Thanks... I learn something new every day. Could you send me a citation or two for this info? It's potent enough that I want to have that in my back pocket.
If there were zero women, then doubling enrollment is easy. Heck, for a small fee, I can come up with a plan guaranteed to triple your enrollment easily. (ducks)
Mod Parent Up. The average (mean) IQ is different by gender, but only a fool would claim that every member of one gender outsmarts the other. One study (of multiple out there) pegged the gender gap at 2 IQ points, and found that it is statistically significant. However, since the standard deviation is about 14 points, k8to would say that the difference in gender distributions is not significant in predicting an individual's IQ, and would be right. This does not stop some who are not educated in statistics from making terribly inaccurate statements about their gender's superiority.
I cancelled my membership in AAUW because they disagreed with this definition of feminism. They were not after equal opportunities, but equal outcomes. They were not focused on expanding opportunities, but merely leveling them. If a college (or sometimes even a high school) was spending more money on men's athletics than women's athletics, it was taken as de facto discrimination. They did not investigate, or ask the school to investigate, whether the men cared for sports more. They did not poll the women to find out what athletic interests they had, and whether there was sufficient interest across campuses to support a new intercollegiate sport. They simply said, "More men are playing sports than women; this is bad. If you can't get more women to play sports, you must cut men's teams until the numbers are equal." Then they'd sic Title IX lawyers on the school until the changes were made.
And the women wonder where their knight in shining armor is, when their sisters were responsible for the equestrian team and the fencing team being cut. They wonder why the guys around them are either jerks or wimps, when the men don't have the benefit of athletics teams to learn courage, valor, and decency. I don't recall the foreign languages club or the book club being cut or told to change their program to attract more men.
Yes, there are some folks in college athletics who aren't giving women's athletics a chance, and no I don't know the relative proportion of them to the good and decent folks. I doubt anyone's anecdotal experience is enough to count as statistically sound data. But cutting someone else's options because you don't have the ones you want is hardly kind, loving, or decent, and organizations like the AAUW whose definition of feminism can ignore these three basic virtues of civilization in pursuit of their agendas should wither on the vine until they change to being about expanding opportunities for all persons.
Participated in cycling, badminton, ultimate frisbee, and ballroom dance in college, which are all mixed gender in case it affects how you react.
Because when I systematically don't get the perspective of 50% of people, that makes the information I do receive form Wikipedia less useful.
Because Wikipedia is now supposed to conduct polls and surveys? No. No, it's not. Wikipedia is for information, not perspectives. Wikipedia is about NPOV, even if it doesn't always achieve it. (Most of) the facts don't change regardless of how many perspectives you get. The true speed of light, the Billboard Top 40, and the median age in Akron, Ohio, have nothing to do with whether women or men are the primary posters on Wikipedia. If you want perspectives more than facts, read your local editorial page.
It's a great idea in concept, but how would it work in practice? Would we say that nobody is allowed to speak on behalf of more than one person at a time? Those who can are more informed about the overall impact to society, and their input is more valuable by being more representative than the folks who only know about themselves. Would you deny anyone with a title of authority or connectedness (CEO, VP, Mayor, Manager, School Principal, Union Representative) the opportunity to talk with anyone who makes laws? That cuts against freedom of association, and possibly freedom of speech.
Now what I might suggest instead is to make the legislature part-time, and much larger number of folks. Look at New Hampshire -- I believe there are 300 representives for that tiny state. That keeps the ability to influence down a lot.
California has already tried term limits. The San Jose Mercury News did a recent series on the impact. One link and another link to start your reading.
Since I RTFAs, here's the basic point: lobbyists "guided" inexperienced legislators, writing bills and lining up folks to speak on their behalf. 1 of 3 bills was sponsored by lobbyists, and half of sponsored bills became law as compared to only 20% of unsponsored bills. The lobbyists are now the "privileged class" to use your words, and are guiding legislators to cut their clients big fat checks from the state treasury. So term limits are not the answer; they weaken our ability to support good people and vote out the bums, since the power moved to the unelected lobbyists.
