As to me stating my opinion, it isn't my opinion. He has been caught repeatedly lifting material from other people as well as using bogus attributions.
Whether this is due to laziness, time constraints, or a general lack of ethics is debatable. But that is a fact.
As to me using that to frame my whole discussion, I didn't.
That's you lying again. I instead stated my impression of the person and then moved on to discuss the issue without referencing him again.
That's a fact. I know you don't like facts. But the Sun doesn't care if you don't like it... it is still going to rise tomorrow in the east and set in the west... and you'll still be full of shit.
You are just addicted to logical fallacies apparently...
Nope. Case in point: I don't need to know why someone says "all men are smelly violent thugs who will rape women given the opportunity" to know that they're a bigoted fool. False equivalency. You have evidence of behavior but not attitudes. Your example also was giving REASONS for why someone should be avoided while the study included no reasons at all. A reason is a why.
Your study includes none of that.
A better example would be:
""we have evidence that women will cross the street statistically in when groups of men approach.""
That includes no why or reasoning. We can infer it but those inferences will be suppositions and not conclusive.
What is more, my example like the article includes no context. For example, in my study what is the significance of the danger in the neighborhood itself? Maybe in my study, what is going on is that women do that in bad neighborhoods but not good neighborhoods. And simply because it happens in bad neighborhoods, if you combine the two data sets, the average is still that women tend to do that.
In this way, you'd have misrepresented the data by implying that the casual factor is that it is men and not that it is men in a bad neighborhood.
Statistics are complicated and really most people don't have the logical discipline to be able to deal with them. People tend to mistake their biases and assumptions for being causal evidence. It doesn't work that way.
You're reading more into the data than is actually there.
As to you not speaking to motivations, then you can't cite bias or prejudice. That is a why.
As to reasons being of cold comfort, the reasons would give you the ability to address any problem if it exists at all. Absent reasons you don't know why it is happening and you don't know how to fix it. You just have some statistics. Absent the why you can't criticize or point to this as being evidence of prejudice.
The why is quite important, I am afraid. You need it to morally and ethically judge the issue.
You are attempting to use this study to make a moral and ethical point. You can't do that without the "why".
As to plenty of women disagreeing with universal suffrage, the majority of MEN agreed with it or women wouldn't have it today.
We're talking about statistics. Statistical outliers are not going to help you because we're talking about averages. You can't cite the possibility that some small portion of women might be biased against women when the study was showing that the women are JUST as likely as the men to do it and that they were doing it with some consistency.
You're not rational enough to have this discussion. You need to be much more anal and literal with your data... or you really can't delve into statistics to this degree. I know that comes off as insulting and that isn't my intention. The issue is that you're not taking the data seriously enough or limiting your conclusions to the scope of the data itself. If you don't do that then you start spewing bullshit.
I'm regret that this has become hostile and personal and that you're going to feel badly towards me here after. That was not my intention and I regret the inevitability of it.
I ask only this going forward... consider what the data actually is LITERALLY saying and process it literally. I'm struggling for examples to express the problem. It is sort of like when you play minesweeper or sodoku and you mistake a high probability of something for conclusive proof of it. It works out most of the time but the likelihood of something is not evidence of it. And every so often when you just run on those hunches and assumptions you screw yourself because it turned out the assumption was wrong.
Keep in mind, I don't want anyone to be discriminated against. I believe in the equality of the sexes and if and when there are problems there, I think we should look into them so we can address those problems.
Actually, you take me far more seriously than I take either you or myself COMBINED. You are literally stalking me on this forum in your AC sockpuppet in a pathetic attempt to eek out some revenge for getting your underwear rhetorically wedged so hard your gender flipped.
You're never going to win against me. I've more intelligence, more education, and more experience... you're like some savage in a canoe challenging a space ship. You're so fucking far out of your league you literally give me the giggles every time you make another pathetic attempt to redeem yourself.
The reason for their behaviour is interesting, but I don't know what it is
And checkmate.
You don't know the reason for the behavior. And absent a "why" you can't cite bigotry or prejudice.
The "why" is critical. And without that you can't speak to the motivations of anyone making any of those choices.
The allegation is sexual discrimination. You don't know that. You know that decisions are being made on a single variable but you don't know WHY.
The fact that both sexes are making the same choice suggests that it is not discrimination. It does not prove that it is not however it does suggest that.
The only theory to the contrary would be your subconscious bias theory which is incredibly thin.
At best, what you have is grounds to do a more involved study and make contact with the managers to ask them why they offered one price to one person and another price for another.
