I posted separately as well, but I feel strongly enough to do so again...The loophole is in the "logical argument" part of the definition.
The way it is worded, it doesn't explicitly state that you have to do all these things for it to be science. Someone could [as ID proponents do] take existing "pure" scienctific research, use it to posit that there is order to the universe and use inductive reasoning [logical argument] to "prove" that a supreme being exists.
This will move science into the realm of philosophy, and IMO, muddle the heads of schoolchildren in Kansas for years to come.
...check your eyes! It's in the fine print! "Logical Argument" gets you there. Now all of a sudden, the standard of observable evidence is not absolutely necessary. You can take existing scientific observations, and use logical arguments to 'prove' that there is a supreme being.
Logical arguments and inductive reasoning are what can get you to a hypothesis, but then you've got to be able to measure, replicate, and explain your results.
...the crux of the new definition is in just two words: "logical argument".
Essentially, if they can slip that in to the definition, they will be able to use inductive reasoning and call it science. Which will move the conversation from what can be observed and and tested to what we can posit through logic proofs. Which will then absolutely requre Intelligent Design to be considered pure science.
Call me crazy, but I prefer to keep science and philosophy in separate textbooks.
...since Apple's strategy is to be in the content storage/management business [iPod], how cool would it be to have a Tivo-pod [tPod?] for all your video content?
To clarify, you're actually not "just overhead"...which is actually a more costly option to a finance person than a contract worker. Overhead is the stuff the number crunchers try to reduce - rent [real estate], utilities, capital expenses [materials the company 'owns'], etc. This stuff can stay on the books for longer than the actual 'purchase' [or employment] of the item/person, which adds to the expense of running the business. If you were overhead, you would be more expensive to the company - insurance, severance and whatever other bennies are in there.
Contractors are more like a line-item expense...need to reduce it? Then let a few go next month. Have budget for a new project? Then add a few.
I agree with the reviewer that Wiki isn't absolutely complete or correct, or devoid of bias [e.g. Intelligent Design entry]. And he is right that the 'real' encyclopedias work hard present topics in as factual and unbiased way as possible [which is why they can be quite dry, IMO].
But the power of Wikipedia [at least as I use it] is that it is a quick and inexpensive way to get an idea about a topic and its background. If I'm using it for source information then I'm going to be looking to additional sources for corroboration, but I don't always need that.
Yes, some times it's not 100% accurate, but then, what is? Even encyclopedias go through re-writes in their new editions.
What will be interesting to see is whether Lucas is more interested in making money off the franchise or whether he really prefers his craptacular 'newer' versions.
Think about this: after Episode III is complete, and all the box sets have been delivered, see if there will be an 'anniversary/retro' pack of the original three films, in their original form.
Then you can see if he's more interested in the cash or the art.
First, to be clear, Bud doesn't know what 'you' bought. That would take them matching data from the credit card [assuming you purchased with a credit card], which they don't have access to, to the scanner sale [which only records what product was scanned]. All they are doing is making sure their product is available, all the time, and in the right product mix for the store/neighborhood.
A big problem in the beverage industry is 'out-of-stocks'. Most retailers use direct-store-delivery for beverages [bottlers put the stuff on trucks and tell the truck - sometimes in transit - where and how much to drop off at each store]. Before scanners, it could be days before an out-of-stock product was identified. Think about how much product moves off a shelf - per day, per store, per market - having no product on the shelf adds up quick.
The dollars manufacturers can lose due to out-of-stocks is huge. And retailers don't want empty space, and they don't want shoppers not finding their favorite product and going somewhere else. The manufacturer who figures out how to keep their merchandise in-stock efficiently will be a favorite of the retailer, especially if they are a big name like Bud, who also advertises a lot.
Companies like Bud use market research to determine the mix of products. Markets that have a higher Hispanic population may have a higher mix of beverages that cater to this group. But they don't know that 'you' specifically bought their product.
