Hollywood has turned against scientists again, and the anti-science hacks of antivax and climate change denial and creationism/intelligent design and alt-med are getting more and more air time.
Uneducated intuition and magical thinking seem to be the respected characteristics in pop fiction, and well respected heroes like Sagan and David Attenborough have given way to more niche respected heroes like Hawkings, Cox and Tyson.
It's a fact, men are brought up in this society to own the image of strength and reporting that they were raped goes against that, while women are raised to protect themselves at any cost; because of this, most women will report a rape whether it happened or not, most men won't, even if it did.
I'd be interested to read your statistics on this claim.
First of all, that is based off of 4 year old data.
If you've got more recent data, please post it. Or if you've got evidence of a trend in these sorts of attacks please post that. Or any justification for this objection.
According to a 2010 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in theed States have been raped. The actual number is likely higher, experts say, as incidents of sexual violence are severely underreported in the United States -- particularly among male victims.
Emphasis mine.
Certainly an important limitation of the data. Note that those stats are for rape, which according to CDC means does not include being forced to penetrate, but requires being penetrated. Females forcing sex on males, as being discussed in this thread occurs later in the piece under "being made to penetrate".
And, third, who said I was trusting that data?
No one, to my knowledge. Your claim was that the CDC data disagrees with me. It does not. It shows about 6 times as many male rapes of females as female forced penetration of males.
For female rape
victims, 98.1% reported only male
perpetrators. Additionally, 92.5% of
female victims of sexual violence
other than rape reported only male
perpetrators. For male victims, the
sex of the perpetrator varied by
the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape
victims (93.3%) reported only male
perpetrators. For three of the other
forms of sexual violence, a majority
of male victims reported only
female perpetrators: being made to
penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion
(83.6%), and unwanted sexual
contact (53.1%).
So Females forcing males to penetrate them is 0.792*3.8% = 3.0% of the US population, Males raping females is 0.933* 18.3% = 17.1%, or 5.7 times as many.
* Across all types of violence,
the majority of female victims
reported that their perpetrators
were male.
* Male rape victims and male
victims of non-contact
unwanted sexual experiences
reported predominantly male
perpetrators. Nearly half of
stalking victimizations against
males were also perpetrated
by males. Perpetrators of other
forms of violence against males
were mostly female.
The CDC disagrees with you. If you'd like a source for that data, you'll have to ask Nephandus.
Why would you trust that data without a source, when its counter to biological plausibility, and common experience?
Here's a CDC data sheet.
Note that:
Nearly
1
in
5
(18.3%)
women
and
1
in
71
men
(1.4%)
reported
experiencing
rape
at
some
time
in
their
lives.
And
4.8%
of
men
reported
they
were
made
to
penetrate
someone
else
at
some
time
in
their
lives.
Since only the 4.8% can be women forcing sex on men, that's about 3.8 rapes of women by men for every forced penetration by a man. And I'd suspect a lot of the 4.8% would be forced penetration of another man.
we may well see that men rape women no more often than women rape men.
I greatly doubt it.
You understand the game theory inherent in the biology don't you? Sperm is nothing to produce. Carrying a child is a huge investment. Men are selected to want to fuck everything that moves, and fuck most things that don't move, until it moves.
Women need to be selective. They want the very best possible father for their child and, generally speaking, a relationship to support the upbringing of the child.
Over the past 40 years, the opinion of the scientific community has consolidated on climate science. Over that time it has become accepted that human activity is the primary cause of the current warming, for instance.
Otherwise known as "groupthink", motivated in large part by the huge amounts of tax-payer's cash available for their institutions.
Science is pretty good at routing out bad results in less than 40 years and 1,700,000 scholarly publications.
In fact scientists aren't that good at groupthink.
What about PhD students? How are they convinced to tow the line instead of getting a Nobel prize for overthrowing climate authodoxy? Nearly none of them have tax-payers funding beyond their thesis. What about scientists with Tenure? How are they convinced to do bad science, when their funding is guaranteed? What about private research bodies? How are they convinced to fudge their results when they need to compete for research grants in a wide range of areas, and bad results threatens their whole institution? What about research funded by charities? How are they convinced to tow a line that sends money to their competitors in government academic and research bodies? What about general science Journals? How are they convinced to publish poorly reviewed research, when their whole income is based solely on the fact that they don't do that?
