It has been proved, and is logically obvious based upon the facts of evolutionary biology, that everyone prefers others of their same race.
More accurately (and less negative-sounding): everyone prefers others who look like him- or herself, and to a lesser degree like the other members of his or her family.
This is a normal psychological response; you trust yourself, and you trust your family. And if someone resembles yourself or your family, you're more likely to trust him or her. (Unless you actively hate your parents, brother, self, etc. -- then the opposite will happen, but for the same reason.)
Fortunately, as families become more and more blended in our culture, this is less and less likely to give rise to racial bias. Unfortunately, it will never completely eliminate it.
I think what he meant is that prejudice (racial bias to him) is a normal part of the animal brain.
In the wild it's a survival trait: when you're an antelope and you see for the first time one of your relatives eaten by a lioness, you're in trouble if you think, "Well, I shouldn't stereotype--she might have been a bad apple. Let's wait and see what the NEXT lioness does."
The modern human brain does the same thing: sees one or two examples and generalizes about an entire group of things based on it. This is the exact opposite of scientific logic (inductive reasoning vs. deductive reasoning), but in many daily circumstances it's pretty reliable.
So, my point: prejudice is normal. It's human and it's to be expected. Racism, on the other hand, is when you continue to generalize NEGATIVE traits to an entire group, DESPITE the counterexamples. And that's just Bad.
/ Apple (and they aren't the only one, just the subject on hand at the moment) really needs to get told where to stick their monopolistic behavior.
I think you need to double-check your definition of an economic monopoly. Apple has a monopoly on only one thing: its own operating system. Until that operating system has a monopoly on the entire computer desktop industry, there's no legal issue I know of that needs to be resolved.
If you release a product to the market, then you have no business telling people what they can and can't do with it once they've bought it.
I am a little bit concerned, that scientists, due to their philosophical bent, might actually try ignore evidence that does not fit into the atheist viewpoints.
Yeah, it's terrible when respectable professional scientists won't accept the possibility of unprovable supernatural beings as an axiom for their research papers.
I would assume they don't have to worry about the strict regulations on those "dangerous Canadian" drugs that consumers are forced to deal with.
No, those are prescription drugs, not over-the-counter drugs. OTC includes things like painkillers, cold medicines and allergy pills, which are a nice bonus when you want your employees to stop complaining about little aches and sniffles and get back to the job ASAP.
"Designers" who can't code have absolutely no business "working" in software.
I believe the original article is making a similar point, viz., coders who can't design shouldn't be pretentiously ignoring the feedback of people who can.
You pay a fraction of the cost, and you get less than a fraction of the science.
The Spirit and Endeavor probes respectfully disagree with you. They were still doing useful work, what, over a year after they were landed on the surface of Mars? Try getting that kind of long-term performance out of a starving, gasping astronaut.
A big part of the "kill-my-family" thing, I imagine, comes from the societal expectation (welfare notwithstanding) that the man of the family should be a provider. If the husband is dead, who will take care of his wife and child? For that matter, how will they take care of themselves while he's in federal prison, and how will he earn a productive living after he gets out? Ergo, if it's his responsibility to care for them, and he can't care for them, it's also his responsibility to end their suffering.
It's one tragedy that he followed this line of reasoning to commit double-murder before his suicide. It's another that his wife helped him escape, only to killed by the husband she agreed to help. It's a third that a three-year-old daughter should end her life just as it's begun because of such foolishness.
The entire world, every individual in it, should take note of this horror and try to ensure it never happens to anyone they know.
The comic's author is adamant that it's a different art-form and should be considered as a comic so it's worth seeing the comic first so that your first impression is of the story in its intended form.
Yeah, but Alan Moore is also adamant that a typo on the back cover of his complimentary copies of "V for Vendetta" was a good reason for throwing them all in the trash. He's honestly a bit of a putz about all sorts of things relating to his creative works.
Personally, ever since the first time I read the graphic novel, I couldn't help thinking about it as storyboards for a film. Moore can deny it all he wants, but Gibbons is apparently a very cinematographic illustrator.
