The BBC Newsnight programme ran this, and the Director General had no idea they were running it. Ordinarily, he might get away with it if it were an isolated thing. However Newsnight was recently found to have cut an investigation into Jimmy Savile, a well-known TV/radio personality who turned out to be a serial child abuser. The investigation was cut for "editorial" reasons last year (soon after he died) and the suspicion was that it would allow them to run sacharine eulogies for him at Christmas. Finally, the accusations only got aired this year by another channel, and it looks like he abused hundreds of kids over decades, including in BBC dressing rooms. So Newsnight was under a lot of scrutiny, and the Director General ought to have been watching it like a hawk.
However he admitted (to a BBC journalist in a very tough radio interview - let's see any other news organization allow its own journalists to bury their editor-in-chief) that he hadn't known what the programme was going to say about Lord McAlpine, and he didn't have an answer to the accusation that he was "asleep at the wheel".
So yeah, he mucked up by not being sharp enough. The BBC itself doesn't look good as it seems to have (thus far) allowed the people who made the "editorial decision" to cut the Savile investigation to continue in their roles. I suspect they will go eventually, once the independent inquiries have run their course.
However the one thing it has got right, and *no other* news organization would ever get right, is to have one part of it criticize another. There is no way Sky News would ever allow one of its journalists to have a go at the head of Sky TV in the manner of this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9768000/9768406.stm
Not really - it is possible to evaluate data, believe it or not.
You're aware of the specific recommendations the book makes, right? And the comments the authors make in the book about other people in the field, like Rushton?
"They've been making the correlations for years"...who have?
I like the way there is no back up to the "almost certainly going to be smarter" comment with anything more than more hand waving. Well if "scientists" say it then it must be true, right? As we all know, all scientists agree with each other on everything. (hint: the last two sentences are sarcasm)
Someone might reasonably expect a "genius" to be able to formulate a basic argument but consider the way you bring Einstein into it - without making any reference to his genetics you say that things he thought he got wrong are turning out to be correct. That's called, IIRC, a non sequitur. Seriously, if you want to claim you're smarter than some people then try to be smart enough to impressive at the same time.
All I am saying here is: don't be so outspoken about a complex subject you don't appear to understand.
Wow, then it all must be true. You're a scientist now! And you back it up with such charm and grace.
You make some vague hand-waving claims that any reasonable person would shy away from making unless they didn't care about accuracy. If you did more than refer to science websites in Google in order to back up your assertions you might look more credible. But, as this is a furiously complicated topic, you could be forgiven for misunderstanding how difficult it is to make such bold assertions.
I am not against psychometric testing, but what do you mean by "custom education"? What is "tailoring to their needs"? Which needs, and what are you hoping to achieve at the end of it?
IQ test are not worth a lot. The summarising of "intelligence" into a single figure is hopelessly blunt. Nice to see Pioneer Fund grant recipients Murray and Herrnstein getting a mention. Or are we supposed to forget the racist subtext of The Bell Curve?
In-house? A quick check on the world's most reliable fact source, Wikipedia, says Symbian was bought by Nokia in 2008. While Nokia was a shareholder, the employees of Symbian were not Nokia employees until the end of 2008.
I may have been joking about the Wikipedia thing though.
I think when they said "nobody" they meant "very few people". It's a turn of phrase. Some people, like you, are happy to run old platforms. Most people want the shiny new one.
This an ad for a well-established shop in London that allows individuals to invade other people's privacy, run on the premise that you could imagine the security services using this stuff. Which they don't. The shop isn't new or novel.
That is awesome - a Non-Plussed Character. This would be like someone who wanders through the world, not giving a fig for anything that is going on, mooching about, generally being relaxed and at ease with all they see. What a great idea.
We still get F1 on the radio, although it is not the same. Had they not saved money then we'd be faced with worse Olympics coverage, simply. And as those are a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get it right.
Slashdot Mirror
The CoE is Anglican. Stop trying to be confusing. And stop quoting Wikipedia. I only wrote that stuff yesterday for a joke.
"Being a retard on the Internet since 1997..." (actually probably plenty before this too)
This is very amusing. I only wish you could add this reply to most of the posts on /.
The BBC Newsnight programme ran this, and the Director General had no idea they were running it. Ordinarily, he might get away with it if it were an isolated thing. However Newsnight was recently found to have cut an investigation into Jimmy Savile, a well-known TV/radio personality who turned out to be a serial child abuser. The investigation was cut for "editorial" reasons last year (soon after he died) and the suspicion was that it would allow them to run sacharine eulogies for him at Christmas. Finally, the accusations only got aired this year by another channel, and it looks like he abused hundreds of kids over decades, including in BBC dressing rooms.
