There are some intellegent critters on Earth. Take whales.
How intellegent are they? Well, it's pretty hard to tell.
Do they use language? Er, we think so, but we're not sure what it means.
These animals are mammals like us. People can look them in the eye and sense a kind of recognition. Yet we still can't talk with them.
Now take an animal slightly more different from us, perhaps a reptile. Look that sucker in the eye and there is no real connection. Who the hell knows what he's thinking.
It seems to me that we have an awful tough time communicating with relatively intellegent creatures even when we've lived side by side for generations and understand each others' environment.
So if we were to find another civilization out there, its quite possible we could sit with them for 100 years and never know what each other is thinking.
Actually, I'm not saying that one sex is weaker or inferior to the other. (Yes, you are right that people have been treated this way in history.) But rather that it is obvious there are striking differences in ability in various fields. This has been obvious through history, as it is now.
I agree entirely that we are equal in value or worth.
You may be right. You certainly make a strong point. However, there are clearly differing physical attributes between different ethnic groups. Those of west African decent (whether in the USA, Jamaica, Barbados, Europe) dominate sprinting. East and North Africans are often naturally thinner and lighter, do exceptionally well in middle and long distance.
I don't think you'd dispute that some African gene pools make people better able to withstand the sun than my pasty Scottish heritage. So why can there not be other physical areas that one group is stronger at than others? You are right to caution that we don't always jump to this easy explanation. But ethnic groups clearly have particular physical characteristics. So it should not be a matter of principle to to deny (not saying that you are) that there can be differences in ability.
Of course, these are sweeping generalities, and having visited Kenya, I know that the average Kenyan is happier in front of the TV with a beer, just like the white man. But when it comes to the elite (in athletics or mathematics) the small statistical differences can mean large differences in participation.
Also, cultures are affected by what the people like to do and are good at, and people become better at things the culture values and promotes. So I think these things work together.
From the article: The remarks prompted Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Nancy Hopkins - a Harvard graduate - to walk out on Summers' talk, The Boston Globe reported.
Which just goes to show, women are so emotional about these things.
Perhaps there comes a point where a person of integrity can no longer tow the politically correct line and must call it as he sees it. Perhaps being able to retain some dignity and look oneself in the mirror as a professional academic is worth the heat he'll have to take. So I disagree entirely that it far better to just shut the hell up.
It's like... no one commentating on athletics will admit the obvious fact that black sprinters are faster than white. Because if you admit that, then you have conceded that some races may be naturally better at some things than other things, perhaps whites think better than blacks... shock, horror!
To me it is obvious that women are generally better at somethings and worse at others than men. I hope I live to see the day when we laugh at the quaint squeemishness of our age to admit what every other age and people have plainly known.
Of course, this does not mean that an individual woman may not be the best mathematician, or perhaps a white man will again win the 100 metres. (We now have a white heavy-weight boxing world champion.) Individuals are in no way subject to a statistic which generalises a population.
Having just read the very fine Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson, he describes the spectacular collapse of a space elevator causing a ring that went almost twice around the equator of Mars.
Well, that's sort of what I mean, but I'm not saying that their death is OK because it was imminent anyway. I'm saying that when frail people do die, it's likely to happen when the stresses on them are at a high.
Weather fluctuates throughout the year for many reasons. Because of the tilt of the earth in orbit round the sun... because God wanted our crops to grow... many ways to look at this. Local ecosystems require their relative hot and cold periods. If they didn't happen, the local ecosystems would be different.
So I think of both the cold and the hot are helpful. However, they both bring their challenges and their inconveniences. They even bring their dangers, especially for the frail. I'm not saying we shouldn't care for the frail, that's another issue. I am saying we should not be surprised if deaths are statistically concentrated at these times.
What I am really saying is that the 27000 deaths in Europe due to the heat is a media sound-bite which sounds terrible, but conceals the reality that people are not being killed off early by the heat. On the contrary, they are living longer than their parents and grandparents did. Perhaps if everyday was the same we would have 27000 die of boredom.
My point is:
Let's say a city's population has a state of health such that 2000 are expected to die this year. Then there is an unexpected cold snap (substitute 'heat-wave' if you are in the southern hemisphere) in March, 300 die. Then in a mild April, only 50 die. Do we say that the cold snap killed those people? Or do we say that an expected 350 died in the March/April period (deaths concerntrated in the coldest week)?
