The problem of bad science data isn't new. Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics) was believed for centuries (it's even in the Bible) before it was "proven". Turns out the proofs were not so hot.
There is no vaccine for the common cold, not even for the "unusually vulnerable." There are over 200 different cold viruses. As a kid, you get lots of different colds, as you get older, you get fewer because you've already been exposed to a large cross-section of them. The next generation is going to have much bigger problems because they won't have been exposed to many of them when they were young - kids with colds are not allowed in day cares so nobody else gets exposed, nobody lets their kids play in the mud any more, everything has to be sanitized (like good old soap and water isn't good enough - you have to have an antibacterial soap).
I know. But what can you do... it's like the anti-nuclear-power gang. If they weren't so.... you know... we'd have already done the research to fund real nuclear waste recycling instead of just stockpiling it.
We have men's shelters here, and nice big posters on the walls in the waiting rooms of the local health centers advertising them. Women's shelters get pamphlet space. This is because unlike women, men don't know there are domestic violence shelters catering to their needs so there's a push to inform the public.
And sexual violence on women (and men) is vastly under-reported. We have to work with the hard data we've got. And that data shows that there's way too much violence, period.
No - they develop as males. Males don't bite. So, they can't transmit disease. I don't think this is really a viable solution, though. Say we manage to find a chemical or bio-chemical agent to do the job. Do we really want to introduce it into the environment? The effects would probably be worse than DDT.
Cyclical boom-bust with the VCs. How many companies died in the last tech bubble? A career isn't just "work during the bubble, then get laid off and scrape by until the next bubble." That's for realtors.
"Go work on web designs"? This isn't 1997. The market is saturated and then some, and that's not going to change. Today's equivalent is "you can always build apps."
The goal is not to kill off all mosquitoes. Not only is it impossible, but we don't know what some of the side effects will be. We do know that mosquito larvae are a food source for many fish at an early stage of their life cycle, and the fish help keep the mosquito population somewhat under control. Take away all the larvae, you may have fewer fish reaching adulthood.
Getting money from abusive parents who are sitting in jail is not going to work. You can't get money from someone who doesn't have any, and no assets to speak of. So if you're 100% serious, your notions are not just a joke, but tragic.
Without some proof, that's just an anecdote with no backing. If you want to get into anecdotal evidence, I've never sexually assaulted anyone, but I have been sexually assaulted a few times. And no, I didn't report them (though the first one was reported by hospital staff after admitting me, and the medical secretary at the hospital said I should report the second one after I told her about it).
Go to my journal and read the first two entries. It explains how I no longer use my 5-digit account, etc. Look at the comments in the second entry. And that's tame. There are days when he would literally post 100s of comments in articles, some a lot worse. But that's okay - we're good now:-)
You really need to learn to read better. That 70% is only for cases where the woman initiated the violence and the man didn't respond. Here are other numbers from that same study that show men are the perps more often, and do more injury:
Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women
and
National estimates indicate that approximately 25% of women report being victims of a partner’s physical or sexual violence at some point in their life, and approximately 1.5 million women and 835 000 men are physically assaulted or raped by intimate partners in the United States annually
So, almost twice as many women in relationships are victims than men.
Some 83% of men had at least two incidents recorded; one man had 52. In contrast, 62% of women recorded as perpetrators had only one incident recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any woman was eight.
52. That guy sure held a grudge. That most men have two or more incidents, and most women one, kind of shows who's the more forgiving (and ends up returning to get beaten again), and it ain't men.
That is total bullcrap. Instead of repeating the big lie, you could have just searched for it and found this study
While the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men, women are arrested in three of every 10 incidents and men in only one of 10, a study says
Men are responsible for most cases of domestic violence, but women are three times more likely to be arrested for incidents of abuse, research reveals today.
A report into domestic abuse and gender by Bristol University found that the majority of cases involved alcohol misuse, that women were more likely to use a weapon to protect themselves and that children were present in the majority of cases.
Previous research has shown that the vast majority of domestic violence perpetrators recorded by the police are men (92%) and their victims mainly female (91%), with many more repeat incidents recorded for male than female perpetrators. While the majority of incidents of domestic violence recorded by the police involve male-to-female abuse, little is known about the nature of incidents where men are recorded as victims and women as perpetrators, nor about the circumstances where both partners are recorded as perpetrators.
The new study, by professor Marianne Hester of the University of Bristol's school for policy studies and carried out on behalf of the Northern Rock Foundation, looked at 96 examples from 692 "perpetrator profiles" tracked from 2001 to 2007.
The research looked at 32 cases where women were the aggressors, 32 where men were in that role, and 32 where it was both partners.
It found that 48% of the cases were related to couples still in a relationship, 27% involved violence after separation and the rest involved couples in the process of splitting up.
Some 83% of men had at least two incidents recorded; one man had 52. In contrast, 62% of women recorded as perpetrators had only one incident recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any woman was eight.