Clearly, your friends have a responsibility to start out-breeding those "stupid people." If you believe that
1) stupid people outbreed smart people, and
2) this is a problem for society, then
3a) you must convince your fellow smart people of their obligation to start breeding many more smart people or
3b) your definition of "smart people" constitutes a group of persons who are too focused on being "smart" to propagate the species, and are leaving that task to others. Which in some forms of Darwinian thinking looks like a path toward extinction, a very "stupid" move for "smart" people.
You can flame me but first please consider the possibility that I may be serious.
Parent alleges that mysticism is an implied feature of religion; the definition parent cites does not require it at all. (We have not proven that a supernatural, if it exists, requires anything mystic.)
More seriousIy, I write to agree with the grandparent. I consider all the low-carb people to be "religious." I've been told that all the white foods in our lives: white bread, rice, potatoes, etc put us at severe risk for diabetes, and cutting them out entirely is the only way to live healthy. This came to me from persons of Asian descent, who seemed blissfully ignorant of the historical reality of their ancestors' diets (hint: lots of white rice). Does a traditionally Japanese or Chinese diet make you a diabetic? Heck no; look deeper, religious food diet persons. Perhaps the diabetics eat too much in general, or too much processed food, or right before bedtime, or before swimming, or a dozen other reasons. White foods are not evil, but these low-carb anti-white-food persons are religious: zealous, susceptible to ceremony and ritual, blindly obeying an authority. Maybe some low-carb anti-white-food persons are not religious in their zeal and approach; maybe some have valid personal dietary reasons and/or it's an easily-followed proxy for the ideal health advice they had more difficulty following. But the ones I've met have no data, no confirming experiences, just a grave command uttered by someone in a white(!) robe. Whether doctor or priest, kindly or malevolent, that person's advice was a sham and they are fools who follow it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a bowl of vanilla ice cream to eat.
both Stalin and the US cause ripples of indirect badness the effect of which is difficult to quantify.
Sounds like we're pretty negative today. Sunlight causes skin cancer; water has too much hexavalent chromium according to the latest standards; trees drop leaves that clog gutters. Here's a challenge: can you think of anything that causes ripples of indirect goodness?
I agree that it would be a lot of work on your part. A new domain, re-recording dialogue everywhere the word "Realtor" was spoken and possibly having to realign background audio tracks and SFX timings, and more. The word "Realtor" is a trademark of NAR and they have very specific guidance about its proper usage.
Without having listened to your piece, I can't tell if it would be even more powerful to have the CEO begging an average-Jane real estate agent (rather than a guru in her field) for help at the end.
If you made one change to "real estate agent" instead of Realtor(®), they wouldn't have an issue. Per the NAR website, "Only real estate licensees who are members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® are properly called REALTORS." It's like Xerox (versus photocopy) and Kleenex (versus facial tissue). No, I'm not in the real estate business, and no, I don't really appreciate the difference that membership in this organization provides. But it's their registered mark, and they are required to work to protect it if they want to keep it that way. There is no National Association of CEOs that created the term "CEO," so you're safe on that front. Since I don't know the full facts of your specific situation, I can't address the merits of the NAR's case, but again, changing to the term "real estate agent" would probably get them off your back pretty quickly.
Keep saying that. It helps convince other people that they have no chance to sway elections. Because former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura clearly ran as (R) or (D). And so did current Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee. Newsflash: they ran as Independents and won. Lisa Murkowski lost the (R) primary and ran for Alaska Senate as a WRITE-IN candidate and won. Not saying it happens every time, but for these to happen at the state-wide level, it means that big things are possible.
And maybe there are elections for state legislature or county supervisor or attorney general or school board or water district or mayor or sheriff where someone isn't a big (D) or big (R) and they can win, if people like you decide to give them a chance and talk them up. Or you can just fold, give in, and leave politics to other people. Just because my guy or gal doesn't win all the time (or even most of the time) doesn't stop me from voting.
One more thing: your Senator, Member of Congress, and State Representatives know who votes and how often. I know this because I worked for one and we had that data going back years. It may affect how much they listen to your comments and suggestions, because if you never vote to begin with and then they ignore your request or vote differently than you'd like them to, what are the odds you'll vote against them next time?