Nothing to see here...unless you're overly paranoid [but no one on/. is that way, right?]
I don't know if you got the correct tuning for Bron-y-Aur, but it makes all the difference. He uses a drop-C tuning, but doesn't tune down the A string [from memory, I believe it's C-A-C-G-C-E]. I could never play it until I figured that out!
I still can't play it smoothly like Jimmy, but it's guaranteed to break the ice at parties!
Slow down a bit. You may have been to dozens of gigs, but as a guitarist I'd like to make a couple points.
1. Agreed that only morons wouldn't tune prior to a show, and that good ears can tune quite well. I can usually tune my acoustic [when practicing] without a tuner or even fretting from string to string. 2. HOWEVER - Changing conditions [hot/cold, dry/humid] can put a guitar out of tune really quickly. Sometimes from backstage to stage, if you have a sensitive instrument. 3. Any performance that uses amplification complicates the issue. Harmonic tuning can cause some serious feedback/frequency waves if you're cranked, and the audience doesn't like that too much. 4. Turning down is impractical in this setting because the ambient noise in a live, loud setting makes it hard to hear. And your amps are preset to a volume for the PA - if you change that you'll get a few dirty looks from the soundman. 5. In the middle of a set playing live & loud, your ears lose their sensitivity. The subtleties of 2-4 cents can be lost. I've had this happen and it's really frustrating to know you're out of tune and not know 'where'.
I also pretty much agree w/you, and would posit this: I think most 'purists' have more an issue with lack of musicianship than with studio production. If great musicians used the studio to make a cool song, fine. The problem comes when artists essentially become popular because of their looks, the way they dance, and the songs they 'perform' [I won't say sing] - which are generally written by someone who is truly talented at writing a song.
I got into a huge argument recently with someone who hates the new Outkast song 'Hey Ya'. I admit it's a silly, fun song, but it's also catchy, and there are some [IMO] brilliant little hooks/time sigs in there that make it what it is. But at least they wrote and produced it themselves.
Who gets more fame, glory, and cash - Britney, or her songwriters, engineers, producers and choreographers who make her what she is? Shouldn't be that way, if we were rewarding the real artists instead of the art.
The reason Jimi couldn't stay in tune had more to do with his use of the tremelo bar [the metal arm attached to the bridge that can be lifted/pushed up/down to change the pitch]. Excessive use of the arm [as Jimi was famous for] changes tension on the strings at the string winders and nut [the 'head' of the guitar], putting things horribly out of tune. Many of today's guitars compensate for that by adding a lock on the headstock nut. That's why Eddie van Halen never seems to be too out of tune playing live. Newer technology!
Actually, alternate tunings are used a lot today, especially for the heavier "nu-metal" bands. Many are tuned to open C or open D tunings. Plus, some use 7-string [as opposed to 6-string] guitars. Using this tuner could emulate some of those lower tones on the same guitar as your standard tuning.
Would love to see this on an acoustic. Bron-y-Aur, anyone??
Apologies if you were being satirical, but much of this has been done already. In some places, based on the items you purchase at a grocery store, you get special coupons at checkout [if Coke is scanned you may get a coupon for Pepsi]. The retailers [savvy ones, anyway] have your history of purchases and use it for directly marketing to you.
I agree that the 'wireless' scanning won't give any greater degree of tying an item to a person [unless the person has a unique ID attached to them]. But this could easily happen with either a smart card or RFID embedded in a grocer's frequent shopper card.
I also agree that there are massive amounts of data [which make it cost-prohibitive to mine]. But keep Moore's law in mind - running through terabytes can be done today by a machine that can fit under your desk.
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some senator will have the brilliant idea of embedding RFID in ID cards in the name of National Security(tm). Heck, if you've bought a new car recently, you know the keys are RFID coded - and the VIN is tied to your name.
