I'm not a biologist, but I'm going to go with "never". From what I understand, we can predict a persons height with far greater accuracy by simply measuring the height of their parents than we can with DNA. I have serious doubts about our ability to predict, accurately, anything more complicated.
We've got at least one regular biologist around here. I'd like to hear their opinion.
This is about opportunity. No one is forcing girls to participate if they don't have the interest. They're just eliminating a few barriers, making it easier for those girls who are interested to learn.
What image did you have in your head? Jack-booted thugs kidnapping low-income girls and forcing them, at gun point, to do programming exercises?
Classist? Because by making a program like this available to children who live in low-income households is somehow unfair to kids from wealthy families?
I'm glad you brought up this absurdity. It's easy to see how poor children have fewer opportunities than wealthy children. We create programs like this to partially redress that imbalance. Makes sense, doesn't it? There are barriers imposed on the poor children that wealthy children don't have to overcome. Now we just need to you to see just a tiny bit further and realize that women and girls also face barriers that men and boys do not face.
Many? You're deeply confused. I counted 6 -- though they're not clearly visible. Of those six, four of those are clearly marketed toward boys. Two appear to be gender neutral.
It's pretty clear that the link does not support the claims made my the person posting it. The packaging is missing from almost every item on the page.
People can click and see that for themselves. They can decide who is being honest and who is not.
That's a big one. Not just in that context. It's why I'll forever maintain that new exciting things are for playing and old and stable things are for work. When you already know the problems, risk, and challenges, you're better able to plan. When you pick from the latest headlines, you're almost guaranteed to pick a flash-in-the-pan technology that'll be dead and gone in a year or two.
I think that makes his point nicely. If you really "don't care", and believe that the rest of society "doesn't care" as well, you shouldn't have any issue with Grishnakh's challenge.
After all, you're willing to comment and respond about it -- so it's not like it's a complete non-issue to you. It'll take all of 5 seconds to execute, another minute to post the results.
See, you know what the results will be. You know that there will be some serious social consequences -- all over a matter as trivial as what a person wears to bed!
Now, consider that there are also unfair social consequences that children (and the adults involved) must face regarding their interests and toy preferences. How do you think those pressures influence a child's understanding of gender-roles? What impact does that have on their future career opportunities? (Girls are nurses, boys are doctors. Things like that.)
The reason we want to see more science related toys marketed toward girls is because those toys are overwhelmingly marketed toward boys. That's an artificial barrier that keeps girls away from those sorts of toys.
Everyone acknowledges that there are differences between boys and girls. That's not the problem. The problem is that we impose unnecessary (and harmful) restrictions on girls based on our own biases and prejudices.
That's interesting. A look at the mods here indicates the opposite. Worse, there are some pretty vial right-wing comments here that wouldn't find a receptive audience on deeply conservative sites modded insightful and informative.
I'm curious to see what you'd think a centrist or right-leaning would look like. From what I can see, you'd think WND was too liberal.
No, we weren't. We USED to make toys like that, but that hasn't been true in a while. Certainly a lot longer than unsuccessful men have been whining and crying about "SJW's" or whatever it is they're blame for their personal insecurities these days.
Trying to find any toy not marketed to a specific gender today is painfully difficult. Head down to your local toy store and see how easy it is to find a gender-neutral lego set. Can you find one in the vast ocean of sets for boys? Is there one near the end-cap of the one or two sets marketed toward girls? Before the mid-80's, gender neutral lego sets were the norm.
Girls don't want to play with science kits? Well, then you must MARKET THE SCIENCE KITS TO THEM!
Yes, yes we do. Try to find a microscope or science kit that ISN'T marketed exclusively toward boys. It isn't easy. It's because we've created this bizarre gendered toy phenomenon that we need to break those stereotypes. Girls don't want to play with "boy-toys" because they're for boys, not because of anything related to the nature of the toy. The same is true for boys, who don't want to play with "girl-toys" -- this is true even when the girl and boy versions of a toy are identical in every way except color or other similar decoration.
We do need more gender neutral toys -- and we'll need a period where we have "traditionally" (read: over the last 25-30 years) toys to help dissolve those stereotypes we've already passed along to our children. Give us microscopes marketed toward girls for the next 15 years and I'll happily lobby for general-neutral science toys.
I know quite a few people that have bought homeopathic remedies as well.