You are absolutely right that departments other than sales are key to the long-term success of the business. Every customer-facing individual, and many who don't interact with customers, affect profitability. For better or for worse though, most accounting systems don't have a way to measure exactly how much feel-good the customer has when you give him excellent service unless he tells the sales rep "Because of Steauengeglase, I am buying 10,000 more parts from you." In an effort to partially remedy this, some employers have developed company-wide bonuses based on customer satisfaction metrics, on the theory that everybody has a role to play in making happy customers, and therefore everyone should get some benefit from that success. It's not the same swing as the sales guy's commission, but then, most folks on the operations side wouldn't be happy with that roller-coaster of a paycheck.
I hereby volunteer to investigate any homes that are haunted by ghosts which radiate cookies, preferably chocolate chip. And if instead we just find goblins that exude bacon, we'll call it a win for science.
The reason aspirin pills are $10 in hospitals is because of massive inflation of prices to cover the high ratio of emergency room visits that cannot be paid for by the person in the emergency.
There are at least two reasons you're overlooking for the cost of those pills. First, each one of those is hand-carried by a loving and thoughtful nurse who has triple-checked this against your other medications. It's like room service in a hotel except they also verify that what you ordered is actually good for you. That's a big labor cost. Second, the hospital and everyone on staff there has insurance as well, malpractice insurance. This is so that if they make a mistake and bring you aspirin instead of tylenol, or if they bring you aspirin and unknown to them you have a blood-thinning condition that is exacerbated by aspirin, and then your next of kin sues them for killing you (rightly or wrongly), they don't have to close the entire hospital or sell their home to defend themselves in court.
And by the way, that lawsuit-happy culture is responsible for a lot of the cost of other products as well. Insurance is half the cost of helmets for kids playing American football, because of the risk of injury and the likelihood that the parents will sue the helmet maker "because that's where the money is." So kill all the lawyers and take responsibility for your own medication dosing, and then the aspirin will cost under $10 each.
There are infrastructure limitations to shipping power interstate. The transmission lines can only carry so much, and in an unregulated / deregulated market, expect to see the owners of those lines charging higher and higher rates for others to use them. Think of all the net neutrality arguments, and now apply them to power lines: some people own the "pipes" and want to charge others to push their electricity across them; the others will argue that the customer is already paying the pipe owners for power delivery, but they'll lose in the end. Only regulation is preventing this from happening right now.
GP is correct -- if there is a something which truly "effects our daily lives" it is very much worth learning about, and a marvelous field for science to explore.
Saying that every Action is within N Clicks is not a sufficient proof. The other question is how many Thinks you have to make per Click. At the present, many of the comments here are from folks who are much more efficient in Thinks per Action with the old system than the Ribbon, and I am one of them. I had extensively customized my menu bars to meet my exact uses, and could achieve many of my desired tasks with one click, not 3 or 6, so I am seeing a two-fold loss: more clicks, and more thinks per click.
I'm surprised I haven't seen folks talking about Wordperfect's efficiencies or the beloved command line in this thread.
Over time, the balance of folks who think the Ribbon is wonderful versus horribly inefficient will shift as old users die and new users are born. Bloatware will become the norm. And they wonder why Americans are so fat and resource-demanding. It's not our sodas, it's our software.
Become rich. It's not just a joke. Income mobility is pretty high in this country. Second point: the statistics about wealth ownership may be accurate but are most likely meaningless at best and woefully misleading at worst. It's not wealth but income that matters, as everyone who had a house (wealth) but was foreclosed upon (lack of income) experienced these past few years. Used wisely, wealth can generate income. But so can a lot of other things. Google and Facebook and Microsoft weren't created by the Carnegies or the Rothschilds. Final point: a more equal distribution of wealth may sound lovely, but think how the government is likely to achieve it. Not by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but by taking from the rich and burning that wealth to bits. The poor are no better off, except psychologically for knowing that everyone else must eat the same gutter trash and nobody can offer them a hand up anymore.
He is explicitly saying that some individuals cannot tolerate alternate opinions. By his actions, he implicitly says that he is one of them. The logical conclusion is that he is extremely ignorant, rude, malicious, and disingenuous.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The Nazis also claimed it was the fault of the Jews, and the bicyclists.
You may ask, "Why the bicyclists?"
And one would answer, "Why the Jews?"
Thanks... I learn something new every day. Could you send me a citation or two for this info? It's potent enough that I want to have that in my back pocket.