Without a doubt. However, hunter/gatherers still need a certain ability to count -- for instance, does my tribe have more fighters than the enemy tribe right in front of me? Or, are all my children here or is one missing?
It's actual mathematics and arithmetic that had to be invented, and yes, they were developed first for purposes of commerce. It's still interesting that this particular language has (or may have) no distinct words for the quantities one, two and three, which previously were believed to be the only inherent number concepts.
Yes and no. There have been studies, for instance, that show that human infants younger than one year old have an innate "number sense" up to three objects -- if you show them groups of one and two objects, hide them, then reveal them again, they're less surprised (measured by how long they stare) if the result is three than if it's another total.
Once you get to four or more objects, it's difficult to instinctively keep track. I'm a math guy myself, but as an adult I have a very hard time counting more than five objects at a momentary glance unless they're organized into groups of two or three. (Six objects in a two-by-three rectangle, easy; six objects randomly arranged, not so easy.)
So while actual "numbers" are part of a learned language, there's evidence that all humans can properly count up to three using only built-in brain ability. It's similar to how all humans have a built-in ability for language and verbal communication, but writing and reading has to be learned.
There was far less variation between the bottom and top of the class and the teachers could do a much better job of teaching to the class. This is now deemed to be prejudicial and so the school no longer does this.
Well, the unfortunate side effect of that approach is that the kids in the "dumb class" think of themselves as "dumb" regardless of their actual ability and most of them stop trying.
In addition, you lose the ability to let students who learn quickly help those who don't. Many students (in fact, many people) learn better from their peers than from someone in authority because they have a similar perspective on the lesson.
There are strategies for keeping quick-learning students busy, and in some ways, it's to their advantage to learn to teach themselves instead of waiting to be fed the next high-concept lesson. Good minds that can't find their own goals aren't much use outside of a classroom or game show.
He gets his smarts from his mother, but gets his motivation, or lack of it, from me.:-)... The thing is, he was asked to be in an academically gifted program and he hated it, not because it wasn't interesting, but because it was more work!
Sounds like this one is your department.:-) Take it from me, he can run on natural smarts for a good number of years but sooner or later he'll need to learn to work hard, too. I nearly sank myself in college because I was used to coasting through high school, and never learned the value of visiting my teachers outside class, collaborating with other students, or studying together with my classmates.
I was dumbstruck, the kid was sitting there for 20 minutes, doing nothing, when she could have been doing some work!
Indeed. Did she not have any other classes' books with her? A textbook to read ahead in? A library book to read? In other words, was it her choice not to be doing anything or the teacher's?
$500 is a reasonable price for the technological marvel which is a modern cellphone, if you can't afford that, perhaps you can't afford a highly priced monthly contract either. Similarly, $15,000 cash is a reasonable price for the modern technological marvel that is a well-equipped automobile. If you can't afford that, perhaps you can't afford a highly priced five-year loan either.
Not to mention that the 8GB iPhone is now $100 less expensive than the 8GB iPod Touch, which has less hardware built into it... (by the way, does the Touch get GPS, too?). Doubtless it will, but expect a few months' wait so that iPhone sales don't suffer too much.
The rock bottom price for a GPS device nowadays is $150. You can switch to the iPhone for merely $199. Can't beat it. Yes you can, because you're forgetting to factor in the monthly subscription fee for the iPhone. If you only want a GPS, the annual (optional?) map upgrades are a whole lot less.
There will be a better iPhone coming out it 2009--unless you want to wait for the really great 2010 model with 50 hours of talk time and 3.5G. Technology moves on. The better incentive is that possibly, by that time, Apple's exclusive contract with AT&T will be up (didn't they give AT&T two years?) and you'll be able to get an iPhone with another provider.
. I knew when I bought the first iPhone that there would be another version a year or so down the line. It was just common sense. But I didn't want to wait, so I paid a premium. Thats not a big deal for me. Look, that sort of reasonability and objectivity has no place on the Internet. Go back to your academic journals, you hippie.
