I think in your analogy you are saying that science is generally at odds with plain obvious truths right in front of you that anyone can see. I don't think that's generally the case. Obviously scientists can be wrong, but I don't think that's what you are going for here. If you are saying that you don't need a scientist to bless your perception of a predator in order for you to act on it, well I don't see that as something in opposition to science.
I think what you are really talking about is a situation where there is a folk legend about a weather phenomenon that scientists disbelieve. In that case I would believe the scientists on the weather yet listen to the locals on how much clothes to wear, and I think so would the scientists.
You also state that science is only useful if you wait around until the science is done. That's not how science works - science is never done. What science does in time is improve. What you get by waiting is that improvement in knowledge.
Quantum mechanics is proof beyond any reasonable criterion that science can be brought around to a good idea no matter how weird it is. It just takes time and evidence, and so it should be.
The idea is not that the game is hard to play for a well-rested normal person or that skill at these games is going to be a part of choosing who can be a surgeon. The idea is that the surgeon has to prove that his performance at the game (whatever level his performance is at) is not impaired much below what it usually is before surgery. Because if he is too tired, drunk, stoned, emotionally unstable or otherwise unfit to perform surgery, then he will play the game less well than he usually does and the game will reveal that. So it isn't important for the game to measure skill at surgery, it is only important that performance at the game is impaired in situations such as being too tired or drunk. Then the surgeon will know not to perform surgery and his peers will know to stop him if he tries.
Asphalt being hard has no bearing on the safety of a small vehicle since you won't be driving into the road - what takes you across the road is your vehicles momentum, so larger vehicles would if anything be less safe in such a situation. As for trees, the smaller momentum of a smaller car requires less shielding in the front to stop a tree from crushing the driver, so a smaller car can well be safer than a big one - it depends on how well it is made. The one place where a bigger car is clearly safer is in a collision with another car, where a heavier car will be able to push a smaller car back, increasing the damage to the person in the smaller car. So a bigger car is safer in that it allows you to kill someone else in your own place. That safety problem with big cars disappears if no one is driving a big car, which is what the OP was talking about. In other words, you're the retard, and by starting the feces flinging from such an idiotic position as yours, you made yourself look even more retarded.
And to be honest, I frankly don't give a fuck if 'psychological torture' is being performed. Yes, he's being annoyed, its like he lives with a 4-6 year old sister and is confined to his bed like a handicapped person, get some fucking perspective his life isn't that bad considering he's in prison. For someone like him, where he is now is far better off than being put in the general population where he will most certainly experience REAL torture.
You can't make one mouse or keyboard click result in multiple clicks, so many programmable keyboards count as botting. That is because this defeats the very carefully orchestrated limitations in the Blizzard macro system. Specifically, it is set up so that a macro cannot continue past an error, such as trying to use an ability that is on cooldown (and that triggers the global cooldown (GCD) if available). You also cannot investigate from a macro if an ability is available, so the effect is that a single button press can only attempt to do a single GCD action and cannot recover if that single actions isn't possible at the time. Bypassing this limitation using a programmable keyboard allows you to do things like "use ability A if available, otherwise use ability B". Blizzard does not allow that.
You are having problems with basic reading comprehension. Do you honestly believe that what you wrote is meaningfully related to what you are responding to? If I wanted to have a discussion where the other party spews random sentences I'd talk to/dev/random instead.
Underlying perspectives on sex is different from particular situations. I note that you use a sentence structure of "he had sex with her" rather than "they had sex", which is again consistent with you viewing sex as something men do to women. Any discussion from a starting point like that is pointless.
