There is a big difference in believing it is reasonable information to base a decision on and believing that everybody should be able to take the information into account for every vote.
Sure, if enough people feel that way, it suggests that disclosing your medical records is a reasonable step to take if you are running for office, but it is a whole long ways from requiring it.
For your comparison with an alternative metric to mean anything, you have to use the alternative metric to find the best athletes. It has nothing to do with subjectivity or arguable definitions. My complaint is that you haven't done this, you have used traditional metrics to find athletes and then compared the athletes you found using the alternative metric.
Comparing some men (that you picked using traditional metrics) to some women (that you also picked with traditional metrics) says nothing about comparing men to women with an alternative metric (because the traditional metric may not pick the athletes that perform best using the alternative metric). I fear you have no interest in understanding this.
Forgive my confusion, but this is the part of the original message that you quoted earlier:
there is no case where the world's best female athlete can beat the world's best male athlete at any physical sport
I guess thinking that comparing the best athletes requires actually bothering to find the best athletes (I would think any reasonable person would do this by considering all athletes) is just stupidity on my part...
You misunderstand. Your metric doesn't work unless you use it to find the best man and woman. Using some other metric to find your man and woman and then using your metric to compare them is meaningless.
Since you haven't applied your metrics to a wide range of athletes and *then* compared the best performers, you haven't compared the relative performance of men and women, you have compared the relative performance of some men and some women, which doesn't mean a whole lot towards the comparison of men and women.
I don't think the original post was that a woman can never beat a man. Any dedicated amateur lady athlete is going to beat a huge chunk of all men in all sorts of events. The original post was that the best women don't beat the best men. Cherry picking your comparison (because you aren't necessarily using the best man and woman according to the manufactured metric) is exactly what you did and doesn't show anything about relative peak performance.
You haven't shown several cases. You can't judge 'fastest' by times and then only compare those people using some other metric, you have to compute your other metric for a wide range of top performers and then compare the best marks of the other metric. I don't see where you have done that.
Maybe women swimmers are faster for their size, but you haven't done anything other than point out that one woman swimmer is faster than one male swimmer if you compare their speeds in units of their heights. That's meaningless. I'm not excited enough about it to track down the heights of male swimmers, but again, there are several to choose from (and it isn't even clear that it makes sense to compare their performances in that way).
I take it you are interested in facts that contradict the point you are trying to make? Or is there some obvious answer to my other post that I am missing?
The other post, where I point out a male runner who is faster by the clock than Flo-Jo and also runs 5.82 times his height every second:
Yeah, I don't think they have the pricing power for the merger to be worrisome. A lot of people don't think they are even worth $12 a month, so they aren't exactly go to attract a bunch of customers by increasing the prices.
Just add a privacy light to browsers. "When that thing is on, your communications are between you and whoever you are communicating with, when it isn't on, anybody can see them". Then compare it to a postcard and a letter in an envelope.
There are dozens of men that have bested Flo-jo's time. Surely some of them are not as tall as Mr. Burrell. Investigate Maurice Greene, he is a 5.82 on your fun scale of fun.
Laugh tracks are usually awful. Some books might be more interesting if they were dryly explained one line at a time, but I'm pretty sure it would be an awful way to read the majority of books.
At that rate, I'm surprised that you can only come up with a dozen or so names for writing implements; a red crayon, a blue crayon, a big pencil, a little pencil, with a needle in blood, charcoal, with a stick in the sand, skywriting, with a laser, with a computer, etc...
To some point (8th gradish), I'm all for screwing the students who get it to the benefit of the ones who don't. What you are suggesting would make widen the division between students who are on pace and students who are off pace, which isn't wholly bad (but probably not a good goal to work towards if there is a commitment to universal education).
What I am suggesting would waste less of everybody's time(good students would move faster, bad students would spend more time learning and less time wondering, and teachers would spend more time teaching), if there was some easy way to pay for it.
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more girls that are bitchy to other girls than there are boys that beat and murder girls (or even physically intimidate them, if that was somewhere in your fountain of blather).
If you don't understand why 10 x 10 = 100, you aren't going to understand what 10y or y^2 mean, and you aren't going to have the skills to decide how to manipulate an equation.
The focus on repetitive arithmetic should end when the student has sufficiently demonstrated that they understand the arithmetic and are not simply doing it by rote, not at some arbitrary age/grade cutoff.
Slashdot Mirror
You have just described a world that:
A. Has fembots.
B. Is horrible.
Well played.
There is a big difference in believing it is reasonable information to base a decision on and believing that everybody should be able to take the information into account for every vote.
Sure, if enough people feel that way, it suggests that disclosing your medical records is a reasonable step to take if you are running for office, but it is a whole long ways from requiring it.
Out of curiosity, what does IBM have to do with this? I mean, why them in particular?
