Girls (and not just human ones) are naturally drawn to making things pretty, teaching, and caring for others. Boys (and not just human ones) are naturally drawn to hitting each other with things. This is demonstrable and fairly well researched. Neither inclination seems to have much to do with how good either sex is at science and engineering in general, nor even how good a particular member of one sex might be at a particular job.
Nonsense. All real religions (religions with a diety that can actually do stuff)* have that problem. The Arab/Persian world lost it's lead in science and technology for lots of reasons, among them that they didn't have the same urge, necessity or opportunities to explore as the western Christians did.
* The Dalai Llama is on record as saying that if Buddhism conflicts with science, Buddhism needs to change. One of many reasons why lots of people don't regard Buddhism as a religion.
The GP was talking about putting religious forces back in control, which usually ends up being (eventually) detrimental to women's rights. Take a look around - the US is well along that path (and it didn't happen particularly recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22).
On the other hand, some states have pretty strict abortion laws, and there are lots of Americans and American politicians who would love to make them stricter, like that idiot who said raped women don't get pregnant. Or the woman who wanted to restrict birth control pills if the woman wasn't married. Or all the opposition to giving the HPV vaccine to girls.
I'm not sure how you got from "quantitative risk/benefit analysis" to "the number of people supporting your position." It seems to be a strangely common leap though, so if you have any hypotheses maybe someone can develop a treatment for it.
In the meantime, I think I'm going to decline your offer.
I easily get more than 100 a day too, but it drops quite a bit after I delete the anonymous cowards and all the emails from that guy who is CERTAIN that he'd better forward everything to everybody, just in case they missed it the first three times from various student lists, staff lists and concerned secretaries.
People talk about this "flipping the classroom" thing as if it were a brand new concept. I guess they're the ones who, in school when asked to read such and such a chapter and come to class prepared, didn't do it. They probably skipped the seminars and non-mandatory labs in university too.
"I'm fairly certain Mac OS tells Apple about anything installed through the app store at a minimum"
Um, why would OS X tell Apple you just bought something from their own store? Apple already knows, because you bought it from them. However, if you get an app somewhere else, OS X does NOT tell Apple about it.
Yes, because warning before running downloaded apps that aren't signed by trusted developers (trusted means your credit card is on file with Apple) is just like the same as quietly telling Microsoft everything you install, without asking.
Actually, watching your elections, it IS kind of amazing you don't have a state religion.
On the other hand, if you left your country once in a while, you'd find that there are lots of places without state religions, no bans on weapons, no religious persecution, and no whooping cough epidemics in public schools either!
Who said we currently have AI? Your assertion is that it's impossible.
There are no theoretical barriers to achieving everything in that definition except possibly self-awareness. This story happens to be about teaching a robot to pass a standard test for self-awareness. So, since someone apparently made you in charge of definitions, you can set the bar so high that YOU can't pass, or you can accept reasonable evidence, in which case there's nothing impossible about self-awareness either.
But I've already wasted too much time replying to you since your discussion style seems limited to "I don't believe it therefore it's impossible" and "Oh yeah? Prove it."
Your first link has some odd statements. It's well known that the whooping cough vaccine wears off. That's why you get boosters. Second, the seasonal flu vaccine DID seem to increase contraction of H1N1 by a bit, but the number cited by the article seems to be the raw number. A lot of people who get the seasonal flu vaccine do so because they work or live in conditions that are high risk for contracting the flu, H1N1 included.
That's why that playboy bunny is so dangerous. What she says sounds reasonable, unless you realize that her entire premise is based on fantasy, emotion and fraud.
It's not a slippery slope. Vaccination recommendations and requirements (yes, you are quite rightly required to be immunized in some places, for some things), are based on a quantitative risk/benefit analysis.
It actually amazes people from outside the US that children unvaccinated for things like whooping cough would be allowed into a public school.
First, most vaccines don't contain mercury anymore. Second, vaccines only ever contained very small amounts, as a preservative. If you eat fish even a few times per year, that plus your exposure through drinking water probably adds up to more mercury than you'd get from a vaccine, even if you did get one of the vaccines that still has mercury in it.
The preservative is necessary to keep the vaccine from going bad long enough that it can be reasonably distributed.
