Wikipedia states in big bold letters right at the start of the article:
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) The neutrality of this article is disputed. (October 2012) This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (October 2012) This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (October 2012)
You can't tell me just read Wikipedia's article (another argument of authority, btw... you never actually state your position), when Wikipedia itself believes the article to be factually inaccurate.
Also, your "dartboard" IQ test has not been proven to be correlated with anything. That is the difference.
I'm not arguing whether IQ tests are testing native ability, education, or a combination of both. Just that IQ tests correspond to job performance, and race corresponds to IQ test, so then race corresponds to job performance. Whether that is due to socioeconomic factors or innate ability is irrelevant to my point, which is that if a company hires more whites and asians than blacks and latinos, they can't immediately be concluded as racist by default.
But if they do correlate with job performance, and they also correlate with race, it would stand to reason that race correlates with job performance.
I'm not arguing that this means this is due to innate racial characteristics. It may be due to any number of social constructs. But regardless if whether it's nature or nurture that causes it to be, it still is.
And it follows, then, that just because a company's employees consist of more white and asians than blacks and latinos then the general population does not indicate the company has racist hiring policies.
I looked at the wikipedia article. It's mostly just arguments by authority. Show me some actual evidence that proves the IQ tests are not valid. I don't think you can.
IQ tests correspond to the success one has in careers, wealth, productivity, less crime, etc. Besides which, the parent was discussing whether companies should hire applicants, and regardless of whether the outcome of the tests is social construct or an innate ability, the point is the same. IQ tests *do* correspond with ability to perform at mental tasks, and racial differences *do* correspond with different IQ levels, so regardless of why that is, it follows then that racial differences would correspond to the ability to perform, and therefore it would be common sense that more people of a certain racial group that performs better at IQ tests on average, would be more highly represented at jobs that require mental skills.
And whether white supremacist groups agree or don't agree does not affect the actual facts. Bringing that up has nothing to do with the statistics, and is muddying the issue. Of course, that was your intent.
Yea, and Hillary "stumbled" when getting into her campaign van. When in reality, she was carried by her SS bodyguards, with her feet dragging on the sidewalk.
Oh, the whole tough guy persona is going to beat down the progress of technology. I'm afraid... so very afraid *rolls eyes*
You try that once nowadays, you'll have to deal with electronic alarms, your every move recorded, and a police force with the technology to track you down no matter what bridge you try to hide under, and you'll end up in a jail cell, crippled, or dead.
Yea, of course, but why would it stop now or in the immediate future? Why can't this process continue until the entire economy is devoted to keeping a few people happy, with disregard to everyone else, even to the point of their destruction? What will prevent this?
There are people starving today, but no one bats an eyelash. The alternative chosen so far is to stop making food for people that can't afford to pay for it. Instead, we make robots to do things for the remaining people that can afford it. Why do you think this will change?
An Indonesian man who claims to be the longest living human in recorded history has described how he "just wants to die"
Get this man to a mental hospital immediately! If he wants to die, he's obviously insane and must be committed! He could potentially harm himself or others!
Dealing with risks does not mean eliminating them. I thought the original statement was in the context of having an actual real life computer running a provably correct algorithm.
So either you are thinking the context was a theoretical computing device, or that your definition of "prove" includes assuming that hardware designed to "deal with the risks [I] describe" can protect against all known and unknown attacks, now and in the future. Tempest is still being updated, right?
I don't know what you think I'm trying to say here... Of course, some risk has to be accepted to do meaningful engineering, but equating that to prove is just wrong.
You can prove a system is designed to do what it's supposed to, but given that we haven't discovered all of the laws of physics, you can't prove it will always do what it's supposed to.
There is no physical way to determine whether a system is leaking information in some way, or if you flip bits in a certain pattern, you can cause the memory to become corrupted, etc.
A douche nozzle actually performs a quite useful purpose, quietly, unassumingly, without complaint under conditions which many would consider at the very least insufferable, and "in harms way". Of what qualities does Donald Trump share with such an artifact?
It's even worse than you think! By the picture shown in the FA, http://clipair.epfl.ch/ it appears that you'll have to lie down the whole time, and they can only transport 3 people around at maximum. Not only that, but there are no windows besides what I can only surmise are tiny little air holes to keep you from suffocating in transit.
You might as well be talking about the miners as royalty who rule over a village. "Yes, the rulers have the power to change the rules anytime they want to. But if they were to do that, then the citizens would revolt, and take away all their power. See, so we're free after all!"
