Because that's not what's going on here. The example in the article is a pharmacist who somehow manages to be better than everyone else at predicting geopolitical events. Not a party with a bunch of experts in various fields hashing things out, just a pharmacist in her kitchen in her spare time.
Flip a coin ten times and there's only a tenth of one percent of a chance of it coming up heads every time. Flip a thousand coins ten times and there's only a small chance one won't come up heads ten times in a row. If you were doing this study and one of your subjects made ten correct calls such as "Russia will invade the Crimea before June" in a row, might you get a little bit excited?
I wonder if they properly controlled for luck. Take three thousand people and get them to make predictions and some of them are going to appear unusually accurate than others even if all of them are just making completely random guesses. You'd be surprised how many people don't correctly account for that. Every paper proposing clinical diagnostic criteria I've ever read, for example.
Perhaps you should actually cite the study you're talking about so we can discuss it without the filter of your recollection. All the ones I've seen show quite clear discrimination in the US.
Whatever quota you like. Quotas are, by definition, discrimination. This story is about an effectively 100/0 quota. 100% credit for girls, 0% for boys.
You're confusing a metric of equality with the existence of sexism and sexual discrimination. Dictating that you must hire 50% men and 50% women is sexual discrimination by definition, but it will do an excellent job of evening out the metrics. However, it seems quite probable that you've increased sexist thinking: some of the men who didn't get the job because they're men will have lowered opinions of women. The women who did get the job because they're women will know that sexual discrimination played a role in their hiring, regardless of whether they were actually the best candidate or not. And the people doing the hiring, regardless of their sex, will know that they were forced to make discriminatory hiring decisions. The difference isn't academic, either. Those sexist beliefs are likely to manifest themselves wherever you're not specifically controlling them. Workplace interaction. At home. On the street. In people's self esteem.
Also, discrimination isn't as simple as some people would have you believe. If the study you're referring to is the one I think it is, they did find discrimination, but they found that women in a hiring position made decisions that were more discriminatory against women than did men. It's not as simple as an old boys club who believes men are superior (although there is undoubtedly some of that remaining). If it's the other study I'm thinking of, they found the same thing.
Prejudice breeds prejudice. The real solution to discrimination is to treat everyone equally.
Real feminists disagree with sexual discrimination, whichever way around. Real feminism is about equality and eliminating sexism.
The feminists I would call "hardcore" seem to be very much in favour of sexual discrimination, so long as it works in their favour. They make up a variety of reasons why it's okay, in that case. When they get really desperate they bring out phrases like "patriarchal society" and "justice for past oppression."
Your example is an apt one. Sexism breeds sexism, as all prejudice breeds prejudice, regardless of whether you're doing it because you're an ass who was born fifty years too late or a well-meaning organization trying to even out some statistic.
I don't live in the UK. It's been a couple of years since I've bought gas there, but IIRC the price in the UK, as well as most of the rest of Europe, is already high enough to make their projected prices reasonable. Particularly if there are tax credits, as there are with other carbon neutral, or even not so carbon neutral energy sources.
I live in Canada. Here's an inflation corrected chart. The price has doubled since 2000. The US, where it really matters, is here. It doesn't look quite as bad, although the price has also technically doubled since 2000. Inflation adjusted gasoline prices aren't really fair, since a major part of the inflation index (and the part that generally moves the most, at least here in Canada) is gasoline itself.
Also, the Americans are interested in securing domestic supplies of oil. Perhaps they're tired of fighting multi-trillion dollar wars, which are not reflected completely in the price. However you look at it, if the inventors of this technique are correct in their price estimate, it's not unreasonable to think it might be a viable source of gasoline in the near future.
Quoting said GP: "Really, it's not that the problem is latency of the device, but of our brain or conscious/unconscious minds' ability to notice the latency."
The problem isn't the latency (forget about trying to fix that), the problem is our brain's ability to notice it (fix that part, with drugs). Which fits in nicely with the GP's posts, masterpieces of incoherent rambling that sound almost like they mean something.
We have lots of options for producing electricity. We don't have very many for fuelling our cars. Hydrocarbons make a great portable energy store that we happen to already have a lot of infrastructure set up to use. Processes like these let you store energy in that portable, high density, already supported "liquid battery."
First message I thought you might be an idiot. Second message tied it all together! Stop worrying about decreasing the display lag and just get high so you can't notice it anymore! Or better, you notice it, but you think it's totally groovy, man!
Argue? I was going for a funny mod. Too subtle? Somebody got it, I see it's currently moderated higher than the original.
