that switching muscles with another species could be problematic under duress, because the resultant strain on the quadriceps could physically rip out the hamstring [etc]
You would obviously have to reengineer tendons and placement of muscle connections, too.
We might change most animals and plant life the coming few few hundred years. (And not only pets looking like manga people.)
Maybe the animals in Vance's Dying Earth (and other books) was realistic?!
Consider what would happen if a later war sends us back to the stone age.
Any later technological civilization would then start going over the fossils and doing gene comparision... lots of insane researchers!!:-)
that many Islamic scholars were studying and advancing mathematics.
Read Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy.
He claims the reason that the Islamic scholars didn't add that much to what they later transferred back to Europe, was that their religion stopped research.
So this is another case that supports the grandparent's point.
This is typical of the
articles I've found on scholar.google.com. (This was cited a lot.)
Here is from
nature(!) reviews: Intelligence research is more advanced and less controversial than is generally realized.
Let us make this easier -- can you give references that show that intelligence measurement has fallen out of vogue among the real researchers? (What is the majority opinion?)
I am not in that field, but I have never heard anything like that has happened.
Again, you claim that Gould wasn't full of sh!t. Well, he did make large claims. They should be visible in the literature. I can't find any, but I'm not a researcher.
(In case you don't understand why I am arguing. I don't really care about IQ measurements. What gets my goat is intellectual dishonesty. I don't really care that much about politics. My strongest opinion is a hate for religion.)
That is only relevant if they accepted Gould's arguments!!
(If you really don't understand.. there are discussion on most subjects in most research areas. It doesn't make Hoyle correct if you find cosmologists that argue against the Big Bang theory.)
You once again are taking a statement about some researchers who make a specific logical fallacy and translating that into ALL researchers making some unspecified "stupid errors" to make a straightforward logical argument that is TRUE seem like conspiracy.
No.
Gould claimed the intelligence researchers did a central and stupid error for decades.
If that is true, then there should literally be a chapter in most psychology text books discussing that!! (Which, as far as I know, there isn't.)
You claim G showed decades of research to be wrong and irrelevant. It is like claiming that someone showed the world was flat 20 years ago -- and become angry when someone points out that the astronomers didn't change their text books. And that there were lots of
criticism of the thesis in the public literature.
I have repeated that simple point four times now.
using logic rather than smear tactics
Like using guilt by association to 19th century researchers? Do you think I reach those depths?:-)
There are also Mayr, Maynard Smith and other evolutionary biologists claiming that Gould do smears.
Specifically, not all intelligence researchers believe in g
THAT is a totally irrelevant point!
Gould/you claim that the intelligence researchers did stupid errors. Certainly, someone outside a field will find basic errors, sometime.
If it was so simple, the majority of the researchers in the field should have changed position. If they didn't, you repeat a conspiracy theory.
Can you give references that show that the majority of the researchers changed opinion?!
AGAIN: If it was as trivial as you/Gould claimed, most researchers would have changed opinion. I have never seen anyone writing that.
Mismeasure didn't exactly lack exposure, so the researchers must have read the arguments.
Non-marxist sources, please...
(Then we have my secondary arguments... Evolutionary biologists say the same thing about Gould as intelligence researchers. Jensen gives an exact list of where Gould flat out lied about his opinions in order to attack them, etc, etc. Including guilt by association with 19th century researchers, etc.)
Now, either give those references -- or accept that your position fulfills the BS tests for a conspiracy theory.
he held a number of the researchers themselves in high regard.
Read the links I provided. (Mayr and Maynard Smith are some of the most famous evolutionary biologists ever.)
In sum, two (!) independent groups of researchers describe Gould as intellectually dishonest -- political arguing like he did in the seventies...
Assuming that "innate general intelligence" exists as a real physical measureable entity because you can average a bunch of test score vectors and label it g even though there are infinitely many other axes that represent the data equally well is the error that the entire study was based on.
For this argument to be true, all intelligence researchers need to be idiots or in a conspiracy.
They also, in your world view, doesn't have the integrity to acknowledge such a basic error. In their area of science.