You may think everyone would revolt. You may also think the people would demand autonomy over the currency they are invested in, but no one has tested that so far. There are no longer just purists like yourself invested in Bitcoin, but businessmen, too, and their numbers are growing. They might not be so quick to join the rallying cry against minor infringements like yourself.
That defense is a pretty handwavy answer. You can't sum up the high priority transacations(whatever that is... based on bitcoin days destroyed, I guess??) against hashpower without assigning weights to each, so what are those weights? And even then, you're simply trading one type of security, hashpower, for another, high priority coin ownership. It's a risky idea, by closing one avenue of attack, you open up another, only you're not familiar with the second. Computer programmers have the nasty habit of assuming if they don't see a flaw, there isn't one, and historically this blows up in their face a lot.
If the old network is attacked and falls because of the majority of miners attacked it, it does not mean financial suicide. Rather it's that if you don't follow whatever fork the majority of miners choose you are in danger of losing your transactions, and therefore the value of your balance. Bitcoin has always been based on that notion, "the moral majority will have the most hashing power", it's just that now the owners of that hashing power are centralized, cloaked in secrecy, and probably far from moral.
If the miner of the new network have 75% of the hashing power, they can spare 2/3 of it to launch an attack on the old network without any fear of reprisal. Depending on how evil they want to be they could:
1. Effect a DDos by producing empty blocks. All transactions would grind to a halt 2. Commit a double spend 3. Create a longer fork in private for several days, and then publish it, causing all of the transactions within that time period to roll back and completely destroying the faith of those invested in Bitcoin.
Whoever has significant more computing power than anyone else wins. Period.
Amazonians will be able to break from their daily labors to walk amid the greenery along suspension bridges and climb into meeting spaces resembling bird nests perched in mature trees...
When the chickens come home to roost...
Slashdot Mirror
I use Gentoo with systemd, actually. Since it's the defacto init process for all the other os's I use, I felt it was better to standardize.
Wikipedia states in big bold letters right at the start of the article:
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (October 2012)
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (October 2012)
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. (October 2012)
You can't tell me just read Wikipedia's article (another argument of authority, btw... you never actually state your position), when Wikipedia itself believes the article to be factually inaccurate.
Also, your "dartboard" IQ test has not been proven to be correlated with anything. That is the difference.
I'm not arguing whether IQ tests are testing native ability, education, or a combination of both. Just that IQ tests correspond to job performance, and race corresponds to IQ test, so then race corresponds to job performance. Whether that is due to socioeconomic factors or innate ability is irrelevant to my point, which is that if a company hires more whites and asians than blacks and latinos, they can't immediately be concluded as racist by default.
But if they do correlate with job performance, and they also correlate with race, it would stand to reason that race correlates with job performance.
I'm not arguing that this means this is due to innate racial characteristics. It may be due to any number of social constructs. But regardless if whether it's nature or nurture that causes it to be, it still is.
And it follows, then, that just because a company's employees consist of more white and asians than blacks and latinos then the general population does not indicate the company has racist hiring policies.
I looked at the wikipedia article. It's mostly just arguments by authority. Show me some actual evidence that proves the IQ tests are not valid. I don't think you can.
IQ tests correspond to the success one has in careers, wealth, productivity, less crime, etc. Besides which, the parent was discussing whether companies should hire applicants, and regardless of whether the outcome of the tests is social construct or an innate ability, the point is the same. IQ tests *do* correspond with ability to perform at mental tasks, and racial differences *do* correspond with different IQ levels, so regardless of why that is, it follows then that racial differences would correspond to the ability to perform, and therefore it would be common sense that more people of a certain racial group that performs better at IQ tests on average, would be more highly represented at jobs that require mental skills.
And whether white supremacist groups agree or don't agree does not affect the actual facts. Bringing that up has nothing to do with the statistics, and is muddying the issue. Of course, that was your intent.
However, no reproducible study has found a statistically significant difference in mental capacity between humans of different races.
http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test...
Yea, and Hillary "stumbled" when getting into her campaign van. When in reality, she was carried by her SS bodyguards, with her feet dragging on the sidewalk.
Oh, the whole tough guy persona is going to beat down the progress of technology. I'm afraid... so very afraid *rolls eyes*
You try that once nowadays, you'll have to deal with electronic alarms, your every move recorded, and a police force with the technology to track you down no matter what bridge you try to hide under, and you'll end up in a jail cell, crippled, or dead.