Ha ha first reading I thought you said "Aspergers" and was going to ask if you found blind adherence to medieval mysticism sorry, renaissance philosophy, a trait of that disease. I've found people who quote Descartes as if he were an oracle of truth rather than a dude who believed the pituitary was the gateway to other dimensions are more likely to be the social types who argue with each other in graduate lounges by quoting various dead guys. Then I read carefully and saw you said "Assburgers". I hope someone mods you funny.
Can We stop artificially dividing the brain and the Mind, please? The two ideas are likely the same and their distinction speaks of lingering medieval mysticism.
See that? I even put in the gratuitous capitalization!
I made a similar comment on the story about NEST first releasing their smoke detector. And yes, I did have to study the Therac-25. Software, physics and biology.
It doesn't have to be a tax. Requiring scrubbers on coal power plants has raised the price of electricity. Placing limits on the amount of carbon they're allowed to emit would raise it more.
Interesting examples, since killing infidels, justifying slavery and opposing women's suffrage are all things that were done in the US (as well as other places) based on Christian beliefs.
Proposition 8 was a California referendum item linked to a constitutional amendment that was designed to ban gay marriage because it was widely believed that the supreme court of California was about to find the existing ban (prop 22, from 2000) unconstitutional (which they did).
So basically, prop 8 was an initiative (yes, started and generally supported mostly by certain Christians) to take away a previously held entitlement. The fact that the entitlement had been illegally denied for at least the previous eight years makes it worse, not better. Prop 8 itself was found to be unconstitutional by a federal court, so not only was it punitive, it was also illegal.
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Yup, apparently anybody can quote scripture. Including us gleeful heathens. Orthodox Christians who support anti-homosexual legislation should be ashamed of themselves, by their own rules.
Being religious often isn't a choice. It usually results from indoctrination as a child, often abusive indoctrination. Which is why I support the rights of religious people to do whatever they feel is right for them, as consenting adults, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Support religious freedom! Vote no to prop 8!
Slashdot Mirror
Because that's not what's going on here. The example in the article is a pharmacist who somehow manages to be better than everyone else at predicting geopolitical events. Not a party with a bunch of experts in various fields hashing things out, just a pharmacist in her kitchen in her spare time.
Flip a coin ten times and there's only a tenth of one percent of a chance of it coming up heads every time. Flip a thousand coins ten times and there's only a small chance one won't come up heads ten times in a row. If you were doing this study and one of your subjects made ten correct calls such as "Russia will invade the Crimea before June" in a row, might you get a little bit excited?
I wonder if they properly controlled for luck. Take three thousand people and get them to make predictions and some of them are going to appear unusually accurate than others even if all of them are just making completely random guesses. You'd be surprised how many people don't correctly account for that. Every paper proposing clinical diagnostic criteria I've ever read, for example.
Ten minutes? Oh, C#. Never mind.
It doesn't even compare to the annual cost of securing face paint.
Perhaps you should actually cite the study you're talking about so we can discuss it without the filter of your recollection. All the ones I've seen show quite clear discrimination in the US.
Whatever quota you like. Quotas are, by definition, discrimination. This story is about an effectively 100/0 quota. 100% credit for girls, 0% for boys.
You're confusing a metric of equality with the existence of sexism and sexual discrimination. Dictating that you must hire 50% men and 50% women is sexual discrimination by definition, but it will do an excellent job of evening out the metrics. However, it seems quite probable that you've increased sexist thinking: some of the men who didn't get the job because they're men will have lowered opinions of women. The women who did get the job because they're women will know that sexual discrimination played a role in their hiring, regardless of whether they were actually the best candidate or not. And the people doing the hiring, regardless of their sex, will know that they were forced to make discriminatory hiring decisions. The difference isn't academic, either. Those sexist beliefs are likely to manifest themselves wherever you're not specifically controlling them. Workplace interaction. At home. On the street. In people's self esteem.
Also, discrimination isn't as simple as some people would have you believe. If the study you're referring to is the one I think it is, they did find discrimination, but they found that women in a hiring position made decisions that were more discriminatory against women than did men. It's not as simple as an old boys club who believes men are superior (although there is undoubtedly some of that remaining). If it's the other study I'm thinking of, they found the same thing.
Prejudice breeds prejudice. The real solution to discrimination is to treat everyone equally.
Real feminists disagree with sexual discrimination, whichever way around. Real feminism is about equality and eliminating sexism.