You have an underlying perspective that sex is something men do to women, and that remains true even if you point out the slant of your examples. From that perspective it is reasonable that the man would be responsible for the condom being broken, since the whole sex act is his sole responsibility. In reality, sex is something two people do together - it is a joint venture. Once you realize that then it makes little sense to blame one party for, say, a broken condom. Every example having to do with rape should be with the woman as aggressor, and if the example then doesn't seem too serious, then it isn't serious when a man does it either. On broken condoms, one party has to clearly withdraw consent for there to be a real issue, and at that point the broken condom is irrelevant. You'd have to get into deliberately sabotaged condoms to get a problem that's actually about broken condoms, but that's simply not rape, even if it should be punishable in some way.
That sounds like a very dangerous technique for the wife. I assume there are potentially year long jail sentences for that kind of false allegation? It can certainly have a larger impact on a person that say a violent attack that leaves only a broken leg.
It's not the Y chromosome alone, it is both the X and Y chromosome together. Women don't even have the Y chromosome, but they also have two copies active of each X gene while men have only one. Also, I'm not saying this is the only reason, I'm saying that since this is the case, it is not surprising if men are more varied than women, as indeed they are.
There aren't very many genes on the Y chromosome, so that part of your theory is not correct.
It is true that the X and Y chromosomes together hold just a small part of total DNA in a human. It is also true that the difference in DNA between a human and a chimp is just 4%, and from your argument we would then have to conclude that monkeys perform to about the level of humans. So it is not valid to conclude that a small difference in DNA can't be important. I agree with the rest of your post, and I imagine that that is part of the reason that men have greater genetic risk/reward - because reaping the possible rewards is more important than the downside because being average is a failing strategy for men.
That is a possible reason though it does not follow that it is necessarily the right or most relevant reason. E.g. if we imagine that people who are good at chess at first go on to play more chess, we suddenly have a completely different perspective on the ratio of men to women. There is no reason to assume that choosing to play chess is independent of one's innate ability to learn chess - in fact I'd say that would be surprising. Your argument does show that there is a possible explanation that does not rely on men being naturally better at chess than women.
Chess requires high IQ, the variance (not average) of IQ (and lots of things) is higher among men than women so you get more male idiots and geniuses. In other words, more men are further away from the average than women - be that better or worse. Hence better top performers in many areas of human activity. Also, more male bottom performers. It's not exactly surprising that women have less variance since they have two different X chromosomes, so the effect of every gene on the X chromosome is the average of two genes from the gene pool, while in men the effect of every gene on the X or Y chromosome is just the effect of 1 gene. So a good X or Y gene gets full effect in a man and a bad X or Y gene gets full effect in a man. In a woman the X genes have two copies so both bad and good genes are likely to be counteracted by the second copy of that gene on the other chromosome. Women don't have a Y chromosome which also means they can't differ in their Y chromosome, again reducing variance.
It may be that it works perfectly well 99% of the time, yet there is a 1% chance that it will backfire on them like in this case. You only hear about the 1% cases, so you think it never works.
It is true that it is more radioactive and hence more dangerous and harder to handle in the short term, just as the GP pointed out. For that reason it has a shorter half-life and so only has to be stored for a few decades, which means that the little waste that is produced is actually far easier to get rid of. That is because you don't have to find a perfect place that you know (suspect) will remain geologically stable for 10,000 years - you can maybe even just leave it at the reactor site and come back 50 years later when there is no more waste left.
I may not have been entirely serious in advocating something that I named a "mega-macro-quad*-line" of such complexity that it requires a map to navigate.
Is this a playoff system? Did I infringe any patent by posting this?
Certainly. There is no activity that cannot be construed to infringe a patent. E.g. you just infringed on my asking-if-this-infringes-a-patent-patent. As a precaution, I've already patented patenting-asking-if-this-infringes-a-patent-patent.
If the optimal point is, say, one line for 4 registers, then group registers into fours and have a quad-line for each. At that point it may make sense to have a macro-line that feeds into 4 quad-lines and so on. You could hand out a map of the line system at the head of the mega-macro-quad*-line entry.
