Yes, you are correct, no one likes being made fun of. But that doesn't mean both groups (misogynists/racists/homophobes vs button-pushers) should be tarred with the same brush, even though that does make maintaining a persecution complex much easier.
Democracy is just a terrible system of government, but it turns out it's all we can trust ourselves with to not fuck shit up. The vote of a retard counts just as much as the vote of a genius, and that's ridiculous, but what's even more ridiculous is that everything else has turned out worse.
Ideally we would be ruled by a benevolent artificial intelligence who can determine without outside input what is best for everyone.
The fact that sometimes most hateful posts are made by a small minority doesn't say anything about the motivations of that minority. They could just as well be button-pushing, which seems more likely, given the ratio of button-pushers to actual hateful people in the general population.
What it proves is that there are people that find enjoyment in pushing other people's buttons. It has very little to do with hating women and much more to do with entertainment.
There are of course some people out there who do actually hate women, and they may be involved in this as well, but I very much doubt it is anything but a minority.
1) What is meant with "skill at reading"? This does not become clear from the summary. If they mean just the ability to convert symbols into sounds I'd assume the plateau for that is pretty low and most people reach it pretty early on in their lives. If they mean interpretative ability, how do they quantify that, and how do they distinguish between correct and incorrect interpretations beyond a certain point? In the sentence "When the cat entered the room, he sat down on the mat." it is obviously incorrect to interpret "he" as referring to a dog, but when asked to interpret who or what "the shadow" refers to in Eliot's The Hollow Men it becomes a lot less clear which responses are correct and which ones incorrect. Compared to the high end of interpretative ability, mathematical ability is much easier to test and quantify, so how can they say that reading ability and mathematical ability are comparable? Maybe my reading ability is particularly low, but the more I think about it, the less I understand of what is meant by these researchers.
2) What does "twice as similar" mean? I obviously realize that this refers to some statistical characteristic of the data, but that doesn't make "twice as similar" as an expression any more comprehensible. I guess a fish is twice as similar to a horse as grass is (all three are alive, but only horses and fish have spines, and only horses and fish convert oxygen into carbon dioxide), but I doubt that's what they mean.
That is the thing with our sensory apparatus and distance. "On a large enough scale" most things are indistinguishable from each other. It doesn't really have anything to do with lego.
It was used by William of Ockham in the late middle ages to argue against the species theory of perception -- the idea that everything you can see constantly emanate images of themselves in every direction. It states (in scholastic Latin) "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity."
It was then stripped of its context somewhere halfway through the previous century, became a rallying cry of pretty much every self-proclaimed skeptic, and erroneously believed to say "the simplest explanation is usually right"
That is what happened to Ockham's razor, and I wish it had stayed in the 13th century, along with all the other idiotic arguments for and against realism about universals.
Most creatures from the Cambrian look like they sprang from the mind of Lovecraft. My favorite part of any natural history museum is looking at the really early fossils, because you can really tell evolution was still getting its shit together back then. Everything looks so primitive. You can compare the differences between newer and older fossils to looking at a ball and a ball made from lego. They're clearly the same structure, but one has been smoothed out and the other hasn't.
There is a difference between Jesus and the powers of Jesus. If there was no difference between Jesus and his powers, Jesus wouldn't be a person but a function, like judge or professor or notary.
Slashdot Mirror
"as long as" signifies a condition that needs to be enforced. I'd rather the enforcer be benevolent.
Yes, you are correct, no one likes being made fun of. But that doesn't mean both groups (misogynists/racists/homophobes vs button-pushers) should be tarred with the same brush, even though that does make maintaining a persecution complex much easier.
Democracy is just a terrible system of government, but it turns out it's all we can trust ourselves with to not fuck shit up. The vote of a retard counts just as much as the vote of a genius, and that's ridiculous, but what's even more ridiculous is that everything else has turned out worse.
Ideally we would be ruled by a benevolent artificial intelligence who can determine without outside input what is best for everyone.
The fact that sometimes most hateful posts are made by a small minority doesn't say anything about the motivations of that minority. They could just as well be button-pushing, which seems more likely, given the ratio of button-pushers to actual hateful people in the general population.
I like the irony in your use of stereotypes to exert power
What it proves is that there are people that find enjoyment in pushing other people's buttons. It has very little to do with hating women and much more to do with entertainment.
There are of course some people out there who do actually hate women, and they may be involved in this as well, but I very much doubt it is anything but a minority.
by evolution. That's why you feel better about yourself when you do something "for" "someone else".
That was a very informative post, thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Perhaps the same could be said of all currencies
Ozone.
Jokes are funny, what he wrote isn't funny, and so what he wrote is not a joke.
Cowardice exists only in your mind, AC.
1) What is meant with "skill at reading"? This does not become clear from the summary. If they mean just the ability to convert symbols into sounds I'd assume the plateau for that is pretty low and most people reach it pretty early on in their lives. If they mean interpretative ability, how do they quantify that, and how do they distinguish between correct and incorrect interpretations beyond a certain point? In the sentence "When the cat entered the room, he sat down on the mat." it is obviously incorrect to interpret "he" as referring to a dog, but when asked to interpret who or what "the shadow" refers to in Eliot's The Hollow Men it becomes a lot less clear which responses are correct and which ones incorrect. Compared to the high end of interpretative ability, mathematical ability is much easier to test and quantify, so how can they say that reading ability and mathematical ability are comparable? Maybe my reading ability is particularly low, but the more I think about it, the less I understand of what is meant by these researchers.
2) What does "twice as similar" mean? I obviously realize that this refers to some statistical characteristic of the data, but that doesn't make "twice as similar" as an expression any more comprehensible. I guess a fish is twice as similar to a horse as grass is (all three are alive, but only horses and fish have spines, and only horses and fish convert oxygen into carbon dioxide), but I doubt that's what they mean.
Sounds like the start of a problem written by someone why doesn't know the alphabet starts with A and B instead of C and G.
Is there anyone who had not yet exercised their right to forget Bing?
That is the thing with our sensory apparatus and distance. "On a large enough scale" most things are indistinguishable from each other. It doesn't really have anything to do with lego.
Excuse me, 14th century.
It was used by William of Ockham in the late middle ages to argue against the species theory of perception -- the idea that everything you can see constantly emanate images of themselves in every direction. It states (in scholastic Latin) "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity."
It was then stripped of its context somewhere halfway through the previous century, became a rallying cry of pretty much every self-proclaimed skeptic, and erroneously believed to say "the simplest explanation is usually right"
That is what happened to Ockham's razor, and I wish it had stayed in the 13th century, along with all the other idiotic arguments for and against realism about universals.
Most creatures from the Cambrian look like they sprang from the mind of Lovecraft. My favorite part of any natural history museum is looking at the really early fossils, because you can really tell evolution was still getting its shit together back then. Everything looks so primitive. You can compare the differences between newer and older fossils to looking at a ball and a ball made from lego. They're clearly the same structure, but one has been smoothed out and the other hasn't.
Your inability to correctly interpret simple anaphoric references would make you fail a Turing test.
For some reason it won't let me type mt. Fuji in kanji.
I'm leaving for Tokyo later this month. At least is easier to pronounce than Eyjafjallajokull.
How you see the world depends on where you are in it.
There is a difference between Jesus and the powers of Jesus. If there was no difference between Jesus and his powers, Jesus wouldn't be a person but a function, like judge or professor or notary.