Are you sure you've thought this through?
What other fields of science have fallen into this trap of falsifying research for "huge amounts of money"?
Are you skeptical of the discovery of the Higgs Boson? There's a stack of funding given to the LHC, and no other place of research that could verify their results. Surely they would be better subject to your paranoid conspiracy theory?
I think if we learned anything from the "climategate" emails, if it's not an outright fraud, it's certainly motivated a lot of questionable behaviour.
I think you've read them out of context. Do you have a one in particular that shows "questionable behavior"? Remember that there were several years of emails stolen. Data mining them for sentences that appear questionable had a lot of scope.
The vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge.
There are over 1,700,000 hits in google scholar to the search term "Climate change". I know you haven't read the vast bulk of the literature. (And I suspect you haven't read any of it).
But I'll give you a chance: What is your evidence that the "vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge"?
Oh I see. Your opinion on whether or not someone is a crackpot affects whether or not they get their ideas published, does it?
Not my opinion specifically. But you don't publish Ken Ham in Evolution & Development. And you don't publish Gene Ray in reviews of modern physics, not because I think they're crackpots, but because crackpots would never clear peer review.
Pal-review is not a guarantee of general correctness. It's a guarantee of political correctness.
Peer review certainly doesn't guarantee correctness. Most papers are refuted within 5 years. That's why established science is based on consensus, not upon a single peer reviewed paper.
Science isn't always right, it merely always corrects it's results eventually.
Yep. A grand conspiracy theory whereby all the world's climate scientists are perpetrating a fraud, and somehow everyone throughout the globe, and all incoming students are inducted.
They're total crackpots.
Do "denialists" get much research grant funding?
No, denialists aren't scientists. They're PR professionals. They get plenty of PR funding though.
FFS.
SIGH
re: You mean like no warming in 17.5 years?
There has been plenty of warming in the last 17.5 years. The warming of the surface air temperature has been marginal, (but not statistically significantly "no warming" as you appear to be claiming.) The best you can correctly and scientifically say, is that there might be a reduction in the rate of warming of the surface air temperature.
The oceans have warmed. As can be seen from the direct measurements, if you're into science, but if you're not, it's clear and obvious from sea level rise which is primarily thermal expansion.
re: They make models that show doom, and don't match up with reality.
No they don't. They make models that investigate the climate.
Some aspects match with reality well. Some aspects require finer modelling. (And there are probably some physical processes that are not fully understood either, especially with respect to cloud formation).
Sure, all (I think) models have a double-Intertropical Convergence Zone. That doesn't mean that they aren't useful. Quite the opposite. The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny...". And so work on the DICZ progresses. Science advances. We learn more stuff.
Claiming "Models don't match reality! All this science must therefore be rubbish!" is the call of the Luddites. Einstein didn't overthrow Newton, he built upon his work, and Newton did upon the giants upon whose shoulders he stood. This is how science works.
re: Then they redo the models to match the previous few years and again show doom.
I'll keep this response more concise: Bullshit.
re: Sorry you don't understand this and believe their lies while calling those who tell the truth liars.
Really? That's your claim? The scientists are lying to you?
FFS, mate, think about that for a while and get back to me on how likely it could be.
I think that the concern of the Royal Society is that we are past a couple of really nasty tipping points: The loss of the northern summer sea ice and the loss of the west antarctic ice sheet.
We may have crossed some other lines to do with the Indian monsoon, the African monsoon, the savannahization of the amazon rainforest and the collapse of the boreal forests.
No one wants to do geoengineering, except those with an interest in the fossil fuel industry. But the time to reduce emissions was 20 years ago, and while reductions now will make for savings, the consequences of what we have already done are likely horrific in terms of biodiveristy and displacement and starvation of vulnerable peoples.
So it needs to be on the table. Open and transparent is very important, but I think that there'll be plenty of interest in making sure that concerns are considered.