None of them are crackpots, new agers, or hippies. They simply don't know that what they bought wasn't medicine. To them, one cold remedy is the same as another.
Take a look next time you're at the pharmacy. The homeopathic stuff is mixed in with all the other products -- and it's not like the packaging makes it terribly clear. You'll often find little more than the word "homeopathic" in thin white 10pt text printed over a busy background. Worse, like generic and store-brand varieties, the packaging mimics brand-name products. Flipping the package over to read the "drug facts" isn't going to help the average consumer either -- how are they supposed to know what 100x or 250d actually mean?
It takes knowledge and effort to avoid homeopathic remedies. You'll find that buying homeopathic products isn't often a choice consumers make consciously.
I'm saying it's far less dramatic than the article implies. For example, they're not reading people's thoughts (in the sense implied) or doing anything that would suggest that the technology could develop toward that end.
We've seen this countless times before. What makes you think that, this time, the sensationalized story doesn't deviate significantly from reality?
No, no it couldn't. It's pretty clear from the article that the summary is complete nonsense. They don't run them backwards (whatever that's supposed to mean) nor do the NN's produce images. . In the case of the random input image, as an analogy, think of the NN as a fitness function in a genetic algorithm. The photo input images work similarly.
It makes pretty pictures, but as far as psychedelic experiences are concerned, there is absolutely no knowledge to be gained here.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a biologist, but I'm going to go with "never". From what I understand, we can predict a persons height with far greater accuracy by simply measuring the height of their parents than we can with DNA. I have serious doubts about our ability to predict, accurately, anything more complicated.
We've got at least one regular biologist around here. I'd like to hear their opinion.
This is about opportunity. No one is forcing girls to participate if they don't have the interest. They're just eliminating a few barriers, making it easier for those girls who are interested to learn.
What image did you have in your head? Jack-booted thugs kidnapping low-income girls and forcing them, at gun point, to do programming exercises?
it would seem to match his requirements nicely.
We don't even know what his requirements are!
I suppose you also think we should offer food-stamps to the wealthy, because to exclude them would be discriminatory...
Classist? Because by making a program like this available to children who live in low-income households is somehow unfair to kids from wealthy families?
I'm glad you brought up this absurdity. It's easy to see how poor children have fewer opportunities than wealthy children. We create programs like this to partially redress that imbalance. Makes sense, doesn't it? There are barriers imposed on the poor children that wealthy children don't have to overcome. Now we just need to you to see just a tiny bit further and realize that women and girls also face barriers that men and boys do not face.
Sounds to me like you had a lot of opportunity and resources available to you.
Do you want praise for taking advantage of those? Why do you want to deny others opportunity?
As I stated earlier, I'll let those links speak for themselves. That is, provided anyone other than me bothers to click them.
It's better than nothing. Besides, I suspect this is the definition General Mills is using.
(After all, it's the definition he used when he lead his troops to victory in WWII.)
Ruby
Many? You're deeply confused. I counted 6 -- though they're not clearly visible. Of those six, four of those are clearly marketed toward boys. Two appear to be gender neutral.
It's pretty clear that the link does not support the claims made my the person posting it. The packaging is missing from almost every item on the page.
People can click and see that for themselves. They can decide who is being honest and who is not.
Lack of Certainly.
That's a big one. Not just in that context. It's why I'll forever maintain that new exciting things are for playing and old and stable things are for work. When you already know the problems, risk, and challenges, you're better able to plan. When you pick from the latest headlines, you're almost guaranteed to pick a flash-in-the-pan technology that'll be dead and gone in a year or two.
what do you see that makes you think that I'm farther than far right?
The belief that Slashdot is a "left-leaning site". From what I've seen, Slashdot is very far to the right, particularly on to social issues.
Do you know what nobody associates with Gamergate? Ethics in Journalism.
There's a VERY good reason for that.
It's the same reason nobody associates it with election reform, school lunch programs, or the Loch Ness monster.
I think that makes his point nicely. If you really "don't care", and believe that the rest of society "doesn't care" as well, you shouldn't have any issue with Grishnakh's challenge.
After all, you're willing to comment and respond about it -- so it's not like it's a complete non-issue to you. It'll take all of 5 seconds to execute, another minute to post the results.
See, you know what the results will be. You know that there will be some serious social consequences -- all over a matter as trivial as what a person wears to bed!