Men were significantly more likely than women to use physical violence, threats and harassment, and to damage the women's property; women were more likely to damage their own.
Men's violence tended to create a "context of fear and control", the researchers said, whereas women were more likely to use verbal abuse or some physical violence.
But women were more likely to use a weapon, although this was often to stop further violence from their partners.
All cases with seven or more incidents, most of which involved men, led to arrest
But in general, women were three times more likely to be arrested: during the six-year period, men were arrested once in every 10 incidents and women arrested once in every three.
Testosterone has a great deal to do with risk taking behaviors, and why men and women approach risk differently.
People mostly don't make decisions logically - they make the decision, then justify it if they have to. I love chocolate. If asked, I can give reasons to justify that, but I loved chocolate way before I ever gave a thought as to why.
I love dogs. Ask me why, and I can come up with reasons - but again, those are post hoc justifications for the fact that I just happen to love dogs. The same can apply to those who don't like dogs. Refuting their reasons logically, even if they agree with you 100%, won't suddenly make them like dogs.
Just like driving a car or riding a bicycle, most of our decisions are mostly made on autopilot before we are conscious of them. You sit down beside someone in the hospital who really stinks, and you immediately don't like them. Why? You don't know anything about them except that they stink, which has nothing to do with who they are. They may have a leaking colostomy bag for all you know.
The same can be seen on crowded buses. People don't like to be around people who smell different. No logical reason. Purely chemical.
When you go bankrupt personally, you don't get to keep all your stuff anyway. Better to sell it and clear the debt, than to lose it and retain the debt because it sold for pennies on the dollar at auction.
They also do have the power to impose currency controls to prevent the outflow of capital.
Some other countries might trade with them, provided they can then sell the drachmas for another currency - but not too many people are going to want to hold drachmas.
Kind of hard to kill them all... but if you get them to switch from female to male, those mosquitoes won't feed and transmit diseases, and they can't lay eggs.
With the quickly deteriorating working conditions (increasing ageism, 24-hour availability, poorer long-term pay prospects, offshoring, etc) maybe mothers are just being smarter in not pushing the next generation into "careers" in computing that will have a shelf life of a decade before they have to find something else to do?
If you think it's bad that 40 is the new 60 in IT, just wait...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem of bad science data isn't new. Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics) was believed for centuries (it's even in the Bible) before it was "proven". Turns out the proofs were not so hot.
There is no vaccine for the common cold, not even for the "unusually vulnerable." There are over 200 different cold viruses. As a kid, you get lots of different colds, as you get older, you get fewer because you've already been exposed to a large cross-section of them. The next generation is going to have much bigger problems because they won't have been exposed to many of them when they were young - kids with colds are not allowed in day cares so nobody else gets exposed, nobody lets their kids play in the mud any more, everything has to be sanitized (like good old soap and water isn't good enough - you have to have an antibacterial soap).
Goats.ex
Baaah - that's for after they divorce :-)
If you can find it, I'd be interested in reading it :-) I'm not an SJW, so I can change my mind when presented with facts.
I know. But what can you do ... it's like the anti-nuclear-power gang. If they weren't so .... you know ... we'd have already done the research to fund real nuclear waste recycling instead of just stockpiling it.
We have men's shelters here, and nice big posters on the walls in the waiting rooms of the local health centers advertising them. Women's shelters get pamphlet space. This is because unlike women, men don't know there are domestic violence shelters catering to their needs so there's a push to inform the public.
And sexual violence on women (and men) is vastly under-reported. We have to work with the hard data we've got. And that data shows that there's way too much violence, period.
No - they develop as males. Males don't bite. So, they can't transmit disease. I don't think this is really a viable solution, though. Say we manage to find a chemical or bio-chemical agent to do the job. Do we really want to introduce it into the environment? The effects would probably be worse than DDT.
Cyclical boom-bust with the VCs. How many companies died in the last tech bubble? A career isn't just "work during the bubble, then get laid off and scrape by until the next bubble." That's for realtors.
"Go work on web designs"? This isn't 1997. The market is saturated and then some, and that's not going to change. Today's equivalent is "you can always build apps."
The goal is not to kill off all mosquitoes. Not only is it impossible, but we don't know what some of the side effects will be. We do know that mosquito larvae are a food source for many fish at an early stage of their life cycle, and the fish help keep the mosquito population somewhat under control. Take away all the larvae, you may have fewer fish reaching adulthood.
Getting money from abusive parents who are sitting in jail is not going to work. You can't get money from someone who doesn't have any, and no assets to speak of. So if you're 100% serious, your notions are not just a joke, but tragic.
Without some proof, that's just an anecdote with no backing. If you want to get into anecdotal evidence, I've never sexually assaulted anyone, but I have been sexually assaulted a few times. And no, I didn't report them (though the first one was reported by hospital staff after admitting me, and the medical secretary at the hospital said I should report the second one after I told her about it).