And the inertia will be all towards caution in this case, (again barring people with an interest in the fossil fuel industry). Geo-engineering may have benefits for the entire world if it ameliorates AGW, but it also has to be funded.
taking measurements from inaccurate thermometers and scant coverage from over a century ago, and claiming we know global average temperatures in the 19th century is beyond ludicrous.
The coverage was a lot smaller than today's but it was so much cooler then, that the error is less than the change.
No amount of massaging of data can make credible comparison to today's grid of sensors.
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. With this information, the company offered her $800.
It's just that the court also awarded compensation for less tangible costs, and valued it at $200,000, of which they McD's was judged responsible for 160,000, the other $40,000 being the proportion that was Liebeck's own fault for spilling of coffee on herself.
They also awarded a lot of punitive damages. I'm not sure how much if any of those were to be awarded to Liebeck. It might not have even been decided, because both parties appealed, and then settled out of court.
He's supporting and advertising a free energy source. It's idiotic.
And he posts under pseudonyms as his own biggest fan. He's probably the GGP.
The suggestion that he's been right at some point when telling the engineers of the world that they're doing it wrong is laughable. The guy's got no sense of reality. Perpetual motion refutes consistently observed properties of the universe. Engineers know this.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, hard luck Microsoft, you've just run afoul of my country's fair trading act.
Part of my purchase decision was that Minecraft would be released open source or public domain.
You've just purchased some very high punitive fines.
Once sales start dying and a minimum time has passed, I will release the game source code as some kind of open source. I'm not very happy with the draconian nature of (L)GPL, nor do I believe the other licenses have much merit other than to boost the egos of the original authors, so I might just possibly release it all as public domain.
... is the more salient question.
Hollywood has turned against scientists again, and the anti-science hacks of antivax and climate change denial and creationism/intelligent design and alt-med are getting more and more air time.
Uneducated intuition and magical thinking seem to be the respected characteristics in pop fiction, and well respected heroes like Sagan and David Attenborough have given way to more niche respected heroes like Hawkings, Cox and Tyson.
So in terms of simplicity to configure and also in terms of getting good performance you would recommend either MYSQL or Postgre?
What is the better choice?
It's also been said that women are 5x more likely to report a rape than men, particularly if their attacker was female.
That's interesting. Do you have the study?
Show me some statistics on un-reported rape.
This can be studied by survey.
It's a fact, men are brought up in this society to own the image of strength and reporting that they were raped goes against that, while women are raised to protect themselves at any cost; because of this, most women will report a rape whether it happened or not, most men won't, even if it did.
I'd be interested to read your statistics on this claim.
First of all, that is based off of 4 year old data.
If you've got more recent data, please post it. Or if you've got evidence of a trend in these sorts of attacks please post that. Or any justification for this objection.
According to a 2010 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 71 men in theed States have been raped. The actual number is likely higher, experts say, as incidents of sexual violence are severely underreported in the United States -- particularly among male victims.
Emphasis mine.
Certainly an important limitation of the data. Note that those stats are for rape, which according to CDC means does not include being forced to penetrate, but requires being penetrated. Females forcing sex on males, as being discussed in this thread occurs later in the piece under "being made to penetrate".
And, third, who said I was trusting that data?
No one, to my knowledge. Your claim was that the CDC data disagrees with me. It does not. It shows about 6 times as many male rapes of females as female forced penetration of males.
The figures are further down:
For female rape victims, 98.1% reported only male perpetrators. Additionally, 92.5% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape reported only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%).
So Females forcing males to penetrate them is 0.792*3.8% = 3.0% of the US population, Males raping females is 0.933* 18.3% = 17.1%, or 5.7 times as many.
Yep.
* Across all types of violence, the majority of female victims reported that their perpetrators were male.
* Male rape victims and male victims of non-contact unwanted sexual experiences reported predominantly male perpetrators. Nearly half of stalking victimizations against males were also perpetrated by males. Perpetrators of other forms of violence against males were mostly female.
The CDC disagrees with you. If you'd like a source for that data, you'll have to ask Nephandus.