Your threats are meaningless to the institution.
Yea, of course, but why would it stop now or in the immediate future? Why can't this process continue until the entire economy is devoted to keeping a few people happy, with disregard to everyone else, even to the point of their destruction? What will prevent this?
Do you, in all honesty, care about people that are starving today in other parts of the world? Why is it so different when your ticket is up?
There are people starving today, but no one bats an eyelash. The alternative chosen so far is to stop making food for people that can't afford to pay for it. Instead, we make robots to do things for the remaining people that can afford it. Why do you think this will change?
People starve to death right now. Why should the future be any different, just because your ticket is up?
The only acceptable algorithm the program could give would be:
10 PRINT "THIS SCRIPT PORTRAYS WOMEN POORLY."
20 GOTO 10
An Indonesian man who claims to be the longest living human in recorded history has described how he "just wants to die"
Get this man to a mental hospital immediately! If he wants to die, he's obviously insane and must be committed! He could potentially harm himself or others!
Dealing with risks does not mean eliminating them. I thought the original statement was in the context of having an actual real life computer running a provably correct algorithm.
So either you are thinking the context was a theoretical computing device, or that your definition of "prove" includes assuming that hardware designed to "deal with the risks [I] describe" can protect against all known and unknown attacks, now and in the future. Tempest is still being updated, right?
I don't know what you think I'm trying to say here... Of course, some risk has to be accepted to do meaningful engineering, but equating that to prove is just wrong.
You can prove a system is designed to do what it's supposed to, but given that we haven't discovered all of the laws of physics, you can't prove it will always do what it's supposed to.
There is no physical way to determine whether a system is leaking information in some way, or if you flip bits in a certain pattern, you can cause the memory to become corrupted, etc.
No, you're wrong. All programs have to run on hardware, which can't be proven to run the way its supposed to. Full stop.
A douche nozzle actually performs a quite useful purpose, quietly, unassumingly, without complaint under conditions which many would consider at the very least insufferable, and "in harms way". Of what qualities does Donald Trump share with such an artifact?
It's even worse than you think! By the picture shown in the FA, http://clipair.epfl.ch/ it appears that you'll have to lie down the whole time, and they can only transport 3 people around at maximum. Not only that, but there are no windows besides what I can only surmise are tiny little air holes to keep you from suffocating in transit.
Who the fuck is Gary Johnson?
A rebel fiefdom is still a fiefdom
You might as well be talking about the miners as royalty who rule over a village. "Yes, the rulers have the power to change the rules anytime they want to. But if they were to do that, then the citizens would revolt, and take away all their power. See, so we're free after all!"
You may think everyone would revolt. You may also think the people would demand autonomy over the currency they are invested in, but no one has tested that so far. There are no longer just purists like yourself invested in Bitcoin, but businessmen, too, and their numbers are growing. They might not be so quick to join the rallying cry against minor infringements like yourself.
That defense is a pretty handwavy answer. You can't sum up the high priority transacations(whatever that is... based on bitcoin days destroyed, I guess??) against hashpower without assigning weights to each, so what are those weights? And even then, you're simply trading one type of security, hashpower, for another, high priority coin ownership. It's a risky idea, by closing one avenue of attack, you open up another, only you're not familiar with the second. Computer programmers have the nasty habit of assuming if they don't see a flaw, there isn't one, and historically this blows up in their face a lot.
If the old network is attacked and falls because of the majority of miners attacked it, it does not mean financial suicide. Rather it's that if you don't follow whatever fork the majority of miners choose you are in danger of losing your transactions, and therefore the value of your balance. Bitcoin has always been based on that notion, "the moral majority will have the most hashing power", it's just that now the owners of that hashing power are centralized, cloaked in secrecy, and probably far from moral.
If the miner of the new network have 75% of the hashing power, they can spare 2/3 of it to launch an attack on the old network without any fear of reprisal. Depending on how evil they want to be they could:
1. Effect a DDos by producing empty blocks. All transactions would grind to a halt
2. Commit a double spend
3. Create a longer fork in private for several days, and then publish it, causing all of the transactions within that time period to roll back and completely destroying the faith of those invested in Bitcoin.
Whoever has significant more computing power than anyone else wins. Period.
Amazonians will be able to break from their daily labors to walk amid the greenery along suspension bridges and climb into meeting spaces resembling bird nests perched in mature trees... When the chickens come home to roost...
This is slashdot. He was assuming the editors would get the math wrong.