Personally, I'm less concerned about marketeers using the info to sell more to me. It may be an annoyance, but their end goal is for you to want to buy from them - they don't want to alienate you or make you angry. Our elected officials, however, seem to me to be frighteningly uneducated/shortsighted when it comes to wanting to use technology to make us all 'more safe'.
"In fact, one of the beliefs that seems to be characteristic of the postmodernist mind set
is the idea that politics and cleverness are the basis for all judgments about quality or
truth, regardless of the subject matter or who is making the judgment."
One only need to channel surf the cable-as-news networks in the U.S. to see evidence of this.
The techno-classical music in A Clockwork Orange. You can tell there's some human element in the creation of the work, but the execution / production is very 'mechanical'.
Agreed... but what happens if / when major product 'upgrades' [I'm thinking M$] don't support / play mp3/OGG, etc., but rather some DRM-version that can be read/played on these little things? I'm the first to admit that I'm not completely up to speed on this, but the concept of 'DRM through product obsolescence' seems feasible, from a nefarious content controller [RIAA, MS] point-of-view.
Slightly off-topic, but are their any open-source, linux-type audio file burner/player apps, that exist today?
Agreed that teams who lose all QBs can find another one...but where do they find them? From other professional outlets: their practice squad, from other teams in trade, or from other professional leagues. Sometimes even a former [retired] player comes back, [see: Tommy Maddox].
But also-rans? Perhaps when compared to the rest of the league, but when compared to even the top players overseas or in college, they are miles ahead. The reaction time required for a pro QB to read a defense and choose the right outlet for a pass is something on the order of 1.5 - 2 seconds. Not to mention have the physical ability to get the ball in the right spot where it can't be intercepted. Not something just 'anyone' can do.
The parent poster was stating that with some 40 million people, there must be more than 3,000 who were capable of playing -- therefore not warranting those high salaries. My point was that the logic didn't hold up -- simply because you have a large sample, doesn't mean you should be able to find a suitable subject, especially with multiple specific capabilities required from that subject [some of which can be learned & otehrs which are inherent].
"I would find it extremely doubtful...", but have you really checked?
There are hundreds of thousands of male students who play football in high school each year. Only a select few are chosen to play at major college schools [less than 1%, IIRC], and some others decide to play at smaller schools [say tens of thousands]. Pro scouts look high and low for potential athletes to join their ranks. Many are invited to summer tryouts. With few exceptions, there are no people who are big, strong, fast, agile and smart enough to play a position in the majors who haven't been found. Read up on what it takes - physical capability-wise - to even make it into the tryouts. Not something that just anyone can do.
"Clearly the pay is help create a mystic about the person..."
Umm, yeah...there are lots of industries who pay employees big wages in order to create a mystic about them. No, actually, it's probably because the 'mystic', as you put it, is that this league has the highest level of skilled performers in that particular profession - bigger, stronger, faster, etc. than the 'average' person [in this realm, physical excellence is more treasured than mental].
I don't doubt that there are some who could play in the NFL [or one of the feeder leagues like NFL Europe or arena football] who aren't, but just because you have a large pool of people, that doesn't mean you should be able to assume a large subset who can perform a specific task.
Don't forget - capability doesn't equal ability. Just because someone is intelligent, has a strong sense of logic, and good typing skills, won't necessarily make them good at programming, will it? Or are you saying that any of 40 million 20-somethings could be one of the few top programmers?
Interesting that he didn't mention the Gore connection. Thanks for the tidbit. Gives some logic to his [IMHO] over-analyzing about 'why' Al lost.
But I'd encourage you to continue to drop in once in awhile. He's defended noted conservatives as well [Tucker Carlson comes to mind], and the gist of his writing is really that the techniques used to spin 'factual' news have gotten so egregious that it is really difficult to wade through already complex issues. I give him kudos for even trying.
