Obscure science is fine. Hey, I'm in academia; that's what we do here. I just do not understand why people do studies like this will the result will either be dismissed or seen as justification of existing biases. Science is only useful in so far as people react to it constructively, and nothing constructive ever seems to come out of these sorts of studies.
Are you seriously proposing lowering the standards for women? What would this test consist of? Can you even define "women's intelligence"?
Different standards are not necessarily lower standards. I think what the parent post was implying was that women and men may have different kinds of intelligence. It's like vectors. Take two vectors of the same length pointing in different directions. If either is projected onto the other, it will seem shorter. Any exam points the vector in a certain direction and checks the length of the projection relative to the exam vector. Changing the direction of the exam vector does not "lower the standards". Thus, a test designed to measure women's intelligence (which I agree is an undefined and possibly meaningless term) would not necessarily lower the standards for anyone.
True, humor is important. That does not discretic the idea that what you find humorous is tied to your beliefs. For example, if the original poster had truly believed men and women are equal, he would not have found the joke amusing because it would have been pointless. Unless, of course, he were trying to make fun of stereostypes. In which case, it was poorly executed and should be protested on those grounds.
That's kind of the point of these Creative Commons licenses. They are not trying to create new laws. They are taking existing laws of copyright and saying "here are some prepackaged ways you can give everyone specific rights". Otherwise, people would have to make up their own copyright statement each time or license to different people individually.
I think part of the over population problem is also that PhDs become so specialized that they have to go into academia or a research lab. I do not know about other fields, but as a computer scientist, my career options drastically narrow by getting a PhD. Plus, by getting a PhD, I have become such a specialist that I have forgotten general skills. Thus, unless a position is specifically looking for a PhD in my specific subfield, I will probably be beat out by someone with a BS or Masters.
Combine this with people who go into grad school without knowing whether the life of an academic is really for them, and you get a glut of PhDs trying to become researchers reinforcing the exact pressures you describe.
Actually, the reason is probably even more simple. Where is Google? Mountain View, CA. What's near mountain view? San Francisco. Where can they get random employees to go in trucks? See above.
Being at least tangentially in the field of theorem proving, I can say that this is completely ridiculous. Replacing human proofs is not going to be possible until we at least have mechanical provers which can really do induction. Many cannot do it at all, none can do it well. Furthermore, quantifier heuristics are often shaky at best. This is the wall that the software verification community has been hitting for years.
The main problem I find with not being able to simple open and poke at a single text file is that it destroys the exploratory nature of the program for new users. The first time I started Eclipse, I wanted to play around with it to see if I wanted to try it on an actual project. Instead, I had to go through the hassel of starting a new project. Now, this wasn't a difficult task. However, it did stop the flow of exploration, which is just a bad design.
Generally, the reason gas stations, for example, are liable for things and software companies are not is because law makers are not going to impose liability on an industry with lots of money until there is an obvious chance of someone getting killed or seriously injured from their product. I have a feeling that as we see more software controlling things like vehicles, software, at least that subset of it, will become something vendors are held liable for.
If you are trying to prevent violence, then limit the exposure of violence.
It's a pity it's breasts and swear words, not violence, which is being regulated then. I would rather see a nipple for a couple seconds than be exposed to the violence that is allowed on TV everyday. That said, I'm not about to complain about it, because changing the channel, choosing not to watch TV is, in fact, quite easy. Want to know how my parents prevented me from watching unwholesome television as a child? They encouraged me to be more amused by things other than television. They encouraged me to read, play outside, play games with my friends.
I wish I could be a grad student and publish a bunch of bullshit with graphs and get my degree!
This is not an academic paper. It is just an informal paper that happens to be done by graduate students. You really should make sure you have something to be an anti-intellectual snob about before you start spouting nonsense.
The problem with that approach is that people are more likely to believe the initial reporting and miss or even willfully ignore corrections. Which is more memborable? Big glaring graphics and shouts of "We found them!" or the much more sober presentation of "Well, maybe we were wrong.".
Re:How to cancel an order on Amazon
on
The Media in 2014
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So you're objecting to the fact that they have streamlined the process so you get your products faster? If you buy items that ship within 24 hours, you have to expect that in at most 24 hours (assuming they're not running behind) you'll be unable to cancel your order.
Slashdot Mirror
Obscure science is fine. Hey, I'm in academia; that's what we do here. I just do not understand why people do studies like this will the result will either be dismissed or seen as justification of existing biases. Science is only useful in so far as people react to it constructively, and nothing constructive ever seems to come out of these sorts of studies.
