"Cultural bias" is a non-starter. IQ tests are not subject matter tests. They are patterns, shapes, numbers, etc. If an IQ test designed by Africans somehow magically made them better scorers, the test would almost certainly be invalid as an IQ test. While it may be hard to take an actual IQ test, there are decent facsimiles floating around the internet. Tickle.com has one that, for me, seemed within the margin of error. Try that. Other than being in English, there's no cultural artifacts involved.
Einstein was a Jew. Jews have a natural tendency towards high IQ due to environmental variables that encouraged endogamy and a culture that highly prized intellectual and educational achievement. Africans, unfortunately, are not known for high IQs, and the environmental variables that would give rise to high IQs are not in place. It would take thousands of years of natural eugenics, as with Jews, to create an outcome where an African Einstein is within the realm of possibility. You cannot take a person and mold them into something else by tossing them into a school. You cannot rewire their brains to such an extent. It would be better to simply seek out the most intelligent Africans you can find, and see how far they can go, without burdening them with a near impossible goal for anyone, of any race.
"Suicide" bomber engenders empathy for the terrorist. The fact that they are killing themselves is secondary to their goal of killing others, sowing terror and paranoia. "Homicide" bomber more accurately describes their intended purpose, and avoids humanizing the perpetrator at the expense of their victims.
"...contrary to popular belief, suicide bombers are rarely insane. They are most often intelligent, rational individuals with beliefs that those in the West finds difficult to comprehend."
Um, no, that's something we all knew about before. I've never heard anyone classify homicide bombers as "insane," or unintelligent, or irrational in the classic sense of the word.
...it's interesting that Krvaric has enjoyed instead a meteoric rise in conservative politics.
It is? Why? I am curious if the slaphappy author is even familiar enough with politics to understand one could more easily argue that there is no contradiction in the proposed scenario from a conservative position.
I think this pseudo-exploit largely explains why Wikipedia is a miserable failure. If you don't have people intentionally censoring and manipulating information, you have people who aren't qualified to speak on the matter in the first place.
I think judging a bill based solely on what is "best for you and your community" is a wrongful approach. First, one must ask themselves, "is this bill Constitutional under the strictly enumerated powers given to the Federal government?" If not, then obviously the bill is unconstitutional, and should be dismissed out of hand. If it is Constitutional, the second question to ask is "does this bill limit individual rights and liberties?" If yes, then it should be dismissed as an instrument of tyranny. Then, and only then, can one ask the self-interested question of "is this bill good for me and my self-defined community?"
Being a citizen isn't about being led around by the nose by/.. As for being an active citizen, I'm certainly not someone they need to be working on, and using/. to direct the clueless ones is a bit unnerving. Unless the implication is that the only way to be a "good" citizen is to nod your head as you march in line to/.'s drums.
What kind of climate change is he concerned with? Global warming? Global cooling? Winter after fall?
As for global warming, even the BBC has been forced to admit reality, and admitted that global warming ceased in 1998. Although they've since modified the article, wiping that portion out. Not at all ethical journalism. So if anyone knows how to retrieve the original version of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm...
You're a sloppy lawyer. I admitted I made a mistake in reading the statement. So you're misrepresenting my statement by stating it was a purposeful misrepresentation.
Stop giving me attention. I insist. Otherwise, I'll go over my quota.
The Wikimedia Foundation is not Jimmy Wale's personal spokesman, even if it is his personal expense fund. I don't even see how the Wikimedia Foundation would be in a position to assert that Jimmy Wales is innocent; this is the same Wikimedia