Yes, basically you are missing the conclusion of the article which says that it is impossible to come to any meaningful conclusion about the reasons of the gender gap by the data acquired. The national tests they did seem to imply that the gender gap is biological, the distortion in the data comes mostly from countries where the gender gap should be even greater if it was due to cultural effects.
The researchers, quite responsibly concluded that the data is inconclusive, among other things because they have no means to verify the way the data they did not collect was acquired, unlikely the irresponsible article you posted.
They do conclude, though, that in US the gender gap is quite real and independent on any environmental factor they could test for.
I let it at your discretion the sample you would choose to find me wrong. I said at any time, at any field. Your excuse stopped working quite a few decades ago.
This article is hardly a proof of anything and there are at least as many others that say exactly the opposite. For once the results are highly dependent on which groups were tests, which areas of math the tests encompass, and on the general difficulty level of the test. A very easy test would artificially flat the difference. That is the main problem of statistical research without knowing the methodology no much can be concluded from it.
However, the assertion that women are in general cognitively and creatively inferior to men (which you seem to be contending) has little evidence. There is of course no "proof" that the intellectual potential of the sexes is equal, but if you claim the reverse, you would be hard put to present relevant evidence.
On the contrary. There is absolutely no evidence that would lead to the assertion that women are in general equally cognitively and creatively when compared to men, and it would be a fantastic and almost unbelievable coincidence if they were. You would be hard pressed to find two random groups of people that have the same cognitive and creative abilities, even if you try to make both groups as homogeneous as possible. When you have two highly different groups as men and women that would be simply impossible.
There is evidence that women are, as a group cognitively and creatively inferior to men, though. Evidence which you simply decide to dismiss, with a feeble excuse that does not apply anymore, because you do not like it.
If you were trying to say that women are underrepresented in STEM (and many other) fields you would be correct, but this is not due to some inherent inability or inferiority.
Why not? What proof do you have that this is not the case? Why would two distinct groups that share many biological differences be equally fit for everything, especially considering evidence points to the opposite direction. Why try to find convoluted explanations based on excuses that do not apply anymore if a simpler more logical explanation is available?
I understand that you want to believe in this impossible "equality" you indoctrinated yourself with, but that is simply not true. Equal rights between men and women are no more or less than fair and are a great conquest of our civilization, but that does not extend to pretend we are equally able at everything. That is silly.
That was the first intelligent argument I have read in this subtopic. And the answer depends on how you define creation. Creation as defined by me is not only original creation but any creation at all, as constructing things. Anything at all.
Maybe. Or maybe in countries where the population is majorly black they just don't have the same cold weathers to practice this sport, in this specific case, but if they did they could be better. what I can't believe is that they would be exactly as good. Surely "some" ethnic group will have an advantage at this sport as in any other. Again that does not mean there can't be individual exceptions. We are analyzing groups here.
Sure. Keep finding excuses if that makes you sleep better. but the fact remains that still today, with the same legal rights (or greater rights it could be argued), and in countries that give them the same or better opportunities than men, women creators are still a minority by more than a factor of ten.
In average races are not equally fit for everything either. Most long range runners at the top, for example, are black people from African countries, for example. There are exceptions, but the vast majority follows the rule. That may applied to everything. There is no motive why a given group should be in average equally capable of doing any task as another one, except by a very unlikely coincidence.
Understand that in average both sexes are not equally fit for every task and equally gifted in everything is not sexism it is lucidity. Sexism is to think that a member of one sex is always better than a member of the other in anything, which is obviously false.
Why inflammatory? He is just stating his opinion, which happens to be the same opinion many people have about this subject. He is given his anecdotal experience as fact. If you want statistical data, just look for it and you will find it. Choose any field, anything at all, anywhere, at any time of human civilization, at the top women are from rare to non existent. Do you need more evidence than that?
You have all the evidence in the world, you just need to stop blindfolding yourself. Women are responsible for very little creation of about anything in this world, no matter which time span, location or field or you decide to analyze. Sure, there are exceptions, as in everything, but as a rule women are consumers, not creators.
