Affairs are probably illegal in most states in the U.S. If not all.
Also bullshit. Just a few states still have these laws on the books.
Furthermore, such laws are plainly totalitarian, they misplace responsibility, they view a marriage as little more than a property deed, and they elevate particular religions to sources of law. No small government conservative, nor any other supporter of a free society, could possibly support such a law. The only reason they haven't been declared unconstitutional is that no relevant case has yet reached the Supreme Court.
One NC attorney, quoted in the Wiki, says it quite well:
One North Carolina divorce attorney has written: "Adultery is not uncommon, but an alienation-of-affection case just polarizes everyone and devastates everything in its path including the children and both spouses....The world has changed. Women are no longer viewed as property. Alienation-of-affection is something that dates way, way back, and if there was ever a law that needed to be removed, this is it."
Well, you got burglarized, but that doesn't automatically mean the burglars get away with it. Insurance will still pay, the police will still make arrests, and if you're lucky, you might even recover your stolen items. So, you're not really being punished.
Obviously this AC has never been the victim of a serious crime.
It may be "junk" in the sense that we can't currently ascribe particular functions to many such sequence elements, but it's also "not junk" in the sense that it's energetically expensive presence is at least not selected against (and might be favorable).
In my opinion, regardless of whether or not the sequences in question have specific functions, the term "junk DNA" is misleading and dismissive of the history of biological science.
Usually we'd call no Odd Job in Goldeneye. He was much more imba in the Gamecube one, though, where he would actually spawn with the bladed hat which had a nasty tendency to curve towards its targets.
I know a lot of people on here are primarily PC gamers as opposed to console, I see the console hate in enough posts, but how dense do you need to be to not understand that playing in the same room with your friends is a different experience than talking to them on a headset?
I'm basically a PC-only gamer at this point, but playing with friends in-person is still way more fun. We squeeze multiple PCs onto one desk to play Starcraft team games and various FPS games, plus stuff like Rocket League (which actually has split-screen multiplayer). Not to mention all the emulated console games you can play on PC with a couple of Xbox 360 controllers...
I think the obvious value proposition is for the developer/manufacturer: if you want to play with a friend, they need to buy another console and another game copy. In-person co-op (even vs.) just represents lost sales to them.
Some of the most fun I've had playing video games was sitting on the couch with three other friends and playing Goldeneye, Mario Kart 64, Super Smash Bros, Halo, Timespliters, Fusion Frenzy... etc.
Me too...if you had a Gameshark you could even play co-op in Goldeneye, which was great.
It was completely obvious to me what the AC meant.
Of course the meaning was obvious. The AC was simply expressing ignorance about speech codes in the United States. That doesn't save the comment from a) being bullshit and b) not constituting an argument.
there's still a big damn difference between being suspended and being charged with a crime
Of course, but right in TFS the police chief of that town is quoted as making the (legally ignorant and unamerican) claim that the tweet was a felony, and thus implicitly threatening prosecution.
Focusing on the idea that this lawsuit is about a "two word tweet" is ridiculous and dishonest. This lawsuit is about the stunning and life-altering overreaction of district officials as well as the legally ignorant and intensely unamerican attitude of the police
I believe my careless use of the term "inherently biological" is at fault in creating a misunderstanding. I did not mean to deny that there are physical/chemical differences between male and female brains. Dualism is false, and to say that men and women have different behavior is to say that there are such physical differences. If culture affects behavior, then culture necessarily affects brain structure and neurochemistry.
What was under discussion previously in this thread was that such differences are inherent, that is, determined by the genetic differences between men and women. At least, that is the necessary implication if these differences are to justify institutionalizing gender imbalances within particular fields. That's why I previously wrote that fMRI studies for example only tell us how people differ, not why. The "why" is a much more difficult question to answer, requiring at least a number of additional cross-cultural and genetic experiments.
I did read the links you posted. While they are quite interesting, none of them provide any evidence that what they discover is inherent to men and women. If men are apparently better at spatial reasoning, or women are apparently better at social tasks, the skeptic should look to how male and female children are encouraged to play, and how they are socialized. Indeed, the first article you posted specifically notes that there were few gender differences earlier in development.
Gender differences in broad characteristics such as "competitiveness" have been shown to be entirely cultural (a fMRI study comparing Maasai and Khasi men and women would be fascinating), and it is the skeptical position that even more complex traits such as skill-levels and proclivities are likely cultural as well. Again, differences in any such characteristics necessarily imply measurable physiochemical differences as well.
But why is the reality that men outnumber women in tech related positions a problem? Conversely, why is the reality that women outnumber men in Accounting/Auditing not a problem?
there is no evidence that women are somehow culturally discouraged from participating in math or science these days.
Those quotes are from the parent to which I initially responded. The first is a standard non-sequitur: women are not treated purely according to their ability in STEM. That's the real problem, not the gender gap (although I suspect there is a connection). The second is merely absurd in the face of the ongoing portrayal of STEM in our culture's media, let alone what one would see in carefully observations of social interaction between STEM workers (in academia or industry).