Why would you trust that data without a source, when its counter to biological plausibility, and common experience?
Here's a CDC data sheet.
Note that:
Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives.
And
4.8% of men reported they were made to penetrate someone else at some time in their lives.
Since only the 4.8% can be women forcing sex on men, that's about 3.8 rapes of women by men for every forced penetration by a man. And I'd suspect a lot of the 4.8% would be forced penetration of another man.
I greatly doubt it.
You understand the game theory inherent in the biology don't you? Sperm is nothing to produce. Carrying a child is a huge investment. Men are selected to want to fuck everything that moves, and fuck most things that don't move, until it moves.
Women need to be selective. They want the very best possible father for their child and, generally speaking, a relationship to support the upbringing of the child.
Over the past 40 years, the opinion of the scientific community has consolidated on climate science. Over that time it has become accepted that human activity is the primary cause of the current warming, for instance.
Otherwise known as "groupthink", motivated in large part by the huge amounts of tax-payer's cash available for their institutions.
Science is pretty good at routing out bad results in less than 40 years and 1,700,000 scholarly publications.
In fact scientists aren't that good at groupthink.
What about PhD students? How are they convinced to tow the line instead of getting a Nobel prize for overthrowing climate authodoxy? Nearly none of them have tax-payers funding beyond their thesis. What about scientists with Tenure? How are they convinced to do bad science, when their funding is guaranteed? What about private research bodies? How are they convinced to fudge their results when they need to compete for research grants in a wide range of areas, and bad results threatens their whole institution? What about research funded by charities? How are they convinced to tow a line that sends money to their competitors in government academic and research bodies? What about general science Journals? How are they convinced to publish poorly reviewed research, when their whole income is based solely on the fact that they don't do that?
Are you sure you've thought this through?
What other fields of science have fallen into this trap of falsifying research for "huge amounts of money"?
Are you skeptical of the discovery of the Higgs Boson? There's a stack of funding given to the LHC, and no other place of research that could verify their results. Surely they would be better subject to your paranoid conspiracy theory?
I think if we learned anything from the "climategate" emails, if it's not an outright fraud, it's certainly motivated a lot of questionable behaviour.
I think you've read them out of context. Do you have a one in particular that shows "questionable behavior"? Remember that there were several years of emails stolen. Data mining them for sentences that appear questionable had a lot of scope.
The vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge.
There are over 1,700,000 hits in google scholar to the search term "Climate change". I know you haven't read the vast bulk of the literature. (And I suspect you haven't read any of it).
But I'll give you a chance: What is your evidence that the "vast bulk of publication on this issue in the literature is a pile of stinking bilge"?
Oh I see. Your opinion on whether or not someone is a crackpot affects whether or not they get their ideas published, does it?
Not my opinion specifically. But you don't publish Ken Ham in Evolution & Development. And you don't publish Gene Ray in reviews of modern physics, not because I think they're crackpots, but because crackpots would never clear peer review.
Pal-review is not a guarantee of general correctness. It's a guarantee of political correctness.
Peer review certainly doesn't guarantee correctness. Most papers are refuted within 5 years. That's why established science is based on consensus, not upon a single peer reviewed paper.
Science isn't always right, it merely always corrects it's results eventually.
Do "denialists" have a theory?
Yep. A grand conspiracy theory whereby all the world's climate scientists are perpetrating a fraud, and somehow everyone throughout the globe, and all incoming students are inducted.
They're total crackpots.
Do "denialists" get much research grant funding?
No, denialists aren't scientists. They're PR professionals. They get plenty of PR funding though.
Does they even get published?
Yes, they're well over-published. This is what PR is all about these days. What they're not is peer-reviewed. This is because they're crackpots.
I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.
Somebody has.
WTF?
Climate change deniers?
FFS. SIGH
re: You mean like no warming in 17.5 years?
There has been plenty of warming in the last 17.5 years. The warming of the surface air temperature has been marginal, (but not statistically significantly "no warming" as you appear to be claiming.) The best you can correctly and scientifically say, is that there might be a reduction in the rate of warming of the surface air temperature.