If I can get one for $200 with my current plan, though, I'd be really tempted to get the 3G. I don't see why you couldn't. Heck, if Apple wanted to make even more dough they could probably buy back old iPhones for a $50-$100 discount on the upgrade and then re-sell them as refurbished for $150 to new subscribers.
Only hardware upgrades like GPS and 3G won't be. Wondering: would it be possible, technologically speaking, for Apple or Belkin to build an attachment to the iPod dock connector which would add this functionality? It would be a great sale to make, as long as it's considerably cheaper than replacing the iPhone entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
It has been proved, and is logically obvious based upon the facts of evolutionary biology, that everyone prefers others of their same race.
More accurately (and less negative-sounding): everyone prefers others who look like him- or herself, and to a lesser degree like the other members of his or her family.
This is a normal psychological response; you trust yourself, and you trust your family. And if someone resembles yourself or your family, you're more likely to trust him or her. (Unless you actively hate your parents, brother, self, etc. -- then the opposite will happen, but for the same reason.)
Fortunately, as families become more and more blended in our culture, this is less and less likely to give rise to racial bias. Unfortunately, it will never completely eliminate it.
I think what he meant is that prejudice (racial bias to him) is a normal part of the animal brain.
In the wild it's a survival trait: when you're an antelope and you see for the first time one of your relatives eaten by a lioness, you're in trouble if you think, "Well, I shouldn't stereotype--she might have been a bad apple. Let's wait and see what the NEXT lioness does."
The modern human brain does the same thing: sees one or two examples and generalizes about an entire group of things based on it. This is the exact opposite of scientific logic (inductive reasoning vs. deductive reasoning), but in many daily circumstances it's pretty reliable.
So, my point: prejudice is normal. It's human and it's to be expected. Racism, on the other hand, is when you continue to generalize NEGATIVE traits to an entire group, DESPITE the counterexamples. And that's just Bad.
Don't you need water to make electricity with a nuclear reactor, and also to cool the core?
You also need uranium, but last I checked that's not found on the moon, either.
I think it's safe to assume NASA would fly up all the necessary machines, elements, and compounds at once.
/ Apple (and they aren't the only one, just the subject on hand at the moment) really needs to get told where to stick their monopolistic behavior.
I think you need to double-check your definition of an economic monopoly. Apple has a monopoly on only one thing: its own operating system. Until that operating system has a monopoly on the entire computer desktop industry, there's no legal issue I know of that needs to be resolved.
If you release a product to the market, then you have no business telling people what they can and can't do with it once they've bought it.
Regrettably, the RIAA has already won this fight.
I am a little bit concerned, that scientists, due to their philosophical bent, might actually try ignore evidence that does not fit into the atheist viewpoints.
Yeah, it's terrible when respectable professional scientists won't accept the possibility of unprovable supernatural beings as an axiom for their research papers.
"Me, too. This was the point at which I realized Hollywood was making a product, not a film."
There, fixed it for you.
I would assume they don't have to worry about the strict regulations on those "dangerous Canadian" drugs that consumers are forced to deal with.
No, those are prescription drugs, not over-the-counter drugs. OTC includes things like painkillers, cold medicines and allergy pills, which are a nice bonus when you want your employees to stop complaining about little aches and sniffles and get back to the job ASAP.
"Designers" who can't code have absolutely no business "working" in software.
I believe the original article is making a similar point, viz., coders who can't design shouldn't be pretentiously ignoring the feedback of people who can.
Amen. "Boom Blox" for Wii probably counts as a puzzle game, too. They're all over, if you know what to look for.
They lynch presidents that spend a few trillion on science experiments.
I thought that Kennedy was shot, not lynched.
You pay a fraction of the cost, and you get less than a fraction of the science.
The Spirit and Endeavor probes respectfully disagree with you. They were still doing useful work, what, over a year after they were landed on the surface of Mars? Try getting that kind of long-term performance out of a starving, gasping astronaut.