You didn't get it. When you take studies about differences in brain structure and claim it supports a the notion that a specific apparent behavioral different is inherently biological, that is vague handwaving.
Further, behavioral studies which crucially fail to control for culture don't actually say anything other than how people behave, as opposed to why.
The interesting thing here, demonstrated in the OP's responses, is that the underlying motivation is the belief that women don't face obstacles in STEM. If you work in STEM and aren't a complete fool, it is beyond obvious that women do indeed face severe obstacles.
Do you understand the difference between a press release and a peer reviewed article?
tell me about vague handwaving.
OK, sure. When you take a study about "differences in connectivity" in the brain, and claim it has established implications for behavior, that is vague handwaving. What fMRI studies show about brain structure is irrelevant to the outcome of behavioral studies on whole people.
How does "God forbid" - a common idiom
Indeed, and in this case you used it to sarcastically express your unhappiness that your preferred alternative wasn't being argued. You should own it instead of backpedaling.
plenty of evidence of biological differences in the brains of men and women, and there are strong correlations between these differences and observed strengths/weaknesses of the sexes relative to one another.
Vaague handwaving over common-sense notions isn't systematic evidence.
If you read my statement and concluded that I somehow prefer a biological explanation to a cultural one
"God forbid" that figures of speech imply meaning.
there is no evidence that women are somehow culturally discouraged from participating in math or science these days.
Whether this statement is an expression of your anecdotal experience or just willful blindness is impossible to say.
There is no evidence that biology has anything to do with the proclivities of the genders for computer science. There is lots of evidence that many gender differences which are popularly ascribed to biology are in fact cultural, for example competitiveness.
Your anecdotes and personal preferences for what might be true just aren't as convincing as systematically gathered evidence.
It would also chill speech by anyone who's physical safety is protected by anonymity. A homosexual teenager of disapproving parents or a stalking victim should be able to benefit from online speech as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, mod parent up.
alienation of affection, which is punishable with jail time.
Bullshit. Even in NC, alienation of affection is a civil matter.
Affairs are probably illegal in most states in the U.S. If not all.
Also bullshit. Just a few states still have these laws on the books.
Furthermore, such laws are plainly totalitarian, they misplace responsibility, they view a marriage as little more than a property deed, and they elevate particular religions to sources of law. No small government conservative, nor any other supporter of a free society, could possibly support such a law. The only reason they haven't been declared unconstitutional is that no relevant case has yet reached the Supreme Court.
One NC attorney, quoted in the Wiki, says it quite well:
One North Carolina divorce attorney has written: "Adultery is not uncommon, but an alienation-of-affection case just polarizes everyone and devastates everything in its path including the children and both spouses....The world has changed. Women are no longer viewed as property. Alienation-of-affection is something that dates way, way back, and if there was ever a law that needed to be removed, this is it."
Well, you got burglarized, but that doesn't automatically mean the burglars get away with it. Insurance will still pay, the police will still make arrests, and if you're lucky, you might even recover your stolen items. So, you're not really being punished.
Obviously this AC has never been the victim of a serious crime.
Junk DNA is junk DNA.
It may be "junk" in the sense that we can't currently ascribe particular functions to many such sequence elements, but it's also "not junk" in the sense that it's energetically expensive presence is at least not selected against (and might be favorable).
In my opinion, regardless of whether or not the sequences in question have specific functions, the term "junk DNA" is misleading and dismissive of the history of biological science.
Usually we'd call no Odd Job in Goldeneye. He was much more imba in the Gamecube one, though, where he would actually spawn with the bladed hat which had a nasty tendency to curve towards its targets.
It's a plot instigated by the television/monitor manufacturers to sell more hardware.
I think there is a large grain of truth to this, though I think the conspirators are the console and game developers more than the TV manufacturers.
I forgot to also mention that in-person coordination is a huge advantage in a lot of competitive games, e.g. Starcraft, LoL, team FPS, CFS, etc.
I know a lot of people on here are primarily PC gamers as opposed to console, I see the console hate in enough posts, but how dense do you need to be to not understand that playing in the same room with your friends is a different experience than talking to them on a headset?
I'm basically a PC-only gamer at this point, but playing with friends in-person is still way more fun. We squeeze multiple PCs onto one desk to play Starcraft team games and various FPS games, plus stuff like Rocket League (which actually has split-screen multiplayer). Not to mention all the emulated console games you can play on PC with a couple of Xbox 360 controllers...
The value proposition was obvious
I think the obvious value proposition is for the developer/manufacturer: if you want to play with a friend, they need to buy another console and another game copy. In-person co-op (even vs.) just represents lost sales to them.
Some of the most fun I've had playing video games was sitting on the couch with three other friends and playing Goldeneye, Mario Kart 64, Super Smash Bros, Halo, Timespliters, Fusion Frenzy... etc.
Me too...if you had a Gameshark you could even play co-op in Goldeneye, which was great.
buying two consoles and two copies of the game.
That's the real reason co-op was removed.
Or do you think this case is different from the usual bullshit students spout "because internet?"
Hey, it works in patent applications.