Based on this (and other examples), I can't see the Marxists (Lewontin, Gould, Rose, etc) as something other than just another version of bible belt religion.
What bullshit. [...]
Where's Stephen Gould when you need him?
Gould is as dead as his Marxism... in more than one way.
Gould's argument was that all intelligence researchers were idiots or in a conspiracy. (Like the arguments from creationism believers against evolutionary biology.)
Here is one of the answers to Gould on intelligence.
Jensen's main complaint about Gould -- that he put up very stupid straw man arguments (not his real position) and attacked them -- seems very similar to the answers to Gould from the
evolutionary psychology researchers.
Yes, yes. It is standard monopolist tactics to not be compatible. Of course. That is not what I meant.
My analogy was that if you really test your application on different compilers and architectures, you have e.g. a better chance of being compatible with the next version of the OS. That is a win-win, too.
do you really think that Microsoft is going to pass up a chance to make Firefox look bad?
I'm arguing against a comment that claimed this was an expected result -- since Firefox had a known bug.
Neither the original poster's answer nor your own was relevant. I assume the problem is my verbal talent.
(I am now wondering what moderators moded the non-relevant answer from the original poster up? They have an application that collect mod points on Ms campus for mod:ing "correct" opinions!?:-)
When I took a job a few years back, I used to say that the bad news was that I had sold my soul for money.
The good news was that I got paid more than it was worth!
I hope it is not applicable here.
(As it turned out, it wasn't so bad to be a consultant doing Windows. I didn't even have to lie. The main problem was my health... which I'm certain was a totally unrelated problem. Very certain. I think.)
... the other side is human too? Very few people actually want to kill, and even less people want to be killed. People kill out of fear, and killing people because you dont want them to kill you is the worst abuse of logic around.
Not true. Let us consider clan societies.
Traditionally, war has been very personal (village to village, family group to family group). Also, the bad old days were very personal; you often saw the eyes of the people you kill.
Even clan societies are generally more laid back these days. (Compared to the continuous small warfare that existed a thousand years ago.)
You apply the personal morals of a modern society on the situation between countries.
In a modern society, with police, the state have a monopoly on violence and uphelds laws that you can trust.
In a clan society, without police, the only safety is that a victim's relatives will revenge wrongs. The relatives do the work of the police and revenge often results in blood feuds.
The situation between countries is more like a clan society -- because there is no world police force. Very big clans, lots of blood feuds...
Also note that you have to do revenge in a clan society. If no relatives would revenge misdeeds, it would be like living in a bad area without police protection; very dangerous. (To change it, work for a modern society -- and keep on with the old until the new works.)
I did not do well at all, came close to panic several times during the test, and didn't come close to finishing. [Later the test was aced.]
Your argument is that too many factors influence testing.
Consider... if someone is e.g. ill, then all tests will fail. So your argument "proves" that also tests of physical strength are equally impossible!
Obviously, your argument is wrong. You can measure random factors statistically.
Well, that argument fails, but your thesis might be true? It needs that the intelligence researchers would have to be idiots or in a conspiracy, which Gould argues. It is possible, but it is a bit too similar to the position of creationists on evolutionary biology.
As an aside, if you panic while taking a simple test, then the military would not want you to make decisions that will kill people... (But you were unused to that kind of stress at that time, so it was a temporary thing. Hopefully.)
I just wish you weren't so outspoken that it's a bad idea before you ask those questions, if you aren't really actively involved enough to have done the analysies and tradeoffs.
This was a wonderful thread. I have to disagree -- and thank Rei for wasting your time.:-)
A bit late to mod up this discussion, though. Sigh.
(Used to follow sci.space.tech when I had some time.)
WTF are you talking about? Communism doesn't advocate "repression of all people thinking differently than the state way", "mass murder" and...
WTF -- can't you read?? I wrote:
Consider the boring practical details...
And:
the usual failure mode of communism includes results like mass starvation, mass murder and repression of all people thinking differently than the state way.
So I did not claim that it was part of the ideology but part of the usual failure mode -- and that the countries fail. Once, it might happen. Repeatedly? No. Reastically, a nazi could claim that mass murder was just a mistake the first time and be more believable than a communist.