The oceans have warmed. As can be seen from the direct measurements, if you're into science, but if you're not, it's clear and obvious from sea level rise which is primarily thermal expansion.
Ice sheets have lost mass.
re: They make models that show doom, and don't match up with reality.
No they don't. They make models that investigate the climate.
Some aspects match with reality well. Some aspects require finer modelling. (And there are probably some physical processes that are not fully understood either, especially with respect to cloud formation).
Sure, all (I think) models have a double-Intertropical Convergence Zone. That doesn't mean that they aren't useful. Quite the opposite. The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny...". And so work on the DICZ progresses. Science advances. We learn more stuff.
Claiming "Models don't match reality! All this science must therefore be rubbish!" is the call of the Luddites. Einstein didn't overthrow Newton, he built upon his work, and Newton did upon the giants upon whose shoulders he stood. This is how science works.
re: Then they redo the models to match the previous few years and again show doom.
I'll keep this response more concise: Bullshit.
re: Sorry you don't understand this and believe their lies while calling those who tell the truth liars.
Really? That's your claim? The scientists are lying to you?
FFS, mate, think about that for a while and get back to me on how likely it could be.
I think that the concern of the Royal Society is that we are past a couple of really nasty tipping points: The loss of the northern summer sea ice and the loss of the west antarctic ice sheet. We may have crossed some other lines to do with the Indian monsoon, the African monsoon, the savannahization of the amazon rainforest and the collapse of the boreal forests.
No one wants to do geoengineering, except those with an interest in the fossil fuel industry. But the time to reduce emissions was 20 years ago, and while reductions now will make for savings, the consequences of what we have already done are likely horrific in terms of biodiveristy and displacement and starvation of vulnerable peoples.
So it needs to be on the table. Open and transparent is very important, but I think that there'll be plenty of interest in making sure that concerns are considered.
And the inertia will be all towards caution in this case, (again barring people with an interest in the fossil fuel industry). Geo-engineering may have benefits for the entire world if it ameliorates AGW, but it also has to be funded.
That when he heard his brother and wife had had their fifth child he sent a telegram that went: Congratulations Stop
Don't be mistaken by the name of Michael Crichton books. Those big dinosaurs were Cretaceous.
Your point still stands that there wasn't more oxygen in the atmosphere, but by the end it was about the same
taking measurements from inaccurate thermometers and scant coverage from over a century ago, and claiming we know global average temperatures in the 19th century is beyond ludicrous.
The coverage was a lot smaller than today's but it was so much cooler then, that the error is less than the change.
No amount of massaging of data can make credible comparison to today's grid of sensors.
Yes it can. It's just that the error bars are larger back then.
Neither 'science' nor 'Christianity' nor 'creationism' can prove any sort of causality between the beginning of the universe and anything else.
Of those, science grows. (So long as the Buddhists don't burn your library). With each passing generation more and more of the universe is understood.
I think "science" probably can prove some sort of causality between the beginning of the universe and other things. Given time.
Yep. From my link:
Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000. With this information, the company offered her $800.
It's just that the court also awarded compensation for less tangible costs, and valued it at $200,000, of which they McD's was judged responsible for 160,000, the other $40,000 being the proportion that was Liebeck's own fault for spilling of coffee on herself.
They also awarded a lot of punitive damages. I'm not sure how much if any of those were to be awarded to Liebeck. It might not have even been decided, because both parties appealed, and then settled out of court.
Yeah, at least twice as idiotic as those people who think "solar power" is real.
Many times more. The most mediocre of engineers wouldn't fall for the crap on that site.
Quite.
The lady's labia melted to her thigh.
It was not a frivolous law suit.
He's supporting and advertising a free energy source. It's idiotic.
And he posts under pseudonyms as his own biggest fan. He's probably the GGP.
The suggestion that he's been right at some point when telling the engineers of the world that they're doing it wrong is laughable. The guy's got no sense of reality. Perpetual motion refutes consistently observed properties of the universe. Engineers know this.
You didn't follow his Electricity from air stuff then?
I'm familiar with him looking like a gargantuan idiot and pathetic narcissist, but not being right about a paradigm shift in engineering. Do you have an example?