Until that happens you don't have "why" which means the underlying motivations shall remain unknown.
Which is the best evidence you've got so far apparently. Unknown. *golf clap*
When I saw I got a message from an AC in this thread, I KNEW you were going to make my day.
You ARE trolling me!:D
*laughs*
That's fucking priceless. You're so butt hurt over getting raped in the previous discussions that you're following me around on Slashdot to make stupid comments under your AC name.
Too funny.
Well, thanks for the laugh... you do realize that the more you obessess over me, the more you prove how much I got to you... right? I mean, I don't give a shit about you. Even if you weren't hiding behind that AC sockpuppet. But I apparently mean something to you.
That just means I out trolled you without even trying to troll you. I mean, you're sitting there TRYING to piss me off and really... you're just making yourself more and more upset.
*giggles*
See in the next thread. I'm sure you'll be there to make self defeating comments there too.:D
You tried to build your entire argument around how you feel about someone. You don't have a moral upper hand here. Liar.
I just stated the record and then moved on with my argument. I actually spent very little time actually talking about him. I focused most of my post on the issue itself and not on him.
You are a liar who lied with his pants on fire.
You're also an AC POS.:D
Understand, you're not a liar because you're an AC. You're a liar that happens to be an AC... and it is becoming increasingly clear to me that most ACs are just fucking stupid trolls.
As to me not understanding your statement, I note that you don't clarify or explain your statement or in fact correct me at all.
Which means... I did understand your statement? Correct me, bitch. I double dog dare your stupid ass.
Why is fox news or the old left versus right thing coming into this issue? I didn't bring ideology into this discussion, but YOU just did. Could it be that YOU are such a political tool that you'll go to bat for plagiarists if they happen to share your ideology?:D Seems so, sunshine.
I don't want tv news by the way... its full of idiots. I stick to the written word.
Anywho, thanks for validating my theories on ACs and on you in particular. Stellar job living up to precisely the sort of shit I'm talking about.
For the record, why are you on an AC account? I'd love to know another reason for why so many trolls are on hyper anonomymized sockpuppetable accounts. You know... besides trolling.:D
As to what you have to do... make a coherent argument. You can't just cite that study without analysis and sit there with your arms crossed.
That's just a forfeit on your part.
Engage or disengage. Choose.
As to the article's proof, I provided a variaty of reasons for it. And really, your disinterest in the reasons and motivations of the female employers is disturbing. It displays an incurious mentality.
As to your assertion that attacking a theory is inherently ad hominem... that's not what those words mean. You say I'm not offering reasons? They don't have evidence. The whole thing is at best a pseudo science. That is not an insult. That is a challenge of the the discipline's credibility. I cited that related theories have been debunked quite intensely and the only reason subconscious bias survives at all is because the concept is so nebulous that it is like trying to attack smoke.
There is no concrete evidence for it. And I could no more prove it doesn't exist by finding it then you could prove God exists or any other negative.
As to your assertion that I'm taking you out of context, I admit I am... intentionally. But only after you have taken your study out of context.
Your study applies to academia. That is its context. You apply it outside of that context and YOU are taking it out of context.
In any case, it is quite clear you're not interested in an actual discussion. You just commented to shit talk. You're neither very good at it, nor do you know anything I don't already know.
You're therefore boring to me and since the only reason I comment here is to entertain myself... you have no value to me anymore.
Also, it has one of the best sound tracks of any movie ever... and it is generally a fun movie. It has lasted this long for a reason.
You know want to know something that didn't last?... Dark star... I think is what it was called. It came out after starwars from warner brothers as a me too movie. And it died and no one remembers it.
Oh look, an AC opens his comment with a stupid insult. How novel.
As to your comment that the expense of higher education isn't relevant its all about the next disruptive TECHNOLOGY and we don't know what that is going to be... will this technology be in the humanities? Will it be a poetry robot?
Give a flying fucking break.
As to poets just being linguists... how many of those jobs opened up in the last few years and what do they make?
Next issue.
As to my grammatical error, that was a typo. You're attempting to claim superiority to me on an internet forum because of a typo. How pathetic and desperate are you?
As to your conclusion that I am a hypocrite for condemning reactionary behavior when I noted that the person being quoted is a known plagiarist with a poor record of journalistic ethics... So, you think not being a reactionary means having no fucking brain what so ever?
don't respond. Either log in to your real account or just don't post. I'm so fucking tired of these idiot ACs making stupid shit comments behind a triple layer of anonymity.