Your reaction illustrate when I wrote:
I really consider communism as another religion.
No, I'm not American. I have read (local and otherwise) leftwing argumentation long enough to have my opinion that communists have similar emotional reactions to their faith as the other religions. The local communists where quite friendly with e.g. DDR until the mid '80s.
Political/religious opression is natural when you are certain you know better -- people with other opinions are obviously dangerous and might influence young and innocent minds. (-: Hmm.. North Korea and Kansas?:-)
Capitalism is designed to make the rich profit more, so they both failed (actually the human being failed), but capitalism is esentially evil, and communism is esentially utopic.
I would agree with you that capitalism is the worst of all economic systems. The only redeeming fact is that everything else works worse.
Consider the boring practical details...
Historically, the usual failure mode of communism includes results like mass starvation, mass murder and repression of all people thinking differently than the state way. We had something similar in most of Europe a couple of hundred years ago, they still have that in e.g. Bangladesh.
The common results (failure in your words) in a mature capitalist country are democracy, acceptance of different viewpoints (as long as they don't hurt others) including rights for women/gays/etc and a general prosperity.
Most people prefer that failure so much they might risk their lives to get to our countries.
I really consider communism as another religion. All marxists I've read or talked to enough to have a certain opinion, did have that emotional need for their position to be true.
But with genetic engineering, maybe some communist utopists can make people functioning like ants in, say, a century... Then you will have people that aren't selfish. (Try game theory and evolutionary biology why you have to go so far).
The first review I read about a speech by RMS (1990 or maybe a few years earlier, in Stockholm), said that he looked like Jesus!
I don't particularly care for religion or people that have the mentality of believing things true because they need them emotionally (you find those in most causes).
But RMS is obviously incredibly talented and has used his time and energy to help other people because he believes that the world will be a better place. He could certainly have earned a lot of money doing other things and having as much fun.
He seems a bit strange but, frankly, this is Slashdot... would he be above either the median or the average?:-)
That was during the cold war, up until the early eigthies.
Reagan (which is surprising!) started influencing for democracy before '89, even when USA had support from the dictator. (E.g. South Korea and Taiwan.)
Yes, USA has supported their "bastards" and the whole west world (and Asia) needs a stable Middle East because we need oil.
But for quite a long while, US seems to have supported democratic reforms everywhere (with obvious exceptions like e.g. Saudi, who are vital and hence can do whatever they want.)
As an example, Pakistan was let in from the cold when they became important for Afghanistan.
All countries do realpolitik. A good example is that Sweden (of all hypocrits!) wasn't very vocal in criticism of China after their massacre. You don't make good customers angry. Sweden doesn't exactly criticize Saudi Arabia either.
Slashdot Mirror
We might change most animals and plant life the coming few few hundred years. (And not only pets looking like manga people.)
Maybe the animals in Vance's Dying Earth (and other books) was realistic?!
Consider what would happen if a later war sends us back to the stone age.
Any later technological civilization would then start going over the fossils and doing gene comparision... lots of insane researchers!! :-)
He claims the reason that the Islamic scholars didn't add that much to what they later transferred back to Europe, was that their religion stopped research.
So this is another case that supports the grandparent's point.
This is typical of the articles I've found on scholar.google.com. (This was cited a lot.)
Here is from nature(!) reviews:
Intelligence research is more advanced and less controversial than is generally realized.
Let us make this easier -- can you give references that show that intelligence measurement has fallen out of vogue among the real researchers? (What is the majority opinion?)
I am not in that field, but I have never heard anything like that has happened.
Again, you claim that Gould wasn't full of sh!t. Well, he did make large claims. They should be visible in the literature. I can't find any, but I'm not a researcher.
(In case you don't understand why I am arguing. I don't really care about IQ measurements. What gets my goat is intellectual dishonesty. I don't really care that much about politics. My strongest opinion is a hate for religion.)
(If you really don't understand.. there are discussion on most subjects in most research areas. It doesn't make Hoyle correct if you find cosmologists that argue against the Big Bang theory.)