Sure, because everything you do not agree with is trolling. The poster has a strong opinion about something that is different of yours, which he is entitled to have. Argue against it or stay quiet. You are the troll here.
No, they are thinking about the new clothes of that bitch sit on the next desk, and in the new hairstyle all the cool girls are using. They are also thinking about how they can get the most attention from their male counterparts. All in all men are busy thinking about useless things a lot less, rest assured.
The original poster is considerably more accurate in his analysis.
That goes way beyond upgrades. When companies start to charge you to keep your phone working and you cannot do a damn thing about it because your bootloader is unlocked you will understand. Or when companies start to charge monthly fees for features.
And yes, many people would at least keep their old phones for at least a significantly larger time if they could upgrade their OS freely. One of the ways to force obsolescence is to force incompatibilities between old and new (MS does it all the time with Office, for example).
The advantages are mainly about what the key keeper can do and not about what the user can. The key keeper can limit features, ask for using fees and block content at will, and, as their hold over the market gets stronger, they will do more and more of this. So for the end user it is indeed a great advantage to have an unlocked device, because that guarantees that they won't be the target of abuse.
Until their phones do not do what they want whilst the phone of someone else does. Or until their phones cost them twice or thrice money to do the same thing. The natural progression of locked systems is money drain and feature limitation. THAT is the problem with locked system, not some abstract ideal of freedom only geeks care about as you may thing.
Until they are shown the advantages of the unlocked device. Ignorance can be cured, and unlike what you may think the vast majority of people do want to have more for less.
Well, he may not be the best coder out there, but if the company doesn't care and if he is not breaking any enforced standard by doing so it is actually a true statement. It is not his problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, basically you are missing the conclusion of the article which says that it is impossible to come to any meaningful conclusion about the reasons of the gender gap by the data acquired. The national tests they did seem to imply that the gender gap is biological, the distortion in the data comes mostly from countries where the gender gap should be even greater if it was due to cultural effects.
The researchers, quite responsibly concluded that the data is inconclusive, among other things because they have no means to verify the way the data they did not collect was acquired, unlikely the irresponsible article you posted.
They do conclude, though, that in US the gender gap is quite real and independent on any environmental factor they could test for.
I let it at your discretion the sample you would choose to find me wrong. I said at any time, at any field. Your excuse stopped working quite a few decades ago.
Here goes a link to an article about a research reaching the exact opposite conclusion as I mentioned:
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/files/Empirical%20analysis%20of%20the%20gender%20gap_final%20manuscript.pdf
This article is hardly a proof of anything and there are at least as many others that say exactly the opposite. For once the results are highly dependent on which groups were tests, which areas of math the tests encompass, and on the general difficulty level of the test. A very easy test would artificially flat the difference. That is the main problem of statistical research without knowing the methodology no much can be concluded from it.
However, the assertion that women are in general cognitively and creatively inferior to men (which you seem to be contending) has little evidence. There is of course no "proof" that the intellectual potential of the sexes is equal, but if you claim the reverse, you would be hard put to present relevant evidence.
On the contrary. There is absolutely no evidence that would lead to the assertion that women are in general equally cognitively and creatively when compared to men, and it would be a fantastic and almost unbelievable coincidence if they were. You would be hard pressed to find two random groups of people that have the same cognitive and creative abilities, even if you try to make both groups as homogeneous as possible. When you have two highly different groups as men and women that would be simply impossible.
There is evidence that women are, as a group cognitively and creatively inferior to men, though. Evidence which you simply decide to dismiss, with a feeble excuse that does not apply anymore, because you do not like it.
And nobody here is saying they are true for every individual, just that when analyzing the groups.
If you were trying to say that women are underrepresented in STEM (and many other) fields you would be correct, but this is not due to some inherent inability or inferiority.
Why not? What proof do you have that this is not the case? Why would two distinct groups that share many biological differences be equally fit for everything, especially considering evidence points to the opposite direction. Why try to find convoluted explanations based on excuses that do not apply anymore if a simpler more logical explanation is available?