The 27000 European deaths figure sounds horrific. But actually, people are living longer now days. So while each individual death brings particular sadness, statistically, that 27000 figure cannot be used to imply that the warmer earth is killing people.
the temperatures of summer 2003 were almost undoubtedly the highest in Europe for over 500 years
800 years ago they were growing grapes for wine in northern England. So it used to be hotter than this before the heavy industrial pollutants.
Linked to more than 27,000 excess deaths across the continent
Sorry to upset the liberals, but people do die. It stands to reason that the older and weaker will die when it is particularly cold or particularly hot as their frail bodies will be more stressed. More people in Northern Europe die in winter than summer. And actually, people are now living longer than 50 or 100 years ago. So the heat may be the final straw for some who were ready to die, but if the Earth cools down a bit, those 27,000 people are still going to die at some point.
Personally, I want less pollution and far less reliance on fossil fuels. (It's crazy that we are still tweaking a 100 year old car engine design.) I also want less pseudo-science scare mongering with half baked statistics that do not stand up to critical thought
Frankly, I think it can be said far too much. I'd rather discourage people from voting. Don't make it too convenient. Then only those who have really thought for themselves will vote. The problem right now is that there are too many mindless idiots voting.
Now before you get too upset, I do think that mindless idiots should have the right to vote. But why encourage it?...unless you happen to vote the same way as the mindless idiots...
I take that to mean a Republican state. That's interesting, because in Britain, red represents Labour, which is more left wing. The Conservatives use blue. Red has long been associated with communisim and by extension, socialism. So why do the US Republicans use red? Was blue already taken?
I didn't say that you agree with every fashionable moral. My point is that most people who think for themselves sometimes find themselves swimming against the tide. Those are the times that we need protected freedom from authorities that want to govern our private lives.
I used the BNP as an example of a legal group who is out of step with media fashion. I said several times that I disagree with them. I am not standing up for their policies. I am standing up for the legal expression of political opinions.
I've seen some pretty unsavoury documentary pieces about certain conservative and labour leaders, too. Some of them have ended up in prison. Some of them have been caught saying 'racist' stuff. But that doesn't mean that anyone who in associated with the same political party is equally crooked.
Since we think for ourselves, one day it may be your opinion or mine that is considered subversive. That's when it is bad to find that the government has a database of your activities and associations.
Perhaps the basic difference here is that you are apparently willing to trust the authorities to regulate this properly. I am not.
I think the ID cards and the national database are going to happen anyway, so I hope you are right. But history of political leadership tells me that sooner or later, I will be right.
I am not a supporter of the BNP. I disagree with their policies. However, if you label them 'racist', you are not in anyway countering their argument.
They claim they are not 'racist', so perhaps that makes you a 'liar'. I don't really mean that, it's just a point about using labels to dismiss other people's arguments.
The BNP says people from other countries should go and sort out their own countries. This is different from the current government who wants to bring doctors and nurses from 3rd world countries which obviously impoverishes those countries by taking their best talent and the fruits of their investment in their own people. So there is some merit in some BNP policy.
However, personally, I disagree with BNP policy. Yet I think it is possible for someone to see merit in the BNP political argument without being racist.
So if people who think that this political solution is good cannot teach, then what next? Perhaps people who believe the Bible should not be allowed to teach (the Bible speaks against homosexuality).
Just remember, if you happen to agree with every moral standard that is currently in fashion, then you probably would have done the same if you lived in a different era - and you may not be thinking for yourself.
If a traffic officer asks me for my drivers licence, radios back to base, someone will have my driving record up on the screen. But they will not (I hope) have intelligence my political views, my health record, my travel history...
This is the point about keeping these various IDs for specific purposes separate. The government has no right to know information about my health, my political views, etc., since I am not breaking the law.
I appreciate your comment, and I believe you about your experience in Sweden.
The threat does not necessarily come from the current government. It may be the next government, or the one after that that targets you.
In Britain we have a British National Party which wants to stop a lot of the foreigners getting in. It is not a very tasteful policy, but it is a legal expression of a political view point. People are now loosing their jobs as police officers and school teachers if they are associated with the BNP. This is just one step away from having your career prospects damaged if you are NOT a member of the ruling New Labour Party.
You see, governments are led by people who love to exercise power. In Britain, there is political pressure from these political leaders to exercise power over what we can say and think. There is talk of laws against 'hate speech'. Of course, hate-speech is defined by current moral fashions.
A national identity database can hold details of who is a potential terrorist, who speaks out against the government... All this can be brought up on someone's screen without my knowledge. This is what is so different from drivers' licenses, etc. You don't know who has access to that information about you, or how it is used.