If there were zero women, then doubling enrollment is easy. Heck, for a small fee, I can come up with a plan guaranteed to triple your enrollment easily. (ducks)
Mod Parent Up. The average (mean) IQ is different by gender, but only a fool would claim that every member of one gender outsmarts the other. One study (of multiple out there) pegged the gender gap at 2 IQ points, and found that it is statistically significant. However, since the standard deviation is about 14 points, k8to would say that the difference in gender distributions is not significant in predicting an individual's IQ, and would be right. This does not stop some who are not educated in statistics from making terribly inaccurate statements about their gender's superiority.
I cancelled my membership in AAUW because they disagreed with this definition of feminism. They were not after equal opportunities, but equal outcomes. They were not focused on expanding opportunities, but merely leveling them. If a college (or sometimes even a high school) was spending more money on men's athletics than women's athletics, it was taken as de facto discrimination. They did not investigate, or ask the school to investigate, whether the men cared for sports more. They did not poll the women to find out what athletic interests they had, and whether there was sufficient interest across campuses to support a new intercollegiate sport. They simply said, "More men are playing sports than women; this is bad. If you can't get more women to play sports, you must cut men's teams until the numbers are equal." Then they'd sic Title IX lawyers on the school until the changes were made.
And the women wonder where their knight in shining armor is, when their sisters were responsible for the equestrian team and the fencing team being cut. They wonder why the guys around them are either jerks or wimps, when the men don't have the benefit of athletics teams to learn courage, valor, and decency. I don't recall the foreign languages club or the book club being cut or told to change their program to attract more men.
Yes, there are some folks in college athletics who aren't giving women's athletics a chance, and no I don't know the relative proportion of them to the good and decent folks. I doubt anyone's anecdotal experience is enough to count as statistically sound data. But cutting someone else's options because you don't have the ones you want is hardly kind, loving, or decent, and organizations like the AAUW whose definition of feminism can ignore these three basic virtues of civilization in pursuit of their agendas should wither on the vine until they change to being about expanding opportunities for all persons.
Participated in cycling, badminton, ultimate frisbee, and ballroom dance in college, which are all mixed gender in case it affects how you react.
Because when I systematically don't get the perspective of 50% of people, that makes the information I do receive form Wikipedia less useful.
Because Wikipedia is now supposed to conduct polls and surveys? No. No, it's not. Wikipedia is for information, not perspectives. Wikipedia is about NPOV, even if it doesn't always achieve it. (Most of) the facts don't change regardless of how many perspectives you get. The true speed of light, the Billboard Top 40, and the median age in Akron, Ohio, have nothing to do with whether women or men are the primary posters on Wikipedia. If you want perspectives more than facts, read your local editorial page.
It's a great idea in concept, but how would it work in practice? Would we say that nobody is allowed to speak on behalf of more than one person at a time? Those who can are more informed about the overall impact to society, and their input is more valuable by being more representative than the folks who only know about themselves. Would you deny anyone with a title of authority or connectedness (CEO, VP, Mayor, Manager, School Principal, Union Representative) the opportunity to talk with anyone who makes laws? That cuts against freedom of association, and possibly freedom of speech.
Now what I might suggest instead is to make the legislature part-time, and much larger number of folks. Look at New Hampshire -- I believe there are 300 representives for that tiny state. That keeps the ability to influence down a lot.
California has already tried term limits. The San Jose Mercury News did a recent series on the impact. One link and another link to start your reading.
Since I RTFAs, here's the basic point: lobbyists "guided" inexperienced legislators, writing bills and lining up folks to speak on their behalf. 1 of 3 bills was sponsored by lobbyists, and half of sponsored bills became law as compared to only 20% of unsponsored bills. The lobbyists are now the "privileged class" to use your words, and are guiding legislators to cut their clients big fat checks from the state treasury. So term limits are not the answer; they weaken our ability to support good people and vote out the bums, since the power moved to the unelected lobbyists.
Clearly, your friends have a responsibility to start out-breeding those "stupid people." If you believe that
1) stupid people outbreed smart people, and
2) this is a problem for society, then
3a) you must convince your fellow smart people of their obligation to start breeding many more smart people or
3b) your definition of "smart people" constitutes a group of persons who are too focused on being "smart" to propagate the species, and are leaving that task to others. Which in some forms of Darwinian thinking looks like a path toward extinction, a very "stupid" move for "smart" people.