I understand that you want to believe in this impossible "equality" you indoctrinated yourself with, but that is simply not true. Equal rights between men and women are no more or less than fair and are a great conquest of our civilization, but that does not extend to pretend we are equally able at everything. That is silly.
Nope. Computers do, as a lot of them are multiple choices.
Even those that are not multiple choices, at least in most scientific fields, are objective enough to not allow for subjective grading.
That was the first intelligent argument I have read in this subtopic. And the answer depends on how you define creation. Creation as defined by me is not only original creation but any creation at all, as constructing things. Anything at all.
Maybe. Or maybe in countries where the population is majorly black they just don't have the same cold weathers to practice this sport, in this specific case, but if they did they could be better. what I can't believe is that they would be exactly as good. Surely "some" ethnic group will have an advantage at this sport as in any other. Again that does not mean there can't be individual exceptions. We are analyzing groups here.
Sure. Keep finding excuses if that makes you sleep better. but the fact remains that still today, with the same legal rights (or greater rights it could be argued), and in countries that give them the same or better opportunities than men, women creators are still a minority by more than a factor of ten.
In average races are not equally fit for everything either. Most long range runners at the top, for example, are black people from African countries, for example. There are exceptions, but the vast majority follows the rule. That may applied to everything. There is no motive why a given group should be in average equally capable of doing any task as another one, except by a very unlikely coincidence.
Nope. You are the one that doesn't even understand what is the meaning of the term "sexist", and has absolutely no argument to counter mine.
Understand that in average both sexes are not equally fit for every task and equally gifted in everything is not sexism it is lucidity. Sexism is to think that a member of one sex is always better than a member of the other in anything, which is obviously false.
Why inflammatory? He is just stating his opinion, which happens to be the same opinion many people have about this subject. He is given his anecdotal experience as fact. If you want statistical data, just look for it and you will find it. Choose any field, anything at all, anywhere, at any time of human civilization, at the top women are from rare to non existent. Do you need more evidence than that?
And your overemotional hostility and absolute lack of arguments prove you to be female.
You have all the evidence in the world, you just need to stop blindfolding yourself. Women are responsible for very little creation of about anything in this world, no matter which time span, location or field or you decide to analyze. Sure, there are exceptions, as in everything, but as a rule women are consumers, not creators.
Sure, because everything you do not agree with is trolling. The poster has a strong opinion about something that is different of yours, which he is entitled to have. Argue against it or stay quiet. You are the troll here.
No, they are thinking about the new clothes of that bitch sit on the next desk, and in the new hairstyle all the cool girls are using. They are also thinking about how they can get the most attention from their male counterparts. All in all men are busy thinking about useless things a lot less, rest assured.
The original poster is considerably more accurate in his analysis.
That goes way beyond upgrades. When companies start to charge you to keep your phone working and you cannot do a damn thing about it because your bootloader is unlocked you will understand. Or when companies start to charge monthly fees for features.
And yes, many people would at least keep their old phones for at least a significantly larger time if they could upgrade their OS freely. One of the ways to force obsolescence is to force incompatibilities between old and new (MS does it all the time with Office, for example).
The advantages are mainly about what the key keeper can do and not about what the user can. The key keeper can limit features, ask for using fees and block content at will, and, as their hold over the market gets stronger, they will do more and more of this. So for the end user it is indeed a great advantage to have an unlocked device, because that guarantees that they won't be the target of abuse.
Apple choosing another OS would probably be better for BSD.
Until their phones do not do what they want whilst the phone of someone else does. Or until their phones cost them twice or thrice money to do the same thing. The natural progression of locked systems is money drain and feature limitation. THAT is the problem with locked system, not some abstract ideal of freedom only geeks care about as you may thing.
Until they are shown the advantages of the unlocked device. Ignorance can be cured, and unlike what you may think the vast majority of people do want to have more for less.
Well, he may not be the best coder out there, but if the company doesn't care and if he is not breaking any enforced standard by doing so it is actually a true statement. It is not his problem.