So Newsnight was under a lot of scrutiny, and the Director General ought to have been watching it like a hawk.
However he admitted (to a BBC journalist in a very tough radio interview - let's see any other news organization allow its own journalists to bury their editor-in-chief) that he hadn't known what the programme was going to say about Lord McAlpine, and he didn't have an answer to the accusation that he was "asleep at the wheel".
So yeah, he mucked up by not being sharp enough. The BBC itself doesn't look good as it seems to have (thus far) allowed the people who made the "editorial decision" to cut the Savile investigation to continue in their roles. I suspect they will go eventually, once the independent inquiries have run their course.
However the one thing it has got right, and *no other* news organization would ever get right, is to have one part of it criticize another. There is no way Sky News would ever allow one of its journalists to have a go at the head of Sky TV in the manner of this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9768000/9768406.stm
Um, don't know if you are aware, but Anonymous Coward is not an account so this person may not have said the iPad Mini wouldn't sell...
Not really - it is possible to evaluate data, believe it or not.
You're aware of the specific recommendations the book makes, right? And the comments the authors make in the book about other people in the field, like Rushton?
"They've been making the correlations for years"...who have?
I like the way there is no back up to the "almost certainly going to be smarter" comment with anything more than more hand waving. Well if "scientists" say it then it must be true, right? As we all know, all scientists agree with each other on everything. (hint: the last two sentences are sarcasm)
Someone might reasonably expect a "genius" to be able to formulate a basic argument but consider the way you bring Einstein into it - without making any reference to his genetics you say that things he thought he got wrong are turning out to be correct. That's called, IIRC, a non sequitur. Seriously, if you want to claim you're smarter than some people then try to be smart enough to impressive at the same time.
All I am saying here is: don't be so outspoken about a complex subject you don't appear to understand.
Wow, then it all must be true. You're a scientist now!
And you back it up with such charm and grace.
You make some vague hand-waving claims that any reasonable person would shy away from making unless they didn't care about accuracy. If you did more than refer to science websites in Google in order to back up your assertions you might look more credible. But, as this is a furiously complicated topic, you could be forgiven for misunderstanding how difficult it is to make such bold assertions.
I am not against psychometric testing, but what do you mean by "custom education"? What is "tailoring to their needs"?
Which needs, and what are you hoping to achieve at the end of it?
IQ test are not worth a lot. The summarising of "intelligence" into a single figure is hopelessly blunt.
Nice to see Pioneer Fund grant recipients Murray and Herrnstein getting a mention. Or are we supposed to forget the racist subtext of The Bell Curve?
It just means you signed up on that day slightly earlier. Remember that there was plenty of discussion before accounts got created. Naughty DG.
It's "Let's not forget...", not "Lets not forget".
HTH :)
Damn I wish I had mod points...you deserve many,
This just reminds me of this from The Day Today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvfQw8UCDE
In-house? A quick check on the world's most reliable fact source, Wikipedia, says Symbian was bought by Nokia in 2008. While Nokia was a shareholder, the employees of Symbian were not Nokia employees until the end of 2008.
I may have been joking about the Wikipedia thing though.
You must have Apple stock. :) Congratulations. :)
I think when they said "nobody" they meant "very few people". It's a turn of phrase. Some people, like you, are happy to run old platforms. Most people want the shiny new one.
This an ad for a well-established shop in London that allows individuals to invade other people's privacy, run on the premise that you could imagine the security services using this stuff. Which they don't. The shop isn't new or novel.
If you go up to someone in public in the UK and scream racist insults at them it isn't covered under freedom of speech.
I stand corrected. Forget what I said!
Nope, he went to jail. Same day, a guy in a car who yelled "you fucking black c***" at a woman in another car got fined 100 pounds.
That is awesome - a Non-Plussed Character. This would be like someone who wanders through the world, not giving a fig for anything that is going on, mooching about, generally being relaxed and at ease with all they see. What a great idea.
We still get F1 on the radio, although it is not the same.
Had they not saved money then we'd be faced with worse Olympics coverage, simply. And as those are a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get it right.
There are some things missing from here, sadly, and US customers should demand these next time:
- live streaming coverage of every sport (if the UK can have it then why can't the US?)
- live coverage of the opening and closing ceremonies UNCUT
Rio is a friendlier time zone so it should be easier. Let's see what happens.
This is the reason, I think, why they let F1 go almost wholesale to Sky. Right decision. And the streaming held up very well.