You people are literally ruining this community with your crap.
If I'm not owed anything because I didn't read the article then your sweeping assessment of my post is also wrong. You didn't read or understand my post. You read just far enough to find one thing wrong and then judged it.
You made the same error I did but unlike me, you lack the humility to admit your own mistakes.;)
Well, that is logically impossible since basically every post after the first had nothing to do with psychology.
What happened was there was ONE post about psychology WHICH I MADE, you said something stupid about it which had nothing to do with psychology... and then there are just endless pages of me asking you to explain what was wrong and you refusing to do it.
You've actually at no point demonstrated that YOU know anything about psychology. Why is that?
So... how could all those posts have proved that I knew nothing about psychology when they weren't even about psychology?
Do you see how completely out of your depth you are with me? I'm not claiming to be a genius... you're just a profoundly stupid person.
I do sorta read your posts... the only thing I look for is whether you answered the challenge though. If you don't, then I just glaze over it because it doesn't matter.
Every time you evade, you admit I'm right. You've so far been calling yourself an idiot and a coward by proxy for days.
And that pathetic attempt to claim to be another dude? Priceless. Seriously... Golf clap for you.
... I love the retard emotional outbursts from these ACs. They're just priceless.
Anyway, when I said was "owed" acknowledgement for aspects of the comment that were right, if I am not owed that, then why is the article owed acknowledgements for aspects that they got right?
Do you see the logical contradiction here?
You're saying I am totally wrong because I said one thing that was wrong about their article.
Yet you claim to be totally right even though you didn't read my full comment and didn't acknowledge that while I had one thing wrong I had other things right.
You can't criticize my post and not give me credit for the aspects I got right without being a hypocrite.
It isn't about giving me something. It is about YOU not being a hypocrite.
I feel like most of the time the AC is the same fucking retard that is doubtless following me around this site trolling me with the same stupid asshattish comments.
The guy has a record of plagiarism and invented sources. He doesn't do it constantly... just when he "needs" to do it. Which isn't really any better in my opinion.
Should the US not focus on STEM? The issue is this... College is really expensive. The student loans etc are something people have to pay off for years and years. When you put that sort of investment into something you need a return on investment.
So the notion here is that more students should go into the humanities and become poets, philosophers, historians, novelists, etc? We have lots of those already. The US is suffering no shortage of poets. And even if we were, why would the government or an individual spent possibly a 100 thousand dollars educating a poet?
It is a problem.
The money is a very relevant part of this issue. If higher education were entirely privately funded, then I'd say 'Do whatever you want". But it is largely public at this point. The subsidies etc are large enough that they make up a substantial portion of the total cost if they don't cover it outright.
There are a lot of knee jerk reactionaries that will attack me for saying ANYTHING should change or for tipping over their personal sacred cow.
The thing is the money is a big deal. And the most education costs, the more we're going to expect graduates to make. Stem pays pretty well compared to the average humanities degree. Cost less money and we'll be less insistent on a proportionally large return.
So... how you do that is up to you. I can think of a lot of ways to maintain the quality of higher education while reducing costs. But I've little patience for trading spittle laden words with the reactionaries.
I made a single error, the rest of the article is legitimately stupid.
Yes, they said they didn't have any evidence that the change in brain size effected intelligence. My bad.
However, they did say that their findings could be used in policy and legislation changes regarding poverty. Which given that they don't know actually what is going on is an invalid statement.
It could be something as simple as better nutrition leading to more fat being stored in the brain. The extra mass could very well not be meaningful at all.
You're making the same mistake I made... You're reading just far enough to find ONE mistake I made and then judging the whole thing.
I screwed up because I didn't read the thing. But I also got a few things right as well. Give me credit for that at least. It is what I am owed.
That only indicates that some women look out for others. It doesn't do anything to support your case that on average, women are biased positively in favour of other women. It's incredible how you demand fully audited statistics from my claimes but make the most half-assed unsupported claims yourself. Nor does it support your claim that women are systemically biased against women.
Your statistic would require that women are systemically biased against women.
Why aren't men systematically biased against men? Explain this to me?
Your whole premise requires systemic bias of men and women against women. That is a tall order to prove.
Here you're probably going to start talking about "unconscious" bias which has about as much proof behind it as subliminal messages which have been repeatedly proven to not work. The advertising people did extensive research to see if it actually worked. It doesn't.
You're pushing junk science.