Instead of repeating myself ad nauseum, just follow this link and this one :-)
Go to my journal and read the first two entries. It explains how I no longer use my 5-digit account, etc. Look at the comments in the second entry. And that's tame. There are days when he would literally post 100s of comments in articles, some a lot worse. But that's okay - we're good now :-)
Well then, you must think I'm really primitive - I'm in Poutineville, Kanuckistan (aka the province of Quebec, Canada). :-)
Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women
and
National estimates indicate that approximately 25% of women report being victims of a partner’s physical or sexual violence at some point in their life, and approximately 1.5 million women and 835 000 men are physically assaulted or raped by intimate partners in the United States annually
So, almost twice as many women in relationships are victims than men.
When women use tools and weapons, it's often to stop further violence from their partners.
Also:
Some 83% of men had at least two incidents recorded; one man had 52. In contrast, 62% of women recorded as perpetrators had only one incident recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any woman was eight.
52. That guy sure held a grudge. That most men have two or more incidents, and most women one, kind of shows who's the more forgiving (and ends up returning to get beaten again), and it ain't men.
That is total bullcrap. Instead of repeating the big lie, you could have just searched for it and found this study
While the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men, women are arrested in three of every 10 incidents and men in only one of 10, a study says
Men are responsible for most cases of domestic violence, but women are three times more likely to be arrested for incidents of abuse, research reveals today.
A report into domestic abuse and gender by Bristol University found that the majority of cases involved alcohol misuse, that women were more likely to use a weapon to protect themselves and that children were present in the majority of cases.
Previous research has shown that the vast majority of domestic violence perpetrators recorded by the police are men (92%) and their victims mainly female (91%), with many more repeat incidents recorded for male than female perpetrators. While the majority of incidents of domestic violence recorded by the police involve male-to-female abuse, little is known about the nature of incidents where men are recorded as victims and women as perpetrators, nor about the circumstances where both partners are recorded as perpetrators.
The new study, by professor Marianne Hester of the University of Bristol's school for policy studies and carried out on behalf of the Northern Rock Foundation, looked at 96 examples from 692 "perpetrator profiles" tracked from 2001 to 2007.
The research looked at 32 cases where women were the aggressors, 32 where men were in that role, and 32 where it was both partners.
It found that 48% of the cases were related to couples still in a relationship, 27% involved violence after separation and the rest involved couples in the process of splitting up.
Some 83% of men had at least two incidents recorded; one man had 52. In contrast, 62% of women recorded as perpetrators had only one incident recorded, and the highest number of repeat incidents for any woman was eight.
Men were significantly more likely than women to use physical violence, threats and harassment, and to damage the women's property; women were more likely to damage their own.
Men's violence tended to create a "context of fear and control", the researchers said, whereas women were more likely to use verbal abuse or some physical violence.
But women were more likely to use a weapon, although this was often to stop further violence from their partners.
All cases with seven or more incidents, most of which involved men, led to arrest
But in general, women were three times more likely to be arrested: during the six-year period, men were arrested once in every 10 incidents and women arrested once in every three.
There's also the testosterone benefit.
Testosterone has a great deal to do with risk taking behaviors, and why men and women approach risk differently.
People mostly don't make decisions logically - they make the decision, then justify it if they have to. I love chocolate. If asked, I can give reasons to justify that, but I loved chocolate way before I ever gave a thought as to why.
I love dogs. Ask me why, and I can come up with reasons - but again, those are post hoc justifications for the fact that I just happen to love dogs. The same can apply to those who don't like dogs. Refuting their reasons logically, even if they agree with you 100%, won't suddenly make them like dogs.
Just like driving a car or riding a bicycle, most of our decisions are mostly made on autopilot before we are conscious of them. You sit down beside someone in the hospital who really stinks, and you immediately don't like them. Why? You don't know anything about them except that they stink, which has nothing to do with who they are. They may have a leaking colostomy bag for all you know.
The same can be seen on crowded buses. People don't like to be around people who smell different. No logical reason. Purely chemical.
So both men and women operate emotionally, contrary to the post that I replied to.
When you go bankrupt personally, you don't get to keep all your stuff anyway. Better to sell it and clear the debt, than to lose it and retain the debt because it sold for pennies on the dollar at auction.
They also do have the power to impose currency controls to prevent the outflow of capital.
Some other countries might trade with them, provided they can then sell the drachmas for another currency - but not too many people are going to want to hold drachmas.
Kind of hard to kill them all ... but if you get them to switch from female to male, those mosquitoes won't feed and transmit diseases, and they can't lay eggs.
With the quickly deteriorating working conditions (increasing ageism, 24-hour availability, poorer long-term pay prospects, offshoring, etc) maybe mothers are just being smarter in not pushing the next generation into "careers" in computing that will have a shelf life of a decade before they have to find something else to do?
If you think it's bad that 40 is the new 60 in IT, just wait ...