So, Tigress from Sweden, you may have a benevolent government in Sweden now, but beware how much power over your life and privacy you cede to it!
With ever increasing requirements to have your identity recorded by government, shown on demand, and your actions tracked... there is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the people and the state.
GOOD
Government must serve people
Policeman at door must identify himself to citizen
People left alone to prosper - no presumption of guilt
Government accountable to people
BAD
Government monitor people
Policeman require people (doing nothing wrong) to identify themselves
People tracked to see if they are doing anything wrong
With ever increasing requirements to have your identity recorded by government and your actions tracked there is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the people and the state.
GOOD
Government must serve people
Policeman at door must identify himself to citizen
People left alone to prosper - no presumption of guilt
Government accountable to people
BAD
Government monitor people
Policeman require people (doing nothing wrong) to identify themselves
People tracked to see if they are doing anything wrong
That's rough for you. I work for an IT company where my boss wants me to know a little about the field. He expects me to be able to install, support, administer, and write code for both Linux and Windows systems. So he lets my colleagues and me experiment a bit.
If you keep your workers in a box, you get lab rats. And unhappy lab rats are unproductive lab rats...
have in the past given clues to as yet undiscovered physics. Under Newtonian physics, it was thought that there would be another planet inside Mercury because of anomolies in Mercuries observable orbit. The theoretical inner planet was called Vulcan. It has since been shown that Mercuries motion can be more accurately described with Einstein's special relativity.
Women should be fulfilled and valued, as should men. Many women find tremendous fulfilment in giving birth to children, and where possible, staying with them at home during their first few formative years. (So long as they haven't been too pressured into making big career money, as though that was the most important thing in a fulfilling life.) My wife sometimes thanks me for working so she can be home with the kids. Ahhhh. Kinda nice, huh.
I get a lot of satisfaction seeing them growing and healthy as I work to provide... Well what's wrong with that? Maybe it's the way we're designed.
The day we have the sense to again encourage women to focus on raising children, and men to focus on their responsibility toward their families will be the beginning of repair to our slightly broken society.
And yes, single people are just as important. They are also more free with fewer responsibilities. But many will aspire to having traditionally valued roles as husbands and fathers or wives and mothers. That's a lot more important than the percentage of women in computer science.
Slashdot Mirror
There are some intellegent critters on Earth. Take whales.
How intellegent are they? Well, it's pretty hard to tell.
Do they use language? Er, we think so, but we're not sure what it means.
These animals are mammals like us. People can look them in the eye and sense a kind of recognition. Yet we still can't talk with them.
Now take an animal slightly more different from us, perhaps a reptile. Look that sucker in the eye and there is no real connection. Who the hell knows what he's thinking.
It seems to me that we have an awful tough time communicating with relatively intellegent creatures even when we've lived side by side for generations and understand each others' environment.
So if we were to find another civilization out there, its quite possible we could sit with them for 100 years and never know what each other is thinking.
Ah ha! An interesting post!
Actually, I'm not saying that one sex is weaker or inferior to the other. (Yes, you are right that people have been treated this way in history.) But rather that it is obvious there are striking differences in ability in various fields. This has been obvious through history, as it is now.
I agree entirely that we are equal in value or worth.
You may be right. You certainly make a strong point. However, there are clearly differing physical attributes between different ethnic groups. Those of west African decent (whether in the USA, Jamaica, Barbados, Europe) dominate sprinting. East and North Africans are often naturally thinner and lighter, do exceptionally well in middle and long distance.
I don't think you'd dispute that some African gene pools make people better able to withstand the sun than my pasty Scottish heritage. So why can there not be other physical areas that one group is stronger at than others? You are right to caution that we don't always jump to this easy explanation. But ethnic groups clearly have particular physical characteristics. So it should not be a matter of principle to to deny (not saying that you are) that there can be differences in ability.
Of course, these are sweeping generalities, and having visited Kenya, I know that the average Kenyan is happier in front of the TV with a beer, just like the white man. But when it comes to the elite (in athletics or mathematics) the small statistical differences can mean large differences in participation.
Also, cultures are affected by what the people like to do and are good at, and people become better at things the culture values and promotes. So I think these things work together.
From the article: The remarks prompted Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Nancy Hopkins - a Harvard graduate - to walk out on Summers' talk, The Boston Globe reported.
Which just goes to show, women are so emotional about these things.
Perhaps there comes a point where a person of integrity can no longer tow the politically correct line and must call it as he sees it. Perhaps being able to retain some dignity and look oneself in the mirror as a professional academic is worth the heat he'll have to take. So I disagree entirely that it far better to just shut the hell up.