Bernie's book has been slammed for poor examples all over the place. His methodology doesn't wash. E.g.: He claims there are more references to 'conservatives' in pubs like NYT than 'liberal', as if calling them out. However, he doesn't check to see if the converse holds true in a conservative rag like the Wash. Times [one would assume so, if the bias is truly 'liberal'].
Check out the Daily Howler for details. And no, it's not a liberal website, but rather one that highlights ANYONE who is not shooting straight.
I'll be the first to agree that all news media has some bias. Some is more slanted than others. But PLEASE, don't use Bernie as a good example of this.
Discussions, arguments, diatribes against "bias" one way or another by the researcher [hey, this _is_/., afterall!]
But let's not forget...all research includes some form of bias or variable to skew the data [even pristine labs have some, albeit usually negligible to make it non-noteworthy]. And social science, well, that's just silly to assume all bias is removed.
Based on the review [I haven't read the book], the author has gone to some lengths to try and define how to make his research as unbiased [meaning accounting for unwanted variables] as possible. Some good counter-points have already been raised here concerning the time period [prior to 800 b.c. would give different results]; and cultural influences [religious beliefs not allowing some uses of technology; closed cultures not benefitting from 'cross-pollenized' ideas].
Some of those that bring up these counter-points may even do additional research to see if what they find supports/amends/contradicts what this author is saying, which will add to the discussion, and hopefully, learning about humankind as a species.
My point: We sometimes confuse words such as "superior" with concepts like "advancing". Some cultures may not have advanced technology, but that doesn't inherently make them less superior. Based on the review, this book, if taken separately from any politicized views [technological progress = good, religion = bad; west=good, east=not so good], is a great thought-starter. And shouldn't that be what science is all about?
if you want to do anything useful with the information by understanding sub-sets or demographics of respondents, you need to increase the sample size.
You may have 400 total adults answering, but if you were trying to understand differences by gender [assume/2] and region [assume/7], your numbers get much smaller, and results become less reliable.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted separately as well, but I feel strongly enough to do so again...The loophole is in
the "logical argument" part of the definition.
The way it is worded, it doesn't explicitly state that you have to do all these things for it to be science. Someone could [as ID proponents do] take existing "pure" scienctific research, use it to posit that there is order to the universe and use inductive reasoning [logical argument] to "prove" that a supreme being exists.
This will move science into the realm of philosophy, and IMO, muddle the heads of schoolchildren in Kansas for years to come.
...check your eyes! It's in the fine print! "Logical Argument" gets you there. Now all of a sudden, the standard of observable evidence is not absolutely necessary. You can take existing scientific observations, and use logical arguments to 'prove' that there is a supreme being.
Logical arguments and inductive reasoning are what can get you to a hypothesis, but then you've got to be able to measure, replicate, and explain your results.
there's your loophole.
Essentially, if they can slip that in to the definition, they will be able to use inductive reasoning and call it science. Which will move the conversation from what can be observed and and tested to what we can posit through logic proofs. Which will then absolutely requre Intelligent Design to be considered pure science.
Call me crazy, but I prefer to keep science and philosophy in separate textbooks.
...since Apple's strategy is to be in the content storage/management business [iPod], how cool would it be to have a Tivo-pod [tPod?] for all your video content?
or is that just crazytalk?
To clarify, you're actually not "just overhead"...which is actually a more costly option to a finance person than a contract worker. Overhead is the stuff the number crunchers try to reduce - rent [real estate], utilities, capital expenses [materials the company 'owns'], etc. This stuff can stay on the books for longer than the actual 'purchase' [or employment] of the item/person, which adds to the expense of running the business. If you were overhead, you would be more expensive to the company - insurance, severance and whatever other bennies are in there.
Contractors are more like a line-item expense...need to reduce it? Then let a few go next month. Have budget for a new project? Then add a few.
I agree with the reviewer that Wiki isn't absolutely complete or correct, or devoid of bias [e.g. Intelligent Design entry]. And he is right that the 'real' encyclopedias work hard present topics in as factual and unbiased way as possible [which is why they can be quite dry, IMO].