I think maybe he would suggest that people are free to not vote for a candidate based on their refusal to share their medical records.
For your comparison with an alternative metric to mean anything, you have to use the alternative metric to find the best athletes. It has nothing to do with subjectivity or arguable definitions. My complaint is that you haven't done this, you have used traditional metrics to find athletes and then compared the athletes you found using the alternative metric.
Comparing some men (that you picked using traditional metrics) to some women (that you also picked with traditional metrics) says nothing about comparing men to women with an alternative metric (because the traditional metric may not pick the athletes that perform best using the alternative metric). I fear you have no interest in understanding this.
Forgive my confusion, but this is the part of the original message that you quoted earlier:
there is no case where the world's best female athlete can beat the world's best male athlete at any physical sport
I guess thinking that comparing the best athletes requires actually bothering to find the best athletes (I would think any reasonable person would do this by considering all athletes) is just stupidity on my part...
You misunderstand. Your metric doesn't work unless you use it to find the best man and woman. Using some other metric to find your man and woman and then using your metric to compare them is meaningless.
Since you haven't applied your metrics to a wide range of athletes and *then* compared the best performers, you haven't compared the relative performance of men and women, you have compared the relative performance of some men and some women, which doesn't mean a whole lot towards the comparison of men and women.
I don't think the original post was that a woman can never beat a man. Any dedicated amateur lady athlete is going to beat a huge chunk of all men in all sorts of events. The original post was that the best women don't beat the best men. Cherry picking your comparison (because you aren't necessarily using the best man and woman according to the manufactured metric) is exactly what you did and doesn't show anything about relative peak performance.
If you read the text you quoted, you will see that it isn't trying to be justification.
It strikes me as childish. Somebody should give them some Kool-Aid or something.
I agree:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=625987&cid=24341157
You haven't shown several cases. You can't judge 'fastest' by times and then only compare those people using some other metric, you have to compute your other metric for a wide range of top performers and then compare the best marks of the other metric. I don't see where you have done that.
Maybe women swimmers are faster for their size, but you haven't done anything other than point out that one woman swimmer is faster than one male swimmer if you compare their speeds in units of their heights. That's meaningless. I'm not excited enough about it to track down the heights of male swimmers, but again, there are several to choose from (and it isn't even clear that it makes sense to compare their performances in that way).
I take it you are interested in facts that contradict the point you are trying to make? Or is there some obvious answer to my other post that I am missing?
The other post, where I point out a male runner who is faster by the clock than Flo-Jo and also runs 5.82 times his height every second:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=625961&cid=24344411
Are you sure you understand what a tree is? Maybe you have only seen pictures of them in books?
Yeah, I don't think they have the pricing power for the merger to be worrisome. A lot of people don't think they are even worth $12 a month, so they aren't exactly go to attract a bunch of customers by increasing the prices.
FCC licensing, enormous capital costs, enormous startup costs (you have to get people to buy your special receiver), etc.
Just add a privacy light to browsers. "When that thing is on, your communications are between you and whoever you are communicating with, when it isn't on, anybody can see them". Then compare it to a postcard and a letter in an envelope.
There are dozens of men that have bested Flo-jo's time. Surely some of them are not as tall as Mr. Burrell. Investigate Maurice Greene, he is a 5.82 on your fun scale of fun.
Good to see that you are willing to lower yourself to the level of sniping. Someday you may even lower yourself to the level of saying what you mean.
Laugh tracks are usually awful. Some books might be more interesting if they were dryly explained one line at a time, but I'm pretty sure it would be an awful way to read the majority of books.
I'm only a little upset that the moderator apparently had no idea I was being sarcastic. The worst kind of sarcasm: failed.
At that rate, I'm surprised that you can only come up with a dozen or so names for writing implements; a red crayon, a blue crayon, a big pencil, a little pencil, with a needle in blood, charcoal, with a stick in the sand, skywriting, with a laser, with a computer, etc...
To some point (8th gradish), I'm all for screwing the students who get it to the benefit of the ones who don't. What you are suggesting would make widen the division between students who are on pace and students who are off pace, which isn't wholly bad (but probably not a good goal to work towards if there is a commitment to universal education).
What I am suggesting would waste less of everybody's time(good students would move faster, bad students would spend more time learning and less time wondering, and teachers would spend more time teaching), if there was some easy way to pay for it.
What exactly is your point?
I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more girls that are bitchy to other girls than there are boys that beat and murder girls (or even physically intimidate them, if that was somewhere in your fountain of blather).
If you don't understand why 10 x 10 = 100, you aren't going to understand what 10y or y^2 mean, and you aren't going to have the skills to decide how to manipulate an equation.
The focus on repetitive arithmetic should end when the student has sufficiently demonstrated that they understand the arithmetic and are not simply doing it by rote, not at some arbitrary age/grade cutoff.