It's like... no one commentating on athletics will admit the obvious fact that black sprinters are faster than white. Because if you admit that, then you have conceded that some races may be naturally better at some things than other things, perhaps whites think better than blacks... shock, horror!
To me it is obvious that women are generally better at somethings and worse at others than men. I hope I live to see the day when we laugh at the quaint squeemishness of our age to admit what every other age and people have plainly known.
Of course, this does not mean that an individual woman may not be the best mathematician, or perhaps a white man will again win the 100 metres. (We now have a white heavy-weight boxing world champion.) Individuals are in no way subject to a statistic which generalises a population.
Having just read the very fine Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson, he describes the spectacular collapse of a space elevator causing a ring that went almost twice around the equator of Mars.
Actually, the space elevator was actually one of Arthur C Clarke's ideas
The structure of the ring is a bit different from this one, but the location (along the equator) is the link.
Well, that's sort of what I mean, but I'm not saying that their death is OK because it was imminent anyway. I'm saying that when frail people do die, it's likely to happen when the stresses on them are at a high.
Weather fluctuates throughout the year for many reasons. Because of the tilt of the earth in orbit round the sun... because God wanted our crops to grow... many ways to look at this. Local ecosystems require their relative hot and cold periods. If they didn't happen, the local ecosystems would be different.
So I think of both the cold and the hot are helpful. However, they both bring their challenges and their inconveniences. They even bring their dangers, especially for the frail. I'm not saying we shouldn't care for the frail, that's another issue. I am saying we should not be surprised if deaths are statistically concentrated at these times.
What I am really saying is that the 27000 deaths in Europe due to the heat is a media sound-bite which sounds terrible, but conceals the reality that people are not being killed off early by the heat. On the contrary, they are living longer than their parents and grandparents did. Perhaps if everyday was the same we would have 27000 die of boredom.
Thanks for your measured query of my post.
My point is:
Let's say a city's population has a state of health such that 2000 are expected to die this year. Then there is an unexpected cold snap (substitute 'heat-wave' if you are in the southern hemisphere) in March, 300 die. Then in a mild April, only 50 die. Do we say that the cold snap killed those people? Or do we say that an expected 350 died in the March/April period (deaths concerntrated in the coldest week)?
The 27000 European deaths figure sounds horrific. But actually, people are living longer now days. So while each individual death brings particular sadness, statistically, that 27000 figure cannot be used to imply that the warmer earth is killing people.
Seriously, this is rediculous
the temperatures of summer 2003 were almost undoubtedly the highest in Europe for over 500 years
800 years ago they were growing grapes for wine in northern England. So it used to be hotter than this before the heavy industrial pollutants.
Linked to more than 27,000 excess deaths across the continent
Sorry to upset the liberals, but people do die. It stands to reason that the older and weaker will die when it is particularly cold or particularly hot as their frail bodies will be more stressed. More people in Northern Europe die in winter than summer. And actually, people are now living longer than 50 or 100 years ago. So the heat may be the final straw for some who were ready to die, but if the Earth cools down a bit, those 27,000 people are still going to die at some point.
Personally, I want less pollution and far less reliance on fossil fuels. (It's crazy that we are still tweaking a 100 year old car engine design.) I also want less pseudo-science scare mongering with half baked statistics that do not stand up to critical thought
They must have had some terrible green-house gas emissions 500 years ago!
Frankly, I think it can be said far too much. I'd rather discourage people from voting. Don't make it too convenient. Then only those who have really thought for themselves will vote. The problem right now is that there are too many mindless idiots voting.
...unless you happen to vote the same way as the mindless idiots...
Now before you get too upset, I do think that mindless idiots should have the right to vote. But why encourage it?
But I live in a pretty red state.
I take that to mean a Republican state. That's interesting, because in Britain, red represents Labour, which is more left wing. The Conservatives use blue. Red has long been associated with communisim and by extension, socialism. So why do the US Republicans use red? Was blue already taken?
I didn't say that you agree with every fashionable moral. My point is that most people who think for themselves sometimes find themselves swimming against the tide. Those are the times that we need protected freedom from authorities that want to govern our private lives.
I used the BNP as an example of a legal group who is out of step with media fashion. I said several times that I disagree with them. I am not standing up for their policies. I am standing up for the legal expression of political opinions.
I've seen some pretty unsavoury documentary pieces about certain conservative and labour leaders, too. Some of them have ended up in prison. Some of them have been caught saying 'racist' stuff. But that doesn't mean that anyone who in associated with the same political party is equally crooked.