But the power of Wikipedia [at least as I use it] is that it is a quick and inexpensive way to get an idea about a topic and its background. If I'm using it for source information then I'm going to be looking to additional sources for corroboration, but I don't always need that.
Yes, some times it's not 100% accurate, but then, what is? Even encyclopedias go through re-writes in their new editions.
What will be interesting to see is whether Lucas is more interested in making money off the franchise or whether he really prefers his craptacular 'newer' versions.
Think about this: after Episode III is complete, and all the box sets have been delivered, see if there will be an 'anniversary/retro' pack of the original three films, in their original form.
Then you can see if he's more interested in the cash or the art.
First, to be clear, Bud doesn't know what 'you' bought. That would take them matching data from the credit card [assuming you purchased with a credit card], which they don't have access to, to the scanner sale [which only records what product was scanned]. All they are doing is making sure their product is available, all the time, and in the right product mix for the store/neighborhood.
/. is that way, right?]
A big problem in the beverage industry is 'out-of-stocks'. Most retailers use direct-store-delivery for beverages [bottlers put the stuff on trucks and tell the truck - sometimes in transit - where and how much to drop off at each store]. Before scanners, it could be days before an out-of-stock product was identified. Think about how much product moves off a shelf - per day, per store, per market - having no product on the shelf adds up quick.
The dollars manufacturers can lose due to out-of-stocks is huge. And retailers don't want empty space, and they don't want shoppers not finding their favorite product and going somewhere else. The manufacturer who figures out how to keep their merchandise in-stock efficiently will be a favorite of the retailer, especially if they are a big name like Bud, who also advertises a lot.
Companies like Bud use market research to determine the mix of products. Markets that have a higher Hispanic population may have a higher mix of beverages that cater to this group. But they don't know that 'you' specifically bought their product.
Nothing to see here...unless you're overly paranoid [but no one on
I'm also a big fan of DGDGBD. Fun tuning to goof off with!
Thanks! I've read the Prosoundweb stuff before, but haven't kept up on it. I'll check it again.
peace
I don't know if you got the correct tuning for Bron-y-Aur, but it makes all the difference. He uses a drop-C tuning, but doesn't tune down the A string [from memory, I believe it's C-A-C-G-C-E]. I could never play it until I figured that out!
I still can't play it smoothly like Jimmy, but it's guaranteed to break the ice at parties!
Slow down a bit. You may have been to dozens of gigs, but as a guitarist I'd like to make a couple points.
1. Agreed that only morons wouldn't tune prior to a show, and that good ears can tune quite well. I can usually tune my acoustic [when practicing] without a tuner or even fretting from string to string.
2. HOWEVER - Changing conditions [hot/cold, dry/humid] can put a guitar out of tune really quickly. Sometimes from backstage to stage, if you have a sensitive instrument.
3. Any performance that uses amplification complicates the issue. Harmonic tuning can cause some serious feedback/frequency waves if you're cranked, and the audience doesn't like that too much.
4. Turning down is impractical in this setting because the ambient noise in a live, loud setting makes it hard to hear. And your amps are preset to a volume for the PA - if you change that you'll get a few dirty looks from the soundman.
5. In the middle of a set playing live & loud, your ears lose their sensitivity. The subtleties of 2-4 cents can be lost. I've had this happen and it's really frustrating to know you're out of tune and not know 'where'.
I also pretty much agree w/you, and would posit this: I think most 'purists' have more an issue with lack of musicianship than with studio production. If great musicians used the studio to make a cool song, fine. The problem comes when artists essentially become popular because of their looks, the way they dance, and the songs they 'perform' [I won't say sing] - which are generally written by someone who is truly talented at writing a song.