Are you seriously proposing lowering the standards for women? What would this test consist of? Can you even define "women's intelligence"?
Different standards are not necessarily lower standards. I think what the parent post was implying was that women and men may have different kinds of intelligence. It's like vectors. Take two vectors of the same length pointing in different directions. If either is projected onto the other, it will seem shorter. Any exam points the vector in a certain direction and checks the length of the projection relative to the exam vector. Changing the direction of the exam vector does not "lower the standards". Thus, a test designed to measure women's intelligence (which I agree is an undefined and possibly meaningless term) would not necessarily lower the standards for anyone.
Why do they do studies like this one? Since you know and all...
Wrong does not justify wrong.
True, humor is important. That does not discretic the idea that what you find humorous is tied to your beliefs. For example, if the original poster had truly believed men and women are equal, he would not have found the joke amusing because it would have been pointless. Unless, of course, he were trying to make fun of stereostypes. In which case, it was poorly executed and should be protested on those grounds.
What a person finds humorous reflects their underlying beliefs.
That's kind of the point of these Creative Commons licenses. They are not trying to create new laws. They are taking existing laws of copyright and saying "here are some prepackaged ways you can give everyone specific rights". Otherwise, people would have to make up their own copyright statement each time or license to different people individually.
I think part of the over population problem is also that PhDs become so specialized that they have to go into academia or a research lab. I do not know about other fields, but as a computer scientist, my career options drastically narrow by getting a PhD. Plus, by getting a PhD, I have become such a specialist that I have forgotten general skills. Thus, unless a position is specifically looking for a PhD in my specific subfield, I will probably be beat out by someone with a BS or Masters.
Combine this with people who go into grad school without knowing whether the life of an academic is really for them, and you get a glut of PhDs trying to become researchers reinforcing the exact pressures you describe.
Actually, the reason is probably even more simple. Where is Google? Mountain View, CA. What's near mountain view? San Francisco. Where can they get random employees to go in trucks? See above.
Email me if you want, put slashdot into the subject
And that doesn't cause it to be automatically filtered?!?
Yet people use laptops with short battery life for many of the functions this could replace.
FORTRAN! Because it's... umm... FORTRAN!
Being at least tangentially in the field of theorem proving, I can say that this is completely ridiculous. Replacing human proofs is not going to be possible until we at least have mechanical provers which can really do induction. Many cannot do it at all, none can do it well. Furthermore, quantifier heuristics are often shaky at best. This is the wall that the software verification community has been hitting for years.
The main problem I find with not being able to simple open and poke at a single text file is that it destroys the exploratory nature of the program for new users. The first time I started Eclipse, I wanted to play around with it to see if I wanted to try it on an actual project. Instead, I had to go through the hassel of starting a new project. Now, this wasn't a difficult task. However, it did stop the flow of exploration, which is just a bad design.
Generally, the reason gas stations, for example, are liable for things and software companies are not is because law makers are not going to impose liability on an industry with lots of money until there is an obvious chance of someone getting killed or seriously injured from their product. I have a feeling that as we see more software controlling things like vehicles, software, at least that subset of it, will become something vendors are held liable for.
I'm not sure I would even watch a TV show about Linux.
If you are trying to prevent violence, then limit the exposure of violence.
It's a pity it's breasts and swear words, not violence, which is being regulated then. I would rather see a nipple for a couple seconds than be exposed to the violence that is allowed on TV everyday. That said, I'm not about to complain about it, because changing the channel, choosing not to watch TV is, in fact, quite easy. Want to know how my parents prevented me from watching unwholesome television as a child? They encouraged me to be more amused by things other than television. They encouraged me to read, play outside, play games with my friends.
How do you breathe?
Why does one French man's opinion make all of France look silly?
We don't need to be hearing about what you like to get your hands dirty with...
I wish I could be a grad student and publish a bunch of bullshit with graphs and get my degree!
This is not an academic paper. It is just an informal paper that happens to be done by graduate students. You really should make sure you have something to be an anti-intellectual snob about before you start spouting nonsense.
Perhaps it wasn't an emergency.
The problem with that approach is that people are more likely to believe the initial reporting and miss or even willfully ignore corrections. Which is more memborable? Big glaring graphics and shouts of "We found them!" or the much more sober presentation of "Well, maybe we were wrong.".
So you're objecting to the fact that they have streamlined the process so you get your products faster? If you buy items that ship within 24 hours, you have to expect that in at most 24 hours (assuming they're not running behind) you'll be unable to cancel your order.
It seems that that is just as likely to be social as biological.