There are well established exceptions to free speech when it deals with inciting violence or slandering others.
And yet, the primary case establishing such a precedent was pure suppression of political speech.
until May of this year Minnesota had a criminal defamation law.
True, but it was only a misdemeanor.
It was completely obvious to me what the AC meant.
Of course the meaning was obvious. The AC was simply expressing ignorance about speech codes in the United States. That doesn't save the comment from a) being bullshit and b) not constituting an argument.
there's still a big damn difference between being suspended and being charged with a crime
Of course, but right in TFS the police chief of that town is quoted as making the (legally ignorant and unamerican) claim that the tweet was a felony, and thus implicitly threatening prosecution.
Focusing on the idea that this lawsuit is about a "two word tweet" is ridiculous and dishonest. This lawsuit is about the stunning and life-altering overreaction of district officials as well as the legally ignorant and intensely unamerican attitude of the police
FTFY.
I didn't realize the men's rights movement had regressed to Cartesian dualism, thanks for enlightening me.
I believe my careless use of the term "inherently biological" is at fault in creating a misunderstanding. I did not mean to deny that there are physical/chemical differences between male and female brains. Dualism is false, and to say that men and women have different behavior is to say that there are such physical differences. If culture affects behavior, then culture necessarily affects brain structure and neurochemistry.
What was under discussion previously in this thread was that such differences are inherent, that is, determined by the genetic differences between men and women. At least, that is the necessary implication if these differences are to justify institutionalizing gender imbalances within particular fields. That's why I previously wrote that fMRI studies for example only tell us how people differ, not why. The "why" is a much more difficult question to answer, requiring at least a number of additional cross-cultural and genetic experiments.
I did read the links you posted. While they are quite interesting, none of them provide any evidence that what they discover is inherent to men and women. If men are apparently better at spatial reasoning, or women are apparently better at social tasks, the skeptic should look to how male and female children are encouraged to play, and how they are socialized. Indeed, the first article you posted specifically notes that there were few gender differences earlier in development.
Gender differences in broad characteristics such as "competitiveness" have been shown to be entirely cultural (a fMRI study comparing Maasai and Khasi men and women would be fascinating), and it is the skeptical position that even more complex traits such as skill-levels and proclivities are likely cultural as well. Again, differences in any such characteristics necessarily imply measurable physiochemical differences as well.
But why is the reality that men outnumber women in tech related positions a problem? Conversely, why is the reality that women outnumber men in Accounting/Auditing not a problem?
there is no evidence that women are somehow culturally discouraged from participating in math or science these days.
Those quotes are from the parent to which I initially responded. The first is a standard non-sequitur: women are not treated purely according to their ability in STEM. That's the real problem, not the gender gap (although I suspect there is a connection). The second is merely absurd in the face of the ongoing portrayal of STEM in our culture's media, let alone what one would see in carefully observations of social interaction between STEM workers (in academia or industry).
You didn't get it. When you take studies about differences in brain structure and claim it supports a the notion that a specific apparent behavioral different is inherently biological, that is vague handwaving.
Further, behavioral studies which crucially fail to control for culture don't actually say anything other than how people behave, as opposed to why.
The interesting thing here, demonstrated in the OP's responses, is that the underlying motivation is the belief that women don't face obstacles in STEM. If you work in STEM and aren't a complete fool, it is beyond obvious that women do indeed face severe obstacles.
Why don't you take a look at this
Do you understand the difference between a press release and a peer reviewed article?
tell me about vague handwaving.
OK, sure. When you take a study about "differences in connectivity" in the brain, and claim it has established implications for behavior, that is vague handwaving. What fMRI studies show about brain structure is irrelevant to the outcome of behavioral studies on whole people.
How does "God forbid" - a common idiom
Indeed, and in this case you used it to sarcastically express your unhappiness that your preferred alternative wasn't being argued. You should own it instead of backpedaling.
plenty of evidence of biological differences in the brains of men and women, and there are strong correlations between these differences and observed strengths/weaknesses of the sexes relative to one another.
Vaague handwaving over common-sense notions isn't systematic evidence.
If you read my statement and concluded that I somehow prefer a biological explanation to a cultural one
"God forbid" that figures of speech imply meaning.
there is no evidence that women are somehow culturally discouraged from participating in math or science these days.
Whether this statement is an expression of your anecdotal experience or just willful blindness is impossible to say.
God forbid biology has anything to do with it.
There is no evidence that biology has anything to do with the proclivities of the genders for computer science. There is lots of evidence that many gender differences which are popularly ascribed to biology are in fact cultural, for example competitiveness.
Your anecdotes and personal preferences for what might be true just aren't as convincing as systematically gathered evidence.
It would also chill speech by anyone who's physical safety is protected by anonymity. A homosexual teenager of disapproving parents or a stalking victim should be able to benefit from online speech as well.
That's one good thing that comes from patents. Public disclosure of the ideas.
Or, as in this case, mostly pointless obfuscation of ideas previously disclosed by other, less greedy, people.
Oh, you're right. The first link makes that clear.