Well, this is veering into ad-homenim, frankly. Don't bother to argue the point, insult the entire disciplin and use that as a way of dismissing the arguments. As to ad hominem, technically I am not conducting ad hominem. Ad hominem is against a person. An argument against a discipline is totally different. And not actually a logical fallacy. So... try harder.
And you're an academic are you? As to whether I'm an academic, so you're NOW saying that your study can't be applied outside of academia?
I feel like I'm playing chess against someone that is playing tic tac toe. If you undermine my ability to associate my career with this on the basis that I am in the private sector and this refers to academia then you support my original position that this study can't be applied outside of the context of academia.
You just picked up a gun and shot yourself in the foot with it.
I'm sort of embarrassed for you now.
Did you ask the authors to send you the raw data for you to audit? Did they refuse you? As to raw data, the data is as good and readily available as climate change. So... tell me how that isn't enough. I'm pretty sure your standards are going to slip around hilariously on that point.
As to what you pretend to know for the sake of rhetoric, ask for the studies. They've been on file since the 1970s. This stupidity has been debunked since it started.
Okay, well then allow me to say I agree with what Karmashock was saying and think both of you are showing a tragic inability to have a rational thought.
As to cursing, Karmashock made it clear over and over again that he wanted the AC to explain what they were talking about. They said they didn't need to and over a course of DAYS have refused to answer what should be a very simple challenge.
It is obvious that karmashock is right and you ACs are a bunch of nitwits.
See, retard? I don't need to hide behind AC names to sock puppet. I can sock puppet myself. Its funnier and you're an idiot.
I also am about 99 percent certain you're just pretending to be two people now.
Which I can do as well... by all means, continue to sock puppet and I'll pretend to be three or twenty people all called karmashock.:D
Why do I care if it knows I am running windows 7, Firefox version whatever, and have 2000 fonts installed?
What is more, if I really cared about that, I could install a plug in that told websites I was using a different OS, browser, etc. But that isn't private information in my opinion. I don't see how it identifies me.
As to why the feature is in place, it happened in large part because browsers interpret pages differently and often webpages have to have different versions to run properly on different browsers.
I don't see the problem with it. Help me understand.
Explain how I am not secure. If I am not running their javascript, how can they possibly fuck me? HTML isn't going to give me a virus. It can't.
Yeah except for we don't even have AI... so I don't even understand the concern?
What are people really worried about here to the extent it is legit?
Here is my take:
1. Any AI we make is going to be a weak ai first not a strong godlike super intelligence. Its judgment, dynamism, and scope will be limited... so it might be really good at predicting weather patterns or something but it isn't going to see me coming after it with a screwdriver. A machine intelligence also will not have the benefit of our genetic heritage. Why would it have any sense of self preservation without an internalized notion of death? We're born with that. All life on Earth has that encoded into our DNA. But any machine intelligence we make isn't going to consider any of that because it isn't going to have that genetic record of millions of years of killing other things and being killed in the struggle to survive.
2. whatever it is will be rooted in place and dependent on a human controlled infrastructure... aka we can literally pull the plug at any time. The damn thing will probably BE a data center somewhere and while they have all sorts of redundant power and communications... there's not going to be some internalized defense system we put under the control of the AI. There is going to be a sys admin in that building that can literally flick a switch and kill it.
3. the probability of whatever it is to actually do anything actually malicious is minimal. It is far more likely it will do something stupid and computers doing something stupid is nothing new. In the movies, the AI always hacks through everything, breaks through all encryption in seconds, and has improbable levels of control over everything. That isn't realistic. It is likely to be as stymied by security technology as the humans. And all those systems have protocols in place for when they're compromised. You can't launch nuclear weapons by compromising the computers. Two dudes literally have to turn two identical keys in each of those bunkers to launch each silo's worth of nukes. What else is the AI going to do? Crash the stock market? Post nasty things about your mom on facebook?
I'm just not worried about AI. Bring it on.
Of course, I'm one of those people that would put the machine in his head if he could... I'd go cyborg pretty quickly so long as the technology were refined enough that it wouldn't subject me to a life of misery.
Slashdot Mirror
As to me stating my opinion, it isn't my opinion. He has been caught repeatedly lifting material from other people as well as using bogus attributions.
Whether this is due to laziness, time constraints, or a general lack of ethics is debatable. But that is a fact.
As to me using that to frame my whole discussion, I didn't.
That's you lying again. I instead stated my impression of the person and then moved on to discuss the issue without referencing him again.