Shashdot. Insightful? Really? A statement of belief advanced as fact without even any attempt to back it up. There's no insight here. Of course, it's not really interesting either.
Sorry, you're way over in conspiracy theory territory. Drinking decreases your ability to drive a car and makes you more prone to crash. There are lots of simulator studies indicating so. Even the Mythbusters did it.
Yes. The TSA didn't bar him, the pilot did, probably because the idiot was making other passengers uncomfortable. If it was a TSA Sucks! shirt fine, but everybody knows you don't talk about bombs in the airport. That's just stupid.
They don't even show movies with plane crashes because some people are afraid of flying.
I suspect that the TSA and homeland security would have more success with behaviour profiling, no matter the scalability issues, than all the profiling they currently waste their time on. Speaking as someone who takes up significant resources every time I visit the US for having the same extremely common name as someone who does not match my description in any other way.
Sure, and in situations like that you issue a company device to do it on. And you STILL keep that device firewalled from your network.
But I don't think that's what we're talking about. There seems to be this attitude that if the device belongs to the company it's "locked down" and is trustworthy. A sibling post in this thread suggested that the problem is that personal devices give attackers a way into the corporate network. Once an attacker has physical access to a device all bets are off. Encrypting it might work. But if your network is trusting it, you've probably got problems even then - it's unlikely your phone lock password, even if it's a company issued Blackberry, is really adequate to protect your entire network.
The OP was probably talking about the everyday e-mails and minutiae that people carry around all the time, which aren't really that sensitive. If something that actually is sensitive, like credit card numbers, customers' personal information or secret prototypes, is on somebody's everyday phone, corporate issued or personal, you're doing something wrong, and it's not letting your employees check their email on their own devices.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember this next time someone suggests that universities should teach what industry demands.
Well, here are some mostly living ones:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/nov/feat50
Some more from past centuries:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Ten-Historic-Female-Scientists-You-Should-Know.html
Oh, and don't forget a Slashdot favourite, Ada Lovelace.
Girls (and not just human ones) are naturally drawn to making things pretty, teaching, and caring for others. Boys (and not just human ones) are naturally drawn to hitting each other with things. This is demonstrable and fairly well researched. Neither inclination seems to have much to do with how good either sex is at science and engineering in general, nor even how good a particular member of one sex might be at a particular job.
Nonsense. All real religions (religions with a diety that can actually do stuff)* have that problem. The Arab/Persian world lost it's lead in science and technology for lots of reasons, among them that they didn't have the same urge, necessity or opportunities to explore as the western Christians did.
* The Dalai Llama is on record as saying that if Buddhism conflicts with science, Buddhism needs to change. One of many reasons why lots of people don't regard Buddhism as a religion.
You guys still swear allegiance to one nation, under God don't you?
The GP was talking about putting religious forces back in control, which usually ends up being (eventually) detrimental to women's rights. Take a look around - the US is well along that path (and it didn't happen particularly recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_of_.22under_God.22).
On the other hand, some states have pretty strict abortion laws, and there are lots of Americans and American politicians who would love to make them stricter, like that idiot who said raped women don't get pregnant. Or the woman who wanted to restrict birth control pills if the woman wasn't married. Or all the opposition to giving the HPV vaccine to girls.
Ah, so you ignored the quantitative risk/benefit analysis part to comment on the aside. Got it. I'm still not renting.
I'm not sure how you got from "quantitative risk/benefit analysis" to "the number of people supporting your position." It seems to be a strangely common leap though, so if you have any hypotheses maybe someone can develop a treatment for it.
In the meantime, I think I'm going to decline your offer.
I easily get more than 100 a day too, but it drops quite a bit after I delete the anonymous cowards and all the emails from that guy who is CERTAIN that he'd better forward everything to everybody, just in case they missed it the first three times from various student lists, staff lists and concerned secretaries.
"Newer ideas like 'flipping the classroom'"
People talk about this "flipping the classroom" thing as if it were a brand new concept. I guess they're the ones who, in school when asked to read such and such a chapter and come to class prepared, didn't do it. They probably skipped the seminars and non-mandatory labs in university too.