I got into a huge argument recently with someone who hates the new Outkast song 'Hey Ya'. I admit it's a silly, fun song, but it's also catchy, and there are some [IMO] brilliant little hooks/time sigs in there that make it what it is. But at least they wrote and produced it themselves.
Who gets more fame, glory, and cash - Britney, or her songwriters, engineers, producers and choreographers who make her what she is? Shouldn't be that way, if we were rewarding the real artists instead of the art.
[pedantic comment ahead]
The reason Jimi couldn't stay in tune had more to do with his use of the tremelo bar [the metal arm attached to the bridge that can be lifted/pushed up/down to change the pitch]. Excessive use of the arm [as Jimi was famous for] changes tension on the strings at the string winders and nut [the 'head' of the guitar], putting things horribly out of tune. Many of today's guitars compensate for that by adding a lock on the headstock nut. That's why Eddie van Halen never seems to be too out of tune playing live. Newer technology!
Actually, alternate tunings are used a lot today, especially for the heavier "nu-metal" bands. Many are tuned to open C or open D tunings. Plus, some use 7-string [as opposed to 6-string] guitars. Using this tuner could emulate some of those lower tones on the same guitar as your standard tuning.
Would love to see this on an acoustic. Bron-y-Aur, anyone??
Apologies if you were being satirical, but much of this has been done already. In some places, based on the items you purchase at a grocery store, you get special coupons at checkout [if Coke is scanned you may get a coupon for Pepsi]. The retailers [savvy ones, anyway] have your history of purchases and use it for directly marketing to you.
I agree that the 'wireless' scanning won't give any greater degree of tying an item to a person [unless the person has a unique ID attached to them]. But this could easily happen with either a smart card or RFID embedded in a grocer's frequent shopper card.
I also agree that there are massive amounts of data [which make it cost-prohibitive to mine]. But keep Moore's law in mind - running through terabytes can be done today by a machine that can fit under your desk.
I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some senator will have the brilliant idea of embedding RFID in ID cards in the name of National Security(tm). Heck, if you've bought a new car recently, you know the keys are RFID coded - and the VIN is tied to your name.
Personally, I'm less concerned about marketeers using the info to sell more to me. It may be an annoyance, but their end goal is for you to want to buy from them - they don't want to alienate you or make you angry. Our elected officials, however, seem to me to be frighteningly uneducated/shortsighted when it comes to wanting to use technology to make us all 'more safe'.
"In fact, one of the beliefs that seems to be characteristic of the postmodernist mind set
is the idea that politics and cleverness are the basis for all judgments about quality or
truth, regardless of the subject matter or who is making the judgment."
One only need to channel surf the cable-as-news networks in the U.S. to see evidence of this.
The techno-classical music in A Clockwork Orange. You can tell there's some human element in the creation of the work, but the execution / production is very 'mechanical'.
Eerie, if you ask me.
Agreed... but what happens if / when major product 'upgrades' [I'm thinking M$] don't support / play mp3/OGG, etc., but rather some DRM-version that can be read/played on these little things? I'm the first to admit that I'm not completely up to speed on this, but the concept of 'DRM through product obsolescence' seems feasible, from a nefarious content controller [RIAA, MS] point-of-view.
Slightly off-topic, but are their any open-source, linux-type audio file burner/player apps, that exist today?
Agreed that teams who lose all QBs can find another one...but where do they find them? From other professional outlets: their practice squad, from other teams in trade, or from other professional leagues. Sometimes even a former [retired] player comes back, [see: Tommy Maddox].
But also-rans? Perhaps when compared to the rest of the league, but when compared to even the top players overseas or in college, they are miles ahead. The reaction time required for a pro QB to read a defense and choose the right outlet for a pass is something on the order of 1.5 - 2 seconds. Not to mention have the physical ability to get the ball in the right spot where it can't be intercepted. Not something just 'anyone' can do.