That's a fact. I know you don't like facts. But the Sun doesn't care if you don't like it... it is still going to rise tomorrow in the east and set in the west... and you'll still be full of shit.
Good day, chump.
You are just addicted to logical fallacies apparently...
Nope. Case in point: I don't need to know why someone says "all men are smelly violent thugs who will rape women given the opportunity" to know that they're a bigoted fool.
False equivalency. You have evidence of behavior but not attitudes. Your example also was giving REASONS for why someone should be avoided while the study included no reasons at all. A reason is a why.
Your study includes none of that.
A better example would be:
""we have evidence that women will cross the street statistically in when groups of men approach.""
That includes no why or reasoning. We can infer it but those inferences will be suppositions and not conclusive.
What is more, my example like the article includes no context. For example, in my study what is the significance of the danger in the neighborhood itself? Maybe in my study, what is going on is that women do that in bad neighborhoods but not good neighborhoods. And simply because it happens in bad neighborhoods, if you combine the two data sets, the average is still that women tend to do that.
In this way, you'd have misrepresented the data by implying that the casual factor is that it is men and not that it is men in a bad neighborhood.
Statistics are complicated and really most people don't have the logical discipline to be able to deal with them. People tend to mistake their biases and assumptions for being causal evidence. It doesn't work that way.
You're reading more into the data than is actually there.
As to you not speaking to motivations, then you can't cite bias or prejudice. That is a why.
As to reasons being of cold comfort, the reasons would give you the ability to address any problem if it exists at all. Absent reasons you don't know why it is happening and you don't know how to fix it. You just have some statistics. Absent the why you can't criticize or point to this as being evidence of prejudice.
The why is quite important, I am afraid. You need it to morally and ethically judge the issue.
You are attempting to use this study to make a moral and ethical point. You can't do that without the "why".
As to plenty of women disagreeing with universal suffrage, the majority of MEN agreed with it or women wouldn't have it today.
We're talking about statistics. Statistical outliers are not going to help you because we're talking about averages. You can't cite the possibility that some small portion of women might be biased against women when the study was showing that the women are JUST as likely as the men to do it and that they were doing it with some consistency.
You're not rational enough to have this discussion. You need to be much more anal and literal with your data... or you really can't delve into statistics to this degree. I know that comes off as insulting and that isn't my intention. The issue is that you're not taking the data seriously enough or limiting your conclusions to the scope of the data itself. If you don't do that then you start spewing bullshit.
I'm regret that this has become hostile and personal and that you're going to feel badly towards me here after. That was not my intention and I regret the inevitability of it.
I ask only this going forward... consider what the data actually is LITERALLY saying and process it literally. I'm struggling for examples to express the problem. It is sort of like when you play minesweeper or sodoku and you mistake a high probability of something for conclusive proof of it. It works out most of the time but the likelihood of something is not evidence of it. And every so often when you just run on those hunches and assumptions you screw yourself because it turned out the assumption was wrong.
Keep in mind, I don't want anyone to be discriminated against. I believe in the equality of the sexes and if and when there are problems there, I think we should look into them so we can address those problems.
However, it is important to remembe
Actually, you take me far more seriously than I take either you or myself COMBINED. You are literally stalking me on this forum in your AC sockpuppet in a pathetic attempt to eek out some revenge for getting your underwear rhetorically wedged so hard your gender flipped.
You're never going to win against me. I've more intelligence, more education, and more experience... you're like some savage in a canoe challenging a space ship. You're so fucking far out of your league you literally give me the giggles every time you make another pathetic attempt to redeem yourself.
*rolls eyes*
The reason for their behaviour is interesting, but I don't know what it is
And checkmate.
You don't know the reason for the behavior. And absent a "why" you can't cite bigotry or prejudice.
The "why" is critical. And without that you can't speak to the motivations of anyone making any of those choices.
The allegation is sexual discrimination. You don't know that. You know that decisions are being made on a single variable but you don't know WHY.
The fact that both sexes are making the same choice suggests that it is not discrimination. It does not prove that it is not however it does suggest that.
The only theory to the contrary would be your subconscious bias theory which is incredibly thin.
At best, what you have is grounds to do a more involved study and make contact with the managers to ask them why they offered one price to one person and another price for another.
Until that happens you don't have "why" which means the underlying motivations shall remain unknown.
Which is the best evidence you've got so far apparently. Unknown. *golf clap*
When I saw I got a message from an AC in this thread, I KNEW you were going to make my day.