Slashdot Mirror
I think in your analogy you are saying that science is generally at odds with plain obvious truths right in front of you that anyone can see. I don't think that's generally the case. Obviously scientists can be wrong, but I don't think that's what you are going for here. If you are saying that you don't need a scientist to bless your perception of a predator in order for you to act on it, well I don't see that as something in opposition to science.
I think what you are really talking about is a situation where there is a folk legend about a weather phenomenon that scientists disbelieve. In that case I would believe the scientists on the weather yet listen to the locals on how much clothes to wear, and I think so would the scientists.
You also state that science is only useful if you wait around until the science is done. That's not how science works - science is never done. What science does in time is improve. What you get by waiting is that improvement in knowledge.
Quantum mechanics is proof beyond any reasonable criterion that science can be brought around to a good idea no matter how weird it is. It just takes time and evidence, and so it should be.
And have it be mandatory to publish the statistics on how often doctors fail this test yet still operate based on patient consent.
The idea is not that the game is hard to play for a well-rested normal person or that skill at these games is going to be a part of choosing who can be a surgeon. The idea is that the surgeon has to prove that his performance at the game (whatever level his performance is at) is not impaired much below what it usually is before surgery. Because if he is too tired, drunk, stoned, emotionally unstable or otherwise unfit to perform surgery, then he will play the game less well than he usually does and the game will reveal that. So it isn't important for the game to measure skill at surgery, it is only important that performance at the game is impaired in situations such as being too tired or drunk. Then the surgeon will know not to perform surgery and his peers will know to stop him if he tries.
I think the world would be a sadder place for no snarky quips.
Asphalt being hard has no bearing on the safety of a small vehicle since you won't be driving into the road - what takes you across the road is your vehicles momentum, so larger vehicles would if anything be less safe in such a situation. As for trees, the smaller momentum of a smaller car requires less shielding in the front to stop a tree from crushing the driver, so a smaller car can well be safer than a big one - it depends on how well it is made. The one place where a bigger car is clearly safer is in a collision with another car, where a heavier car will be able to push a smaller car back, increasing the damage to the person in the smaller car. So a bigger car is safer in that it allows you to kill someone else in your own place. That safety problem with big cars disappears if no one is driving a big car, which is what the OP was talking about. In other words, you're the retard, and by starting the feces flinging from such an idiotic position as yours, you made yourself look even more retarded.
Of which you were certainly not partaking, oh no.
OK, if you insist.
And to be honest, I frankly don't give a fuck if 'psychological torture' is being performed. Yes, he's being annoyed, its like he lives with a 4-6 year old sister and is confined to his bed like a handicapped person, get some fucking perspective his life isn't that bad considering he's in prison. For someone like him, where he is now is far better off than being put in the general population where he will most certainly experience REAL torture.
Every part of this quote just makes me sad.
Batman has requested that his involvement be kept out of the press.
You did it again.
You can't make one mouse or keyboard click result in multiple clicks, so many programmable keyboards count as botting. That is because this defeats the very carefully orchestrated limitations in the Blizzard macro system. Specifically, it is set up so that a macro cannot continue past an error, such as trying to use an ability that is on cooldown (and that triggers the global cooldown (GCD) if available). You also cannot investigate from a macro if an ability is available, so the effect is that a single button press can only attempt to do a single GCD action and cannot recover if that single actions isn't possible at the time. Bypassing this limitation using a programmable keyboard allows you to do things like "use ability A if available, otherwise use ability B". Blizzard does not allow that.
You are having problems with basic reading comprehension. Do you honestly believe that what you wrote is meaningfully related to what you are responding to? If I wanted to have a discussion where the other party spews random sentences I'd talk to /dev/random instead.
Underlying perspectives on sex is different from particular situations. I note that you use a sentence structure of "he had sex with her" rather than "they had sex", which is again consistent with you viewing sex as something men do to women. Any discussion from a starting point like that is pointless.