Now, consider that there are also unfair social consequences that children (and the adults involved) must face regarding their interests and toy preferences. How do you think those pressures influence a child's understanding of gender-roles? What impact does that have on their future career opportunities? (Girls are nurses, boys are doctors. Things like that.)
It's really not difficult to understand.
The reason we want to see more science related toys marketed toward girls is because those toys are overwhelmingly marketed toward boys. That's an artificial barrier that keeps girls away from those sorts of toys.
Everyone acknowledges that there are differences between boys and girls. That's not the problem. The problem is that we impose unnecessary (and harmful) restrictions on girls based on our own biases and prejudices.
How very dishonest of you. What I'm not seeing here is the packaging -- the part that will tell you how those toys are being marketed.
That's interesting. A look at the mods here indicates the opposite. Worse, there are some pretty vial right-wing comments here that wouldn't find a receptive audience on deeply conservative sites modded insightful and informative.
I'm curious to see what you'd think a centrist or right-leaning would look like. From what I can see, you'd think WND was too liberal.
No, we weren't. We USED to make toys like that, but that hasn't been true in a while. Certainly a lot longer than unsuccessful men have been whining and crying about "SJW's" or whatever it is they're blame for their personal insecurities these days.
Trying to find any toy not marketed to a specific gender today is painfully difficult. Head down to your local toy store and see how easy it is to find a gender-neutral lego set. Can you find one in the vast ocean of sets for boys? Is there one near the end-cap of the one or two sets marketed toward girls? Before the mid-80's, gender neutral lego sets were the norm.
Girls don't want to play with science kits? Well, then you must MARKET THE SCIENCE KITS TO THEM!
Yes, yes we do. Try to find a microscope or science kit that ISN'T marketed exclusively toward boys. It isn't easy. It's because we've created this bizarre gendered toy phenomenon that we need to break those stereotypes. Girls don't want to play with "boy-toys" because they're for boys, not because of anything related to the nature of the toy. The same is true for boys, who don't want to play with "girl-toys" -- this is true even when the girl and boy versions of a toy are identical in every way except color or other similar decoration.
We do need more gender neutral toys -- and we'll need a period where we have "traditionally" (read: over the last 25-30 years) toys to help dissolve those stereotypes we've already passed along to our children. Give us microscopes marketed toward girls for the next 15 years and I'll happily lobby for general-neutral science toys.
If you say that the placebo is a placebo (in such a way that the patient understands what placebo means), you completely eliminate the placebo effect.
Believe it or not, that isn't true.
You take cold remedies to help relieve symptoms, not to cure the disease.
Wait ... so the guy who wrote the needlessly provocative post, clearly intended to incite a negative response, is the victim?
The guy who fights against equal rights and shamelessly demeans anyone who thinks otherwise is the one who's being harmed here?
What a topsy-turvy world...
I know quite a few people that have bought homeopathic remedies as well.
None of them are crackpots, new agers, or hippies. They simply don't know that what they bought wasn't medicine. To them, one cold remedy is the same as another.
Take a look next time you're at the pharmacy. The homeopathic stuff is mixed in with all the other products -- and it's not like the packaging makes it terribly clear. You'll often find little more than the word "homeopathic" in thin white 10pt text printed over a busy background. Worse, like generic and store-brand varieties, the packaging mimics brand-name products. Flipping the package over to read the "drug facts" isn't going to help the average consumer either -- how are they supposed to know what 100x or 250d actually mean?
It takes knowledge and effort to avoid homeopathic remedies. You'll find that buying homeopathic products isn't often a choice consumers make consciously.
I'm saying it's far less dramatic than the article implies. For example, they're not reading people's thoughts (in the sense implied) or doing anything that would suggest that the technology could develop toward that end.
We've seen this countless times before. What makes you think that, this time, the sensationalized story doesn't deviate significantly from reality?
We've seen this same story every few years for as long as I can remember. I don't know how you missed it.
So far, we've seen a 100% BS rate. I don't expect that to change.
No, no it couldn't. It's pretty clear from the article that the summary is complete nonsense. They don't run them backwards (whatever that's supposed to mean) nor do the NN's produce images.
.
In the case of the random input image, as an analogy, think of the NN as a fitness function in a genetic algorithm. The photo input images work similarly.
It makes pretty pictures, but as far as psychedelic experiences are concerned, there is absolutely no knowledge to be gained here.