You ARE trolling me! :D
*laughs*
That's fucking priceless. You're so butt hurt over getting raped in the previous discussions that you're following me around on Slashdot to make stupid comments under your AC name.
Too funny.
Well, thanks for the laugh... you do realize that the more you obessess over me, the more you prove how much I got to you... right? I mean, I don't give a shit about you. Even if you weren't hiding behind that AC sockpuppet. But I apparently mean something to you.
That just means I out trolled you without even trying to troll you. I mean, you're sitting there TRYING to piss me off and really... you're just making yourself more and more upset.
*giggles*
See in the next thread. I'm sure you'll be there to make self defeating comments there too. :D
Because inevitably something is going to fool me and I'm going to feel stupid... I just want to go to bed and wake up tomorrow.
I meant the "black hole" actually... forgive me... I'm trying to remember forgettable movies.
You tried to build your entire argument around how you feel about someone. You don't have a moral upper hand here.
Liar.
I just stated the record and then moved on with my argument. I actually spent very little time actually talking about him. I focused most of my post on the issue itself and not on him.
You are a liar who lied with his pants on fire.
You're also an AC POS. :D
Understand, you're not a liar because you're an AC. You're a liar that happens to be an AC... and it is becoming increasingly clear to me that most ACs are just fucking stupid trolls.
As to me not understanding your statement, I note that you don't clarify or explain your statement or in fact correct me at all.
Which means... I did understand your statement? Correct me, bitch. I double dog dare your stupid ass.
Why is fox news or the old left versus right thing coming into this issue? I didn't bring ideology into this discussion, but YOU just did. Could it be that YOU are such a political tool that you'll go to bat for plagiarists if they happen to share your ideology? :D Seems so, sunshine.
I don't want tv news by the way... its full of idiots. I stick to the written word.
Anywho, thanks for validating my theories on ACs and on you in particular. Stellar job living up to precisely the sort of shit I'm talking about.
For the record, why are you on an AC account? I'd love to know another reason for why so many trolls are on hyper anonomymized sockpuppetable accounts. You know... besides trolling. :D
If the meaning of my post was so clear and you misstated my position, then you are admitting to lying.
Either you didn't understand my post or you are intentionally misrepresenting it.
Pick one. :)
As to what you have to do... make a coherent argument. You can't just cite that study without analysis and sit there with your arms crossed.
That's just a forfeit on your part.
Engage or disengage. Choose.
As to the article's proof, I provided a variaty of reasons for it. And really, your disinterest in the reasons and motivations of the female employers is disturbing. It displays an incurious mentality.
As to your assertion that attacking a theory is inherently ad hominem... that's not what those words mean. You say I'm not offering reasons? They don't have evidence. The whole thing is at best a pseudo science. That is not an insult. That is a challenge of the the discipline's credibility. I cited that related theories have been debunked quite intensely and the only reason subconscious bias survives at all is because the concept is so nebulous that it is like trying to attack smoke.
There is no concrete evidence for it. And I could no more prove it doesn't exist by finding it then you could prove God exists or any other negative.
As to your assertion that I'm taking you out of context, I admit I am... intentionally. But only after you have taken your study out of context.
Your study applies to academia. That is its context. You apply it outside of that context and YOU are taking it out of context.
In any case, it is quite clear you're not interested in an actual discussion. You just commented to shit talk. You're neither very good at it, nor do you know anything I don't already know.
You're therefore boring to me and since the only reason I comment here is to entertain myself... you have no value to me anymore.
This discussion is concluded.
Good day.
... in a political backlash.
so most of these statements are just noise.
Empire strikes back is solid. Come on.
Also, it has one of the best sound tracks of any movie ever... and it is generally a fun movie. It has lasted this long for a reason.
You know want to know something that didn't last?... Dark star... I think is what it was called. It came out after starwars from warner brothers as a me too movie. And it died and no one remembers it.
Oh look, an AC opens his comment with a stupid insult. How novel.
As to your comment that the expense of higher education isn't relevant its all about the next disruptive TECHNOLOGY and we don't know what that is going to be... will this technology be in the humanities? Will it be a poetry robot?
Give a flying fucking break.
As to poets just being linguists... how many of those jobs opened up in the last few years and what do they make?
Next issue.
As to my grammatical error, that was a typo. You're attempting to claim superiority to me on an internet forum because of a typo. How pathetic and desperate are you?