I thought that was caused by the bouncy-ball "gift" from the Great Collector. (He thought it was funny as hell....)
A big part of the "kill-my-family" thing, I imagine, comes from the societal expectation (welfare notwithstanding) that the man of the family should be a provider. If the husband is dead, who will take care of his wife and child? For that matter, how will they take care of themselves while he's in federal prison, and how will he earn a productive living after he gets out? Ergo, if it's his responsibility to care for them, and he can't care for them, it's also his responsibility to end their suffering.
It's one tragedy that he followed this line of reasoning to commit double-murder before his suicide. It's another that his wife helped him escape, only to killed by the husband she agreed to help. It's a third that a three-year-old daughter should end her life just as it's begun because of such foolishness.
The entire world, every individual in it, should take note of this horror and try to ensure it never happens to anyone they know.
The comic's author is adamant that it's a different art-form and should be considered as a comic so it's worth seeing the comic first so that your first impression is of the story in its intended form.
Yeah, but Alan Moore is also adamant that a typo on the back cover of his complimentary copies of "V for Vendetta" was a good reason for throwing them all in the trash. He's honestly a bit of a putz about all sorts of things relating to his creative works.
Personally, ever since the first time I read the graphic novel, I couldn't help thinking about it as storyboards for a film. Moore can deny it all he wants, but Gibbons is apparently a very cinematographic illustrator.
Without a doubt. However, hunter/gatherers still need a certain ability to count -- for instance, does my tribe have more fighters than the enemy tribe right in front of me? Or, are all my children here or is one missing?
It's actual mathematics and arithmetic that had to be invented, and yes, they were developed first for purposes of commerce. It's still interesting that this particular language has (or may have) no distinct words for the quantities one, two and three, which previously were believed to be the only inherent number concepts.
Yes and no. There have been studies, for instance, that show that human infants younger than one year old have an innate "number sense" up to three objects -- if you show them groups of one and two objects, hide them, then reveal them again, they're less surprised (measured by how long they stare) if the result is three than if it's another total.
Once you get to four or more objects, it's difficult to instinctively keep track. I'm a math guy myself, but as an adult I have a very hard time counting more than five objects at a momentary glance unless they're organized into groups of two or three. (Six objects in a two-by-three rectangle, easy; six objects randomly arranged, not so easy.)
So while actual "numbers" are part of a learned language, there's evidence that all humans can properly count up to three using only built-in brain ability. It's similar to how all humans have a built-in ability for language and verbal communication, but writing and reading has to be learned.
There was far less variation between the bottom and top of the class and the teachers could do a much better job of teaching to the class. This is now deemed to be prejudicial and so the school no longer does this.
Well, the unfortunate side effect of that approach is that the kids in the "dumb class" think of themselves as "dumb" regardless of their actual ability and most of them stop trying.
In addition, you lose the ability to let students who learn quickly help those who don't. Many students (in fact, many people) learn better from their peers than from someone in authority because they have a similar perspective on the lesson.
There are strategies for keeping quick-learning students busy, and in some ways, it's to their advantage to learn to teach themselves instead of waiting to be fed the next high-concept lesson. Good minds that can't find their own goals aren't much use outside of a classroom or game show.
He gets his smarts from his mother, but gets his motivation, or lack of it, from me. :-) ... The thing is, he was asked to be in an academically gifted program and he hated it, not because it wasn't interesting, but because it was more work!
:-) Take it from me, he can run on natural smarts for a good number of years but sooner or later he'll need to learn to work hard, too. I nearly sank myself in college because I was used to coasting through high school, and never learned the value of visiting my teachers outside class, collaborating with other students, or studying together with my classmates.
Sounds like this one is your department.
I was dumbstruck, the kid was sitting there for 20 minutes, doing nothing, when she could have been doing some work!
Indeed. Did she not have any other classes' books with her? A textbook to read ahead in? A library book to read? In other words, was it her choice not to be doing anything or the teacher's?