You can flame me but first please consider the possibility that I may be serious.
Parent alleges that mysticism is an implied feature of religion; the definition parent cites does not require it at all. (We have not proven that a supernatural, if it exists, requires anything mystic.)
More seriousIy, I write to agree with the grandparent. I consider all the low-carb people to be "religious." I've been told that all the white foods in our lives: white bread, rice, potatoes, etc put us at severe risk for diabetes, and cutting them out entirely is the only way to live healthy. This came to me from persons of Asian descent, who seemed blissfully ignorant of the historical reality of their ancestors' diets (hint: lots of white rice). Does a traditionally Japanese or Chinese diet make you a diabetic? Heck no; look deeper, religious food diet persons. Perhaps the diabetics eat too much in general, or too much processed food, or right before bedtime, or before swimming, or a dozen other reasons. White foods are not evil, but these low-carb anti-white-food persons are religious: zealous, susceptible to ceremony and ritual, blindly obeying an authority. Maybe some low-carb anti-white-food persons are not religious in their zeal and approach; maybe some have valid personal dietary reasons and/or it's an easily-followed proxy for the ideal health advice they had more difficulty following. But the ones I've met have no data, no confirming experiences, just a grave command uttered by someone in a white(!) robe. Whether doctor or priest, kindly or malevolent, that person's advice was a sham and they are fools who follow it.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a bowl of vanilla ice cream to eat.
both Stalin and the US cause ripples of indirect badness the effect of which is difficult to quantify.
Sounds like we're pretty negative today. Sunlight causes skin cancer; water has too much hexavalent chromium according to the latest standards; trees drop leaves that clog gutters. Here's a challenge: can you think of anything that causes ripples of indirect goodness?
I agree that it would be a lot of work on your part. A new domain, re-recording dialogue everywhere the word "Realtor" was spoken and possibly having to realign background audio tracks and SFX timings, and more. The word "Realtor" is a trademark of NAR and they have very specific guidance about its proper usage.
Without having listened to your piece, I can't tell if it would be even more powerful to have the CEO begging an average-Jane real estate agent (rather than a guru in her field) for help at the end.
If you made one change to "real estate agent" instead of Realtor(®), they wouldn't have an issue. Per the NAR website, "Only real estate licensees who are members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® are properly called REALTORS." It's like Xerox (versus photocopy) and Kleenex (versus facial tissue). No, I'm not in the real estate business, and no, I don't really appreciate the difference that membership in this organization provides. But it's their registered mark, and they are required to work to protect it if they want to keep it that way. There is no National Association of CEOs that created the term "CEO," so you're safe on that front. Since I don't know the full facts of your specific situation, I can't address the merits of the NAR's case, but again, changing to the term "real estate agent" would probably get them off your back pretty quickly.
Keep saying that. It helps convince other people that they have no chance to sway elections. Because former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura clearly ran as (R) or (D). And so did current Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee. Newsflash: they ran as Independents and won. Lisa Murkowski lost the (R) primary and ran for Alaska Senate as a WRITE-IN candidate and won. Not saying it happens every time, but for these to happen at the state-wide level, it means that big things are possible.
And maybe there are elections for state legislature or county supervisor or attorney general or school board or water district or mayor or sheriff where someone isn't a big (D) or big (R) and they can win, if people like you decide to give them a chance and talk them up. Or you can just fold, give in, and leave politics to other people. Just because my guy or gal doesn't win all the time (or even most of the time) doesn't stop me from voting.
One more thing: your Senator, Member of Congress, and State Representatives know who votes and how often. I know this because I worked for one and we had that data going back years. It may affect how much they listen to your comments and suggestions, because if you never vote to begin with and then they ignore your request or vote differently than you'd like them to, what are the odds you'll vote against them next time?
