Dart Maul.
Now to me that indicates that the article was written by someone who hasn't actually seen (at least) Episode I, or quite possibly hadn't had ANY contact with the Star Wars franchise until now.
And yes, however unbelievable that may seem to us - there are people out there who've managed to live through the last couple of decades without actually watching or having any interest in Star Wars.
Or science fiction.
Or movies.
Sorry, but that movie completely redeemed itself with that "What does God need with a starship? scene.
Unlike Star Trek: Nemesis.
It is not about particular technology having X buttons instead of Y buttons or having it work in a very specific imaginary way.
It is about bad and lazy writing, which has ALWAYS been a characteristic of Jar Jar and his cohorts - Kurtzman, Orcish and Lilliput.
They don't write - they hype.
Unfortunately, a story does not run on hype alone. Which is where they employ Deus ex Machinae and handwaves.
Like transwarp beaming - which basically eliminated the need for ships and the Starfleet.
Who needs them when you can beam anywhere? Like Stargate, only you don't need a Stargate at the other end.
Or "red matter" - a lazy name for a lazy device, a drop of which can create a black hole. So Spock hauls around a metric ton of it. Why? Because it looks cool.
Also, it will create black holes out of planets, but first you must drill a huge hole in the planet to drop it inside.
Why? So that we could have a skydiving sequence followed by a fight sequence on the giant drill.
Or building a starship on the ground - literally just so we could have that one shot of Kirk looking at it. Because that would be cool.
Spock Jr. literally ejects Kirk out of the ship, just so Kirk could meet up with Spock Sr. and Scotty. Why? Because it's their DESTINY!
Which may be the biggest fuckup of all.
Destiny is just another way of saying absence of choice. Everything is predestined. They are all just puppets of destiny. Kirk WILL be captain of the Enterprise whether he likes it or not. Future is fucking set in stone!
That is, disregarding all the little differences caused by FUCKING TIME TRAVEL!
...find a mentally unstable person, convince him or her that Jar Jar Abrams is the antichrist and send them out to permanently stop him.
It IS a valid alternative, and as such it must be taken into consideration.
OK, maybe I should have elaborated on that a bit more.
No.. they aren't. Women are better at a type of social interaction revolving around one or two people... they aren't better at maintaining large networks of colleagues. In fact, men are much better at that.
I'm guessing that you are thinking about the Dunbar's number and its relation to the volume of neocortex, which should, perhaps, maybe, be a little bigger in men.
Thing is, on average, Dunbar's number still boils down to about 150, while varying among men as well as among women.
But regardless of that - that's NOT social interaction in itself.
That's the number of social interactions with and among other people, a person can handle in their head without additional effort.
And again, that's a biological thing. Hardware.
What women have is better SOFTWARE for social interaction. Or training in societal and cultural norms.
Or to be more precise, women have OK software which they keep upgrading through life - most men have to change theirs completely after puberty.
Or adolescence.
Or whenever they start interacting with the world outside their little pack and their local playground.
Almost everything a boy learns about human interaction goes out the window when he goes to college, or gets a regular job, or joins the army.
All those places have an organizational structure that does not revolve around the fact how "tough" or "bad" or "cool" or "crazy" you are among your peers.
Unless they plan to have a career in crime - there the rules of the playground still apply, and they need only be slightly patched for prison.
On the other hand, some of the things drilled into girl's mind in our culture, in most cases, don't ever change. They just get upgraded.
Stuff like being a wife, mother, taking care of the family...
Actual expectations and results may change through life, but in most cases, things they were taught in kindergarten still apply later in life.
How many boys are constantly being reminded and cheered on to be husbands and fathers and providers for the family?
Instead they are brought up being taught they'll be professional athletes, heroes (preferably Batman), chick-magnets, all-around tough guys...
Most of them will end up being none of the above.
Not really... the type of relationships needed to manage large firms and network are the ones men are demonstrably and scientifically proven to be better at.
As I can't say that I've heard of that before from any reliable source, I'll reserve my judgment on that subject until you provide citations for those proves.
I doubt this has anything to do with bashing of any kind.
A cock-up is always a much more likely reason.
...and confirmation bias.
Also, the article is VERY light on data and heavy on rationalization for its theories.
But let's address the "scientific/engineering academia" issue first.
An overwhelming 88% of faculty members committing
misconduct were male, compared with 69% of postdocs, 58%
of students, and 42% of other research personnel (Fig. 1). The
male-female distribution of postdocs and students corresponds
with the gender distribution of postdocs and students in science
and engineering fields (4).
"88% of male faculty members" is clearly NOT a trend.
In all other cases male-female distribution of misconduct MATCHES the general male-female distribution.
If anything, this indicates that faculty members in general are held to higher standards of scrutiny.
Or that students and postdocs are held to lower standards than the faculty members - if you want to look at it that way.
So, no. Neither men nor women commit more misconduct than "their average fair share".
Now... the other thing.
This is a clear case of a study NOT finding results it went looking for, so instead it changes the goal.
I.e. Percentages match in the case of "all science and engineering fields" - let' narrow the field to only "life sciences".
Whoomp! There it is! There are more misconducts among males in general, than there are males in life sciences.
Ergo - Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct.
Hold on a second... I do not think it means what they think it means.
There are 58% of male students committing misconduct, but only about 45% of students in life sciences are male?
There are 69% of male postdocs committing misconduct, but only about 61% of postdocs in life sciences are male?
There are a whooping 88% of male faculty members committing misconduct, but only about 71% of faculty members in life sciences are male?
Where does any of that say how many male (or female) LIFE SCIENCE RESEARCHERS (of any academic level) have committed misconduct? NOWHERE.
They are taking the entire set A, extracting a subset B out of it, then comparing the sizes of incidences of characteristic C in the entire set TO THE SIZE OF THE SUBSET B.
Not to the incidence of C in the subset B.
I.e. "Males Are Overrepresented among Life Science Researchers Committing Scientific Misconduct."
Oh and...
Those 72 cases (9 of them women) of misconduct in academia, women being only one third of their "predicted number among life sciences faculty"?
Life sciences faculty has male-female distribution of about 70% to 30%, right?
70% of 72 people is 50 people.
88% is 63 people.
That's 13 more guys "then there should be", or 13 less gals, when using the faulty math comparing 88% overall numbers with unrelated numbers in life sciences.
Compared to "ALL science and engineering" distribution of 74-26%, or 53-19 people - those 63 guys are 10 more guys "than there should be".
You wanna know how many "science, engineering, and health doctorate holders employed full time in academic institutions" article's main source claims there were in 2006?
72.500 females, 161.200 males, 233.700 total.
Out of that, 39,3%, 30,9% and 33,5%, respectfully, were employed in life sciences.
Or 28492, 49810, and 78289.
10 more guys "than there should be". See? There they are, right there.
Forty-nine thousand eight hundred AND TEN.
Assholes.