As to your conclusion that I am a hypocrite for condemning reactionary behavior when I noted that the person being quoted is a known plagiarist with a poor record of journalistic ethics... So, you think not being a reactionary means having no fucking brain what so ever?
don't respond. Either log in to your real account or just don't post. I'm so fucking tired of these idiot ACs making stupid shit comments behind a triple layer of anonymity.
You people are literally ruining this community with your crap.
Then the entire premise of the article is dumb.
Still... the prequels sucked.
... with the originals. The prequels were shit which is why people had a hard time getting a job.
If I'm not owed anything because I didn't read the article then your sweeping assessment of my post is also wrong. You didn't read or understand my post. You read just far enough to find one thing wrong and then judged it.
You made the same error I did but unlike me, you lack the humility to admit your own mistakes. ;)
Well, that is logically impossible since basically every post after the first had nothing to do with psychology.
What happened was there was ONE post about psychology WHICH I MADE, you said something stupid about it which had nothing to do with psychology... and then there are just endless pages of me asking you to explain what was wrong and you refusing to do it.
You've actually at no point demonstrated that YOU know anything about psychology. Why is that?
So... how could all those posts have proved that I knew nothing about psychology when they weren't even about psychology?
Do you see how completely out of your depth you are with me? I'm not claiming to be a genius... you're just a profoundly stupid person.
I do sorta read your posts... the only thing I look for is whether you answered the challenge though. If you don't, then I just glaze over it because it doesn't matter.
Every time you evade, you admit I'm right. You've so far been calling yourself an idiot and a coward by proxy for days.
And that pathetic attempt to claim to be another dude? Priceless. Seriously... Golf clap for you.
... I love the retard emotional outbursts from these ACs. They're just priceless.
Anyway, when I said was "owed" acknowledgement for aspects of the comment that were right, if I am not owed that, then why is the article owed acknowledgements for aspects that they got right?
Do you see the logical contradiction here?
You're saying I am totally wrong because I said one thing that was wrong about their article.
Yet you claim to be totally right even though you didn't read my full comment and didn't acknowledge that while I had one thing wrong I had other things right.
You can't criticize my post and not give me credit for the aspects I got right without being a hypocrite.
It isn't about giving me something. It is about YOU not being a hypocrite.
I feel like most of the time the AC is the same fucking retard that is doubtless following me around this site trolling me with the same stupid asshattish comments.
Be less useless, dude.
It just seems like an obvious finding... like... birds can control which way they move in the air when they fly...
Really?
The guy has a record of plagiarism and invented sources. He doesn't do it constantly... just when he "needs" to do it. Which isn't really any better in my opinion.
Should the US not focus on STEM? The issue is this... College is really expensive. The student loans etc are something people have to pay off for years and years. When you put that sort of investment into something you need a return on investment.
So the notion here is that more students should go into the humanities and become poets, philosophers, historians, novelists, etc? We have lots of those already. The US is suffering no shortage of poets. And even if we were, why would the government or an individual spent possibly a 100 thousand dollars educating a poet?
It is a problem.
The money is a very relevant part of this issue. If higher education were entirely privately funded, then I'd say 'Do whatever you want". But it is largely public at this point. The subsidies etc are large enough that they make up a substantial portion of the total cost if they don't cover it outright.
There are a lot of knee jerk reactionaries that will attack me for saying ANYTHING should change or for tipping over their personal sacred cow.
The thing is the money is a big deal. And the most education costs, the more we're going to expect graduates to make. Stem pays pretty well compared to the average humanities degree. Cost less money and we'll be less insistent on a proportionally large return.
So... how you do that is up to you. I can think of a lot of ways to maintain the quality of higher education while reducing costs. But I've little patience for trading spittle laden words with the reactionaries.
I made a single error, the rest of the article is legitimately stupid.
Yes, they said they didn't have any evidence that the change in brain size effected intelligence. My bad.
However, they did say that their findings could be used in policy and legislation changes regarding poverty. Which given that they don't know actually what is going on is an invalid statement.
It could be something as simple as better nutrition leading to more fat being stored in the brain. The extra mass could very well not be meaningful at all.
You're making the same mistake I made... You're reading just far enough to find ONE mistake I made and then judging the whole thing.
I screwed up because I didn't read the thing. But I also got a few things right as well. Give me credit for that at least. It is what I am owed.
That only indicates that some women look out for others. It doesn't do anything to support your case that on average, women are biased positively in favour of other women. It's incredible how you demand fully audited statistics from my claimes but make the most half-assed unsupported claims yourself.
Nor does it support your claim that women are systemically biased against women.
Your statistic would require that women are systemically biased against women.