The feminists I would call "hardcore" seem to be very much in favour of sexual discrimination, so long as it works in their favour. They make up a variety of reasons why it's okay, in that case. When they get really desperate they bring out phrases like "patriarchal society" and "justice for past oppression."
Your example is an apt one. Sexism breeds sexism, as all prejudice breeds prejudice, regardless of whether you're doing it because you're an ass who was born fifty years too late or a well-meaning organization trying to even out some statistic.
I don't live in the UK. It's been a couple of years since I've bought gas there, but IIRC the price in the UK, as well as most of the rest of Europe, is already high enough to make their projected prices reasonable. Particularly if there are tax credits, as there are with other carbon neutral, or even not so carbon neutral energy sources.
I live in Canada. Here's an inflation corrected chart. The price has doubled since 2000. The US, where it really matters, is here. It doesn't look quite as bad, although the price has also technically doubled since 2000. Inflation adjusted gasoline prices aren't really fair, since a major part of the inflation index (and the part that generally moves the most, at least here in Canada) is gasoline itself.
Also, the Americans are interested in securing domestic supplies of oil. Perhaps they're tired of fighting multi-trillion dollar wars, which are not reflected completely in the price. However you look at it, if the inventors of this technique are correct in their price estimate, it's not unreasonable to think it might be a viable source of gasoline in the near future.
Quoting said GP: "Really, it's not that the problem is latency of the device, but of our brain or conscious/unconscious minds' ability to notice the latency."
The problem isn't the latency (forget about trying to fix that), the problem is our brain's ability to notice it (fix that part, with drugs). Which fits in nicely with the GP's posts, masterpieces of incoherent rambling that sound almost like they mean something.
It won't be long before it is. The price of gasoline has doubled more than twice in the last thirty years.
We have lots of options for producing electricity. We don't have very many for fuelling our cars. Hydrocarbons make a great portable energy store that we happen to already have a lot of infrastructure set up to use. Processes like these let you store energy in that portable, high density, already supported "liquid battery."
Yeah, not useful at all.
First message I thought you might be an idiot. Second message tied it all together! Stop worrying about decreasing the display lag and just get high so you can't notice it anymore! Or better, you notice it, but you think it's totally groovy, man!
Argue? I was going for a funny mod. Too subtle? Somebody got it, I see it's currently moderated higher than the original.
Ha ha first reading I thought you said "Aspergers" and was going to ask if you found blind adherence to medieval mysticism sorry, renaissance philosophy, a trait of that disease. I've found people who quote Descartes as if he were an oracle of truth rather than a dude who believed the pituitary was the gateway to other dimensions are more likely to be the social types who argue with each other in graduate lounges by quoting various dead guys. Then I read carefully and saw you said "Assburgers". I hope someone mods you funny.
Can We stop artificially dividing the brain and the Mind, please? The two ideas are likely the same and their distinction speaks of lingering medieval mysticism.
See that? I even put in the gratuitous capitalization!
150 scientists worldwide, three "focused workshops" and "trying to start a journal" is pretty fringe. I think time cube guy has them beat on that one.
Maybe some cooking lessons would be easier (and safer)?
I made a similar comment on the story about NEST first releasing their smoke detector. And yes, I did have to study the Therac-25. Software, physics and biology.
It doesn't have to be a tax. Requiring scrubbers on coal power plants has raised the price of electricity. Placing limits on the amount of carbon they're allowed to emit would raise it more.
Actually, it does. But it doesn't mean you can't vocally oppose them, and make sure other people know they're bigots.
Interesting examples, since killing infidels, justifying slavery and opposing women's suffrage are all things that were done in the US (as well as other places) based on Christian beliefs.
Proposition 8 was a California referendum item linked to a constitutional amendment that was designed to ban gay marriage because it was widely believed that the supreme court of California was about to find the existing ban (prop 22, from 2000) unconstitutional (which they did).
So basically, prop 8 was an initiative (yes, started and generally supported mostly by certain Christians) to take away a previously held entitlement. The fact that the entitlement had been illegally denied for at least the previous eight years makes it worse, not better. Prop 8 itself was found to be unconstitutional by a federal court, so not only was it punitive, it was also illegal.
Yup, apparently anybody can quote scripture. Including us gleeful heathens. Orthodox Christians who support anti-homosexual legislation should be ashamed of themselves, by their own rules.
That God dude is kind of a nasty character.
Being religious often isn't a choice. It usually results from indoctrination as a child, often abusive indoctrination. Which is why I support the rights of religious people to do whatever they feel is right for them, as consenting adults, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Support religious freedom! Vote no to prop 8!