No.Gould claimed the intelligence researchers did a central and stupid error for decades.
If that is true, then there should literally be a chapter in most psychology text books discussing that!! (Which, as far as I know, there isn't.)
You claim G showed decades of research to be wrong and irrelevant. It is like claiming that someone showed the world was flat 20 years ago -- and become angry when someone points out that the astronomers didn't change their text books. And that there were lots of criticism of the thesis in the public literature.
I have repeated that simple point four times now.
Like using guilt by association to 19th century researchers? Do you think I reach those depths?There are also Mayr, Maynard Smith and other evolutionary biologists claiming that Gould do smears.
Lets not even discuss Science for the People.
Gould/you claim that the intelligence researchers did stupid errors. Certainly, someone outside a field will find basic errors, sometime.
If it was so simple, the majority of the researchers in the field should have changed position. If they didn't, you repeat a conspiracy theory.
Can you give references that show that the majority of the researchers changed opinion?!
AGAIN: If it was as trivial as you/Gould claimed, most researchers would have changed opinion. I have never seen anyone writing that.
Mismeasure didn't exactly lack exposure, so the researchers must have read the arguments.
Non-marxist sources, please...
(Then we have my secondary arguments... Evolutionary biologists say the same thing about Gould as intelligence researchers. Jensen gives an exact list of where Gould flat out lied about his opinions in order to attack them, etc, etc. Including guilt by association with 19th century researchers, etc.)
Now, either give those references -- or accept that your position fulfills the BS tests for a conspiracy theory.
In sum, two (!) independent groups of researchers describe Gould as intellectually dishonest -- political arguing like he did in the seventies...
For this argument to be true, all intelligence researchers need to be idiots or in a conspiracy.They also, in your world view, doesn't have the integrity to acknowledge such a basic error. In their area of science.
Based on this (and other examples), I can't see the Marxists (Lewontin, Gould, Rose, etc) as something other than just another version of bible belt religion.
Gould's argument was that all intelligence researchers were idiots or in a conspiracy. (Like the arguments from creationism believers against evolutionary biology.)
Here is one of the answers to Gould on intelligence.
Jensen's main complaint about Gould -- that he put up very stupid straw man arguments (not his real position) and attacked them -- seems very similar to the answers to Gould from the evolutionary psychology researchers.
My analogy was that if you really test your application on different compilers and architectures, you have e.g. a better chance of being compatible with the next version of the OS. That is a win-win, too.
There is a bonus to port your programs to different architectures (or at least use different compilers).
There should be a similar win to use different browsers? You iron out more bugs and get more standard compliant that way.
We are talking about a professional support team, here. They sell to Xbox mainly, so the people browsing might use different OS and browsers.
Or am I assuming too much?
Neither the original poster's answer nor your own was relevant. I assume the problem is my verbal talent.
(I am now wondering what moderators moded the non-relevant answer from the original poster up? They have an application that collect mod points on Ms campus for mod:ing "correct" opinions!? :-)
Sounds like a design to the bugs, rather then going round them.
Like someone borrowing the car of someone they don't like and making sure to hit all potholes at speed... :-)
The good news was that I got paid more than it was worth!
I hope it is not applicable here.
(As it turned out, it wasn't so bad to be a consultant doing Windows. I didn't even have to lie. The main problem was my health... which I'm certain was a totally unrelated problem. Very certain. I think.)
A: Ocean Spray - It was their second choice because they couldn't get 7-UP.
There is a long list, certainly more than these.
First, the BIOS will download and play CMT stuff. (It would need a microphone to verify that it was played load enough.)
After a while, the CMT will tell the DRM in your computer about your criminal behaviour!
I wonder if the DRM will print the lawsuit on your own printer or send off an email so you get it by snailmail?
Or maybe the DRM will just demand your credit card number -- or kill all the data on your hard disk?
I wish I could add a ":-)" here.
Traditionally, war has been very personal (village to village, family group to family group). Also, the bad old days were very personal; you often saw the eyes of the people you kill.