Since we think for ourselves, one day it may be your opinion or mine that is considered subversive. That's when it is bad to find that the government has a database of your activities and associations.
Perhaps the basic difference here is that you are apparently willing to trust the authorities to regulate this properly. I am not.
I think the ID cards and the national database are going to happen anyway, so I hope you are right. But history of political leadership tells me that sooner or later, I will be right.
I am not a supporter of the BNP. I disagree with their policies. However, if you label them 'racist', you are not in anyway countering their argument.
They claim they are not 'racist', so perhaps that makes you a 'liar'. I don't really mean that, it's just a point about using labels to dismiss other people's arguments.
The BNP says people from other countries should go and sort out their own countries. This is different from the current government who wants to bring doctors and nurses from 3rd world countries which obviously impoverishes those countries by taking their best talent and the fruits of their investment in their own people. So there is some merit in some BNP policy.
However, personally, I disagree with BNP policy. Yet I think it is possible for someone to see merit in the BNP political argument without being racist.
So if people who think that this political solution is good cannot teach, then what next? Perhaps people who believe the Bible should not be allowed to teach (the Bible speaks against homosexuality).
Just remember, if you happen to agree with every moral standard that is currently in fashion, then you probably would have done the same if you lived in a different era - and you may not be thinking for yourself.
That's interesting, and I'm sure, true.
If a traffic officer asks me for my drivers licence, radios back to base, someone will have my driving record up on the screen. But they will not (I hope) have intelligence my political views, my health record, my travel history...
This is the point about keeping these various IDs for specific purposes separate. The government has no right to know information about my health, my political views, etc., since I am not breaking the law.
I appreciate your comment, and I believe you about your experience in Sweden.
The threat does not necessarily come from the current government. It may be the next government, or the one after that that targets you.
In Britain we have a British National Party which wants to stop a lot of the foreigners getting in. It is not a very tasteful policy, but it is a legal expression of a political view point. People are now loosing their jobs as police officers and school teachers if they are associated with the BNP. This is just one step away from having your career prospects damaged if you are NOT a member of the ruling New Labour Party.
You see, governments are led by people who love to exercise power. In Britain, there is political pressure from these political leaders to exercise power over what we can say and think. There is talk of laws against 'hate speech'. Of course, hate-speech is defined by current moral fashions.
A national identity database can hold details of who is a potential terrorist, who speaks out against the government... All this can be brought up on someone's screen without my knowledge. This is what is so different from drivers' licenses, etc. You don't know who has access to that information about you, or how it is used.
So, Tigress from Sweden, you may have a benevolent government in Sweden now, but beware how much power over your life and privacy you cede to it!
You don't mind having to identify yourself on demand?!
Then why did you post as an Anonymous Coward?
GOOD
BAD
Ask yourself, who serves whom?
GOOD
BAD
Ask yourself, who serves whom?
And... no offence with the 'lab rat' comment. I've had jobs like that in the past, too.
That's rough for you. I work for an IT company where my boss wants me to know a little about the field. He expects me to be able to install, support, administer, and write code for both Linux and Windows systems. So he lets my colleagues and me experiment a bit.
If you keep your workers in a box, you get lab rats. And unhappy lab rats are unproductive lab rats...
Bollocks. All my work machines come with XP on them. The first thing I have to do is purge the damn thing and install Linux.
have in the past given clues to as yet undiscovered physics. Under Newtonian physics, it was thought that there would be another planet inside Mercury because of anomolies in Mercuries observable orbit. The theoretical inner planet was called Vulcan. It has since been shown that Mercuries motion can be more accurately described with Einstein's special relativity.
Yes, clever trick getting our attention.
Women should be fulfilled and valued, as should men. Many women find tremendous fulfilment in giving birth to children, and where possible, staying with them at home during their first few formative years. (So long as they haven't been too pressured into making big career money, as though that was the most important thing in a fulfilling life.) My wife sometimes thanks me for working so she can be home with the kids. Ahhhh. Kinda nice, huh.
I get a lot of satisfaction seeing them growing and healthy as I work to provide... Well what's wrong with that? Maybe it's the way we're designed.
The day we have the sense to again encourage women to focus on raising children, and men to focus on their responsibility toward their families will be the beginning of repair to our slightly broken society.
And yes, single people are just as important. They are also more free with fewer responsibilities. But many will aspire to having traditionally valued roles as husbands and fathers or wives and mothers. That's a lot more important than the percentage of women in computer science.