And yet, somehow, I've never heard of them before. (And most fortune 500 firms have so many disparate sites, it's unsurprising that any given large area might have captured 20 offices).
I'm pretty sure it's actually an alternative, in that there are clearly people who believe it rather than believing the science. Legitimate would depend on your precise choice of definition for that word. Scientific, though, is clearly disqualified.
The direct action is obviously negative, the question is whether the indirect incentive more than outweighs that negative. One could argue, for example, that perhaps facebook wouldn't exist if they didn't think this was possible, and facebook is so awesome it outweighs the cost. I wouldn't argue that, but someone could.
Which seems entirely reasonable. I don't use any websites subject to unilaterally modifiable TOS without reading those TOS every single time, and neither should anyone else.
The autism studies specifically show you can get a 2 sd difference. The point of those is that the further down the scale you are, the more dramatic the effect of intervention. It applies also to kids with retardation, which is defined by the results of the iq test itself!
Coming further up the scale, we see that 'normal' kids can have their scores changed by more than the black/white IQ difference by truly trivial intervention (the candy experiment). The point being that white kids, who tend to get even larger educational intervention than that early in life, aren't even scoring as much more as they should!
And so on. The list goes on and on really, there are literally hundreds of studies on IQ and how to improve it. IQ scores as a metric of pure cognitive ability divorced from education is just fundamentally debunked, and actually has been for some time.
Nope, I meant what I said. That's why IQ tests are now widely understood to test something other than IQ as you defined it. It just isn't native intelligence, it's a highly trainable attribute that the existing tests test. Whether or not IQ exists is even up for debate, since no one has been able to contrive a test of it.
That's how it's defined, but every major IQ test can be shifted by 2+ SD with education. IQ testing just doesn't test what it aims to. That's a flaw of the test, not necessarily of the concept.
The lower IQ is true. But IQ is mostly based on educational opportunity, so it makes the case for better spending on inner city schools.
The rates of criminality is unclear. It could be true, but the evidence is so poor no one really knows. Whites might actually be worse.
And if all you care about is maximizing your short term safety, you are less likely to be killed if you don't go into a neighborhood dominated by the other skin color.
Only if you believe that their representation in prison is proportional to their criminality. And if you do believe that, you have some reading to do about the justice system.
People with a proper understanding of ethics understand that there is an ethical hierarchy. You can take any unethical action which satisfies a higher element of the hierarchy, and consider it ethical. Usually feeding your family and yourself is ranked quite highly. Thus, you may ethically steal to feed your family, etc.
I'd have to disagree on the ethics. When you are deciding between introducing bugs and feeding your family, feeding your family is the ethical choice. Better if you can avoid it, but ethical if you have to.
Slashdot Mirror
He's tired of being unable to beat the man, so he's going to construct his own company in which it will be impossible for him to lose.
And yet, somehow, I've never heard of them before.
(And most fortune 500 firms have so many disparate sites, it's unsurprising that any given large area might have captured 20 offices).
Tolerance has begun to develop among the population. So marketers are looking for new ways into the brain.
If you've ever had the misfortune of interviewing anyone from that area of the country for a job ... it's quite depressing.
I'm pretty sure it's actually an alternative, in that there are clearly people who believe it rather than believing the science.
Legitimate would depend on your precise choice of definition for that word.
Scientific, though, is clearly disqualified.
Slashdot is a US-oriented site. It's in the FAQ.
Situational ethics are the only kind. If you don't believe this, please answer the question:
Right, or wrong?
If you have to ask: what? Then you are a proponent of situation ethics.
The direct action is obviously negative, the question is whether the indirect incentive more than outweighs that negative. One could argue, for example, that perhaps facebook wouldn't exist if they didn't think this was possible, and facebook is so awesome it outweighs the cost. I wouldn't argue that, but someone could.
Which seems entirely reasonable. I don't use any websites subject to unilaterally modifiable TOS without reading those TOS every single time, and neither should anyone else.
If it weren't unconscionable or illegal (and in this case both), yes.
The autism studies specifically show you can get a 2 sd difference. The point of those is that the further down the scale you are, the more dramatic the effect of intervention. It applies also to kids with retardation, which is defined by the results of the iq test itself!
Coming further up the scale, we see that 'normal' kids can have their scores changed by more than the black/white IQ difference by truly trivial intervention (the candy experiment). The point being that white kids, who tend to get even larger educational intervention than that early in life, aren't even scoring as much more as they should!
Here are a handful, there are lots:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750946710000498
http://bmo.sagepub.com/content/31/3/264.short
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1985.tb01641.x/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1310767/
And so on. The list goes on and on really, there are literally hundreds of studies on IQ and how to improve it. IQ scores as a metric of pure cognitive ability divorced from education is just fundamentally debunked, and actually has been for some time.
Nope, I meant what I said. That's why IQ tests are now widely understood to test something other than IQ as you defined it. It just isn't native intelligence, it's a highly trainable attribute that the existing tests test. Whether or not IQ exists is even up for debate, since no one has been able to contrive a test of it.
That's how it's defined, but every major IQ test can be shifted by 2+ SD with education. IQ testing just doesn't test what it aims to. That's a flaw of the test, not necessarily of the concept.
Well, I had only intended my response as a funny, but your reply is cleverer by half, and I'm afraid you'll make people take my post seriously!
As if the north ever produced any architecture worth remembering, much less building an antiquing organization around.
I have a feeling you may have been victimized because of your choice of dress. Who wears shirt and tie to a soccer game?
The lower IQ is true. But IQ is mostly based on educational opportunity, so it makes the case for better spending on inner city schools.
The rates of criminality is unclear. It could be true, but the evidence is so poor no one really knows. Whites might actually be worse.
And if all you care about is maximizing your short term safety, you are less likely to be killed if you don't go into a neighborhood dominated by the other skin color.
I can assure you that that stuff gets lots of news coverage in palestine.
Only if you believe that their representation in prison is proportional to their criminality. And if you do believe that, you have some reading to do about the justice system.
It was pretty deliberately meant as an insult to those whose framing of ethics resolves to 'whatever the bible says'. But maybe it was too subtle.
That's what I said. Feeding your family is the ethical choice. Maybe you meant to disagree with someone else?
People with a proper understanding of ethics understand that there is an ethical hierarchy. You can take any unethical action which satisfies a higher element of the hierarchy, and consider it ethical. Usually feeding your family and yourself is ranked quite highly. Thus, you may ethically steal to feed your family, etc.
Not sure what they'd sue for. Like all software, the license will no doubt include an anti-guarantee of fitness.
I'd have to disagree on the ethics. When you are deciding between introducing bugs and feeding your family, feeding your family is the ethical choice. Better if you can avoid it, but ethical if you have to.