Even clan societies are generally more laid back these days. (Compared to the continuous small warfare that existed a thousand years ago.)
You apply the personal morals of a modern society on the situation between countries.
In a modern society, with police, the state have a monopoly on violence and uphelds laws that you can trust.
In a clan society, without police, the only safety is that a victim's relatives will revenge wrongs. The relatives do the work of the police and revenge often results in blood feuds.
The situation between countries is more like a clan society -- because there is no world police force. Very big clans, lots of blood feuds...
Also note that you have to do revenge in a clan society. If no relatives would revenge misdeeds, it would be like living in a bad area without police protection; very dangerous. (To change it, work for a modern society -- and keep on with the old until the new works.)
Wow, one of most offtopic posts ever! :-)
Consider... if someone is e.g. ill, then all tests will fail. So your argument "proves" that also tests of physical strength are equally impossible!
Obviously, your argument is wrong. You can measure random factors statistically.
Well, that argument fails, but your thesis might be true? It needs that the intelligence researchers would have to be idiots or in a conspiracy, which Gould argues. It is possible, but it is a bit too similar to the position of creationists on evolutionary biology.
As an aside, if you panic while taking a simple test, then the military would not want you to make decisions that will kill people... (But you were unused to that kind of stress at that time, so it was a temporary thing. Hopefully.)
A bit late to mod up this discussion, though. Sigh.
(Used to follow sci.space.tech when I had some time.)
And not for a fixed price contract.
(-: Many places I could have written the same. Lots of people at Boeing etc posting here? :-)
Only joking.
Seriously, I second your position; Perl breaks all the rules but works anyway, given some discipline. It is both powerful and fun.
If I get a choice, I use it for everything.
Your reaction illustrate when I wrote:
No, I'm not American. I have read (local and otherwise) leftwing argumentation long enough to have my opinion that communists have similar emotional reactions to their faith as the other religions. The local communists where quite friendly with e.g. DDR until the mid '80s.Political/religious opression is natural when you are certain you know better -- people with other opinions are obviously dangerous and might influence young and innocent minds. (-: Hmm.. North Korea and Kansas? :-)
Consider the boring practical details...
Historically, the usual failure mode of communism includes results like mass starvation, mass murder and repression of all people thinking differently than the state way. We had something similar in most of Europe a couple of hundred years ago, they still have that in e.g. Bangladesh.
The common results (failure in your words) in a mature capitalist country are democracy, acceptance of different viewpoints (as long as they don't hurt others) including rights for women/gays/etc and a general prosperity.
Most people prefer that failure so much they might risk their lives to get to our countries.
I really consider communism as another religion. All marxists I've read or talked to enough to have a certain opinion, did have that emotional need for their position to be true.
But with genetic engineering, maybe some communist utopists can make people functioning like ants in, say, a century... Then you will have people that aren't selfish. (Try game theory and evolutionary biology why you have to go so far).
The first review I read about a speech by RMS (1990 or maybe a few years earlier, in Stockholm), said that he looked like Jesus!
I don't particularly care for religion or people that have the mentality of believing things true because they need them emotionally (you find those in most causes).
But RMS is obviously incredibly talented and has used his time and energy to help other people because he believes that the world will be a better place. He could certainly have earned a lot of money doing other things and having as much fun.
He seems a bit strange but, frankly, this is Slashdot... would he be above either the median or the average? :-)
It is one of the people I admire.
Reagan (which is surprising!) started influencing for democracy before '89, even when USA had support from the dictator. (E.g. South Korea and Taiwan.)
Yes, USA has supported their "bastards" and the whole west world (and Asia) needs a stable Middle East because we need oil.
But for quite a long while, US seems to have supported democratic reforms everywhere (with obvious exceptions like e.g. Saudi, who are vital and hence can do whatever they want.)
As an example, Pakistan was let in from the cold when they became important for Afghanistan.
All countries do realpolitik. A good example is that Sweden (of all hypocrits!) wasn't very vocal in criticism of China after their massacre. You don't make good customers angry. Sweden doesn't exactly criticize Saudi Arabia either.