You have an underlying perspective that sex is something men do to women, and that remains true even if you point out the slant of your examples. From that perspective it is reasonable that the man would be responsible for the condom being broken, since the whole sex act is his sole responsibility. In reality, sex is something two people do together - it is a joint venture. Once you realize that then it makes little sense to blame one party for, say, a broken condom. Every example having to do with rape should be with the woman as aggressor, and if the example then doesn't seem too serious, then it isn't serious when a man does it either. On broken condoms, one party has to clearly withdraw consent for there to be a real issue, and at that point the broken condom is irrelevant. You'd have to get into deliberately sabotaged condoms to get a problem that's actually about broken condoms, but that's simply not rape, even if it should be punishable in some way.
That sounds like a very dangerous technique for the wife. I assume there are potentially year long jail sentences for that kind of false allegation? It can certainly have a larger impact on a person that say a violent attack that leaves only a broken leg.
It's not the Y chromosome alone, it is both the X and Y chromosome together. Women don't even have the Y chromosome, but they also have two copies active of each X gene while men have only one. Also, I'm not saying this is the only reason, I'm saying that since this is the case, it is not surprising if men are more varied than women, as indeed they are.
There aren't very many genes on the Y chromosome, so that part of your theory is not correct.
It is true that the X and Y chromosomes together hold just a small part of total DNA in a human. It is also true that the difference in DNA between a human and a chimp is just 4%, and from your argument we would then have to conclude that monkeys perform to about the level of humans. So it is not valid to conclude that a small difference in DNA can't be important. I agree with the rest of your post, and I imagine that that is part of the reason that men have greater genetic risk/reward - because reaping the possible rewards is more important than the downside because being average is a failing strategy for men.
That is a possible reason though it does not follow that it is necessarily the right or most relevant reason. E.g. if we imagine that people who are good at chess at first go on to play more chess, we suddenly have a completely different perspective on the ratio of men to women. There is no reason to assume that choosing to play chess is independent of one's innate ability to learn chess - in fact I'd say that would be surprising. Your argument does show that there is a possible explanation that does not rely on men being naturally better at chess than women.
Chess requires high IQ, the variance (not average) of IQ (and lots of things) is higher among men than women so you get more male idiots and geniuses. In other words, more men are further away from the average than women - be that better or worse. Hence better top performers in many areas of human activity. Also, more male bottom performers. It's not exactly surprising that women have less variance since they have two different X chromosomes, so the effect of every gene on the X chromosome is the average of two genes from the gene pool, while in men the effect of every gene on the X or Y chromosome is just the effect of 1 gene. So a good X or Y gene gets full effect in a man and a bad X or Y gene gets full effect in a man. In a woman the X genes have two copies so both bad and good genes are likely to be counteracted by the second copy of that gene on the other chromosome. Women don't have a Y chromosome which also means they can't differ in their Y chromosome, again reducing variance.
It may be that it works perfectly well 99% of the time, yet there is a 1% chance that it will backfire on them like in this case. You only hear about the 1% cases, so you think it never works.
It is true that it is more radioactive and hence more dangerous and harder to handle in the short term, just as the GP pointed out. For that reason it has a shorter half-life and so only has to be stored for a few decades, which means that the little waste that is produced is actually far easier to get rid of. That is because you don't have to find a perfect place that you know (suspect) will remain geologically stable for 10,000 years - you can maybe even just leave it at the reactor site and come back 50 years later when there is no more waste left.
I may not have been entirely serious in advocating something that I named a "mega-macro-quad*-line" of such complexity that it requires a map to navigate.
Is this a playoff system? Did I infringe any patent by posting this?
Certainly. There is no activity that cannot be construed to infringe a patent. E.g. you just infringed on my asking-if-this-infringes-a-patent-patent. As a precaution, I've already patented patenting-asking-if-this-infringes-a-patent-patent.
If the optimal point is, say, one line for 4 registers, then group registers into fours and have a quad-line for each. At that point it may make sense to have a macro-line that feeds into 4 quad-lines and so on. You could hand out a map of the line system at the head of the mega-macro-quad*-line entry.