The parent poster was stating that with some 40 million people, there must be more than 3,000 who were capable of playing -- therefore not warranting those high salaries. My point was that the logic didn't hold up -- simply because you have a large sample, doesn't mean you should be able to find a suitable subject, especially with multiple specific capabilities required from that subject [some of which can be learned & otehrs which are inherent].
Peace.
"I would find it extremely doubtful...", but have you really checked?
There are hundreds of thousands of male students who play football in high school each year. Only a select few are chosen to play at major college schools [less than 1%, IIRC], and some others decide to play at smaller schools [say tens of thousands]. Pro scouts look high and low for potential athletes to join their ranks. Many are invited to summer tryouts. With few exceptions, there are no people who are big, strong, fast, agile and smart enough to play a position in the majors who haven't been found. Read up on what it takes - physical capability-wise - to even make it into the tryouts. Not something that just anyone can do.
"Clearly the pay is help create a mystic about the person..."
Umm, yeah...there are lots of industries who pay employees big wages in order to create a mystic about them. No, actually, it's probably because the 'mystic', as you put it, is that this league has the highest level of skilled performers in that particular profession - bigger, stronger, faster, etc. than the 'average' person [in this realm, physical excellence is more treasured than mental].
I don't doubt that there are some who could play in the NFL [or one of the feeder leagues like NFL Europe or arena football] who aren't, but just because you have a large pool of people, that doesn't mean you should be able to assume a large subset who can perform a specific task.
Don't forget - capability doesn't equal ability. Just because someone is intelligent, has a strong sense of logic, and good typing skills, won't necessarily make them good at programming, will it? Or are you saying that any of 40 million 20-somethings could be one of the few top programmers?
Interesting that he didn't mention the Gore connection. Thanks for the tidbit. Gives some logic to his [IMHO] over-analyzing about 'why' Al lost.
But I'd encourage you to continue to drop in once in awhile. He's defended noted conservatives as well [Tucker Carlson comes to mind], and the gist of his writing is really that the techniques used to spin 'factual' news have gotten so egregious that it is really difficult to wade through already complex issues. I give him kudos for even trying.
Bernie's book has been slammed for poor examples all over the place. His methodology doesn't wash. E.g.: He claims there are more references to 'conservatives' in pubs like NYT than 'liberal', as if calling them out. However, he doesn't check to see if the converse holds true in a conservative rag like the Wash. Times [one would assume so, if the bias is truly 'liberal'].
Check out the Daily Howler for details. And no, it's not a liberal website, but rather one that highlights ANYONE who is not shooting straight.
I'll be the first to agree that all news media has some bias. Some is more slanted than others. But PLEASE, don't use Bernie as a good example of this.
Discussions, arguments, diatribes against "bias" one way or another by the researcher [hey, this _is_ /., afterall!]
But let's not forget...all research includes some form of bias or variable to skew the data [even pristine labs have some, albeit usually negligible to make it non-noteworthy]. And social science, well, that's just silly to assume all bias is removed.
Based on the review [I haven't read the book], the author has gone to some lengths to try and define how to make his research as unbiased [meaning accounting for unwanted variables] as possible. Some good counter-points have already been raised here concerning the time period [prior to 800 b.c. would give different results]; and cultural influences [religious beliefs not allowing some uses of technology; closed cultures not benefitting from 'cross-pollenized' ideas].
Some of those that bring up these counter-points may even do additional research to see if what they find supports/amends/contradicts what this author is saying, which will add to the discussion, and hopefully, learning about humankind as a species.
My point: We sometimes confuse words such as "superior" with concepts like "advancing". Some cultures may not have advanced technology, but that doesn't inherently make them less superior. Based on the review, this book, if taken separately from any politicized views [technological progress = good, religion = bad; west=good, east=not so good], is a great thought-starter. And shouldn't that be what science is all about?
if you want to do anything useful with the information by understanding sub-sets or demographics of respondents, you need to increase the sample size.
You may have 400 total adults answering, but if you were trying to understand differences by gender [assume