You are absolutely right that departments other than sales are key to the long-term success of the business. Every customer-facing individual, and many who don't interact with customers, affect profitability. For better or for worse though, most accounting systems don't have a way to measure exactly how much feel-good the customer has when you give him excellent service unless he tells the sales rep "Because of Steauengeglase, I am buying 10,000 more parts from you." In an effort to partially remedy this, some employers have developed company-wide bonuses based on customer satisfaction metrics, on the theory that everybody has a role to play in making happy customers, and therefore everyone should get some benefit from that success. It's not the same swing as the sales guy's commission, but then, most folks on the operations side wouldn't be happy with that roller-coaster of a paycheck.
Came for this, leaving satisfied.
I hereby volunteer to investigate any homes that are haunted by ghosts which radiate cookies, preferably chocolate chip. And if instead we just find goblins that exude bacon, we'll call it a win for science.
The reason aspirin pills are $10 in hospitals is because of massive inflation of prices to cover the high ratio of emergency room visits that cannot be paid for by the person in the emergency.
There are at least two reasons you're overlooking for the cost of those pills. First, each one of those is hand-carried by a loving and thoughtful nurse who has triple-checked this against your other medications. It's like room service in a hotel except they also verify that what you ordered is actually good for you. That's a big labor cost. Second, the hospital and everyone on staff there has insurance as well, malpractice insurance. This is so that if they make a mistake and bring you aspirin instead of tylenol, or if they bring you aspirin and unknown to them you have a blood-thinning condition that is exacerbated by aspirin, and then your next of kin sues them for killing you (rightly or wrongly), they don't have to close the entire hospital or sell their home to defend themselves in court.
And by the way, that lawsuit-happy culture is responsible for a lot of the cost of other products as well. Insurance is half the cost of helmets for kids playing American football, because of the risk of injury and the likelihood that the parents will sue the helmet maker "because that's where the money is." So kill all the lawyers and take responsibility for your own medication dosing, and then the aspirin will cost under $10 each.
There are infrastructure limitations to shipping power interstate. The transmission lines can only carry so much, and in an unregulated / deregulated market, expect to see the owners of those lines charging higher and higher rates for others to use them. Think of all the net neutrality arguments, and now apply them to power lines: some people own the "pipes" and want to charge others to push their electricity across them; the others will argue that the customer is already paying the pipe owners for power delivery, but they'll lose in the end. Only regulation is preventing this from happening right now.
GP is correct -- if there is a something which truly "effects our daily lives" it is very much worth learning about, and a marvelous field for science to explore.
Saying that every Action is within N Clicks is not a sufficient proof. The other question is how many Thinks you have to make per Click. At the present, many of the comments here are from folks who are much more efficient in Thinks per Action with the old system than the Ribbon, and I am one of them. I had extensively customized my menu bars to meet my exact uses, and could achieve many of my desired tasks with one click, not 3 or 6, so I am seeing a two-fold loss: more clicks, and more thinks per click.
I'm surprised I haven't seen folks talking about Wordperfect's efficiencies or the beloved command line in this thread.
Over time, the balance of folks who think the Ribbon is wonderful versus horribly inefficient will shift as old users die and new users are born. Bloatware will become the norm. And they wonder why Americans are so fat and resource-demanding. It's not our sodas, it's our software.
Become rich. It's not just a joke. Income mobility is pretty high in this country. Second point: the statistics about wealth ownership may be accurate but are most likely meaningless at best and woefully misleading at worst. It's not wealth but income that matters, as everyone who had a house (wealth) but was foreclosed upon (lack of income) experienced these past few years. Used wisely, wealth can generate income. But so can a lot of other things. Google and Facebook and Microsoft weren't created by the Carnegies or the Rothschilds. Final point: a more equal distribution of wealth may sound lovely, but think how the government is likely to achieve it. Not by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but by taking from the rich and burning that wealth to bits. The poor are no better off, except psychologically for knowing that everyone else must eat the same gutter trash and nobody can offer them a hand up anymore.
$40/GB is a lot cheaper than the $1200/MB Verizon charges for text messages.
(Confirmation Bias) + (Rich Idiots) - (A Double Blind Trial) + (Reality) = Hilarity! I find that this is almost always true.
You forgot the last item. PROFIT!
He is explicitly saying that some individuals cannot tolerate alternate opinions. By his actions, he implicitly says that he is one of them. The logical conclusion is that he is extremely ignorant, rude, malicious, and disingenuous.