Why aren't men systematically biased against men? Explain this to me?
Your whole premise requires systemic bias of men and women against women. That is a tall order to prove.
Here you're probably going to start talking about "unconscious" bias which has about as much proof behind it as subliminal messages which have been repeatedly proven to not work. The advertising people did extensive research to see if it actually worked. It doesn't.
You're pushing junk science.
Well, this is veering into ad-homenim, frankly. Don't bother to argue the point, insult the entire disciplin and use that as a way of dismissing the arguments.
As to ad hominem, technically I am not conducting ad hominem. Ad hominem is against a person. An argument against a discipline is totally different. And not actually a logical fallacy. So... try harder.
And you're an academic are you?
As to whether I'm an academic, so you're NOW saying that your study can't be applied outside of academia?
I feel like I'm playing chess against someone that is playing tic tac toe. If you undermine my ability to associate my career with this on the basis that I am in the private sector and this refers to academia then you support my original position that this study can't be applied outside of the context of academia.
You just picked up a gun and shot yourself in the foot with it.
I'm sort of embarrassed for you now.
Did you ask the authors to send you the raw data for you to audit? Did they refuse you?
As to raw data, the data is as good and readily available as climate change. So... tell me how that isn't enough. I'm pretty sure your standards are going to slip around hilariously on that point.
As to what you pretend to know for the sake of rhetoric, ask for the studies. They've been on file since the 1970s. This stupidity has been debunked since it started.
Make my day.
AC agrees with AC?
Okay, well then allow me to say I agree with what Karmashock was saying and think both of you are showing a tragic inability to have a rational thought.
As to cursing, Karmashock made it clear over and over again that he wanted the AC to explain what they were talking about. They said they didn't need to and over a course of DAYS have refused to answer what should be a very simple challenge.
It is obvious that karmashock is right and you ACs are a bunch of nitwits.
See, retard? I don't need to hide behind AC names to sock puppet. I can sock puppet myself. Its funnier and you're an idiot.
I also am about 99 percent certain you're just pretending to be two people now.
Which I can do as well... by all means, continue to sock puppet and I'll pretend to be three or twenty people all called karmashock. :D
Why do I care if it knows I am running windows 7, Firefox version whatever, and have 2000 fonts installed?
What is more, if I really cared about that, I could install a plug in that told websites I was using a different OS, browser, etc. But that isn't private information in my opinion. I don't see how it identifies me.
As to why the feature is in place, it happened in large part because browsers interpret pages differently and often webpages have to have different versions to run properly on different browsers.
I don't see the problem with it. Help me understand.
Explain how I am not secure. If I am not running their javascript, how can they possibly fuck me? HTML isn't going to give me a virus. It can't.
Yeah except for we don't even have AI... so I don't even understand the concern?
What are people really worried about here to the extent it is legit?
Here is my take:
1. Any AI we make is going to be a weak ai first not a strong godlike super intelligence. Its judgment, dynamism, and scope will be limited... so it might be really good at predicting weather patterns or something but it isn't going to see me coming after it with a screwdriver. A machine intelligence also will not have the benefit of our genetic heritage. Why would it have any sense of self preservation without an internalized notion of death? We're born with that. All life on Earth has that encoded into our DNA. But any machine intelligence we make isn't going to consider any of that because it isn't going to have that genetic record of millions of years of killing other things and being killed in the struggle to survive.
2. whatever it is will be rooted in place and dependent on a human controlled infrastructure... aka we can literally pull the plug at any time. The damn thing will probably BE a data center somewhere and while they have all sorts of redundant power and communications... there's not going to be some internalized defense system we put under the control of the AI. There is going to be a sys admin in that building that can literally flick a switch and kill it.
3. the probability of whatever it is to actually do anything actually malicious is minimal. It is far more likely it will do something stupid and computers doing something stupid is nothing new. In the movies, the AI always hacks through everything, breaks through all encryption in seconds, and has improbable levels of control over everything. That isn't realistic. It is likely to be as stymied by security technology as the humans. And all those systems have protocols in place for when they're compromised. You can't launch nuclear weapons by compromising the computers. Two dudes literally have to turn two identical keys in each of those bunkers to launch each silo's worth of nukes. What else is the AI going to do? Crash the stock market? Post nasty things about your mom on facebook?
I'm just not worried about AI. Bring it on.
Of course, I'm one of those people that would put the machine in his head if he could... I'd go cyborg pretty quickly so long as the technology were refined enough that it wouldn't subject me to a life of misery.