"I'm fairly certain Mac OS tells Apple about anything installed through the app store at a minimum"
Um, why would OS X tell Apple you just bought something from their own store? Apple already knows, because you bought it from them. However, if you get an app somewhere else, OS X does NOT tell Apple about it.
Yes, because warning before running downloaded apps that aren't signed by trusted developers (trusted means your credit card is on file with Apple) is just like the same as quietly telling Microsoft everything you install, without asking.
Actually, watching your elections, it IS kind of amazing you don't have a state religion.
On the other hand, if you left your country once in a while, you'd find that there are lots of places without state religions, no bans on weapons, no religious persecution, and no whooping cough epidemics in public schools either!
Who said we currently have AI? Your assertion is that it's impossible.
There are no theoretical barriers to achieving everything in that definition except possibly self-awareness. This story happens to be about teaching a robot to pass a standard test for self-awareness. So, since someone apparently made you in charge of definitions, you can set the bar so high that YOU can't pass, or you can accept reasonable evidence, in which case there's nothing impossible about self-awareness either.
But I've already wasted too much time replying to you since your discussion style seems limited to "I don't believe it therefore it's impossible" and "Oh yeah? Prove it."
Your first link has some odd statements. It's well known that the whooping cough vaccine wears off. That's why you get boosters. Second, the seasonal flu vaccine DID seem to increase contraction of H1N1 by a bit, but the number cited by the article seems to be the raw number. A lot of people who get the seasonal flu vaccine do so because they work or live in conditions that are high risk for contracting the flu, H1N1 included.
Get one that tells the truth. Jenny McCarthy kills babies.
That's why that playboy bunny is so dangerous. What she says sounds reasonable, unless you realize that her entire premise is based on fantasy, emotion and fraud.
It's not a slippery slope. Vaccination recommendations and requirements (yes, you are quite rightly required to be immunized in some places, for some things), are based on a quantitative risk/benefit analysis.
It actually amazes people from outside the US that children unvaccinated for things like whooping cough would be allowed into a public school.
Oh noes, the chemicals!
First, most vaccines don't contain mercury anymore. Second, vaccines only ever contained very small amounts, as a preservative. If you eat fish even a few times per year, that plus your exposure through drinking water probably adds up to more mercury than you'd get from a vaccine, even if you did get one of the vaccines that still has mercury in it.
The preservative is necessary to keep the vaccine from going bad long enough that it can be reasonably distributed.
Shashdot. Insightful? Really? A statement of belief advanced as fact without even any attempt to back it up. There's no insight here. Of course, it's not really interesting either.
Sorry, you're way over in conspiracy theory territory. Drinking decreases your ability to drive a car and makes you more prone to crash. There are lots of simulator studies indicating so. Even the Mythbusters did it.
"...and the last time a JOKE brought down a plane was????"
Never. And also irrelevant.
If you sit in a restaurant loudly talking about how many parasite eggs there probably are in the steak you might be asked to leave as well.
Yes. The TSA didn't bar him, the pilot did, probably because the idiot was making other passengers uncomfortable. If it was a TSA Sucks! shirt fine, but everybody knows you don't talk about bombs in the airport. That's just stupid.
They don't even show movies with plane crashes because some people are afraid of flying.
I suspect that the TSA and homeland security would have more success with behaviour profiling, no matter the scalability issues, than all the profiling they currently waste their time on. Speaking as someone who takes up significant resources every time I visit the US for having the same extremely common name as someone who does not match my description in any other way.
Sure, and in situations like that you issue a company device to do it on. And you STILL keep that device firewalled from your network.
But I don't think that's what we're talking about. There seems to be this attitude that if the device belongs to the company it's "locked down" and is trustworthy. A sibling post in this thread suggested that the problem is that personal devices give attackers a way into the corporate network. Once an attacker has physical access to a device all bets are off. Encrypting it might work. But if your network is trusting it, you've probably got problems even then - it's unlikely your phone lock password, even if it's a company issued Blackberry, is really adequate to protect your entire network.
The OP was probably talking about the everyday e-mails and minutiae that people carry around all the time, which aren't really that sensitive. If something that actually is sensitive, like credit card numbers, customers' personal information or secret prototypes, is on somebody's everyday phone, corporate issued or personal, you're doing something wrong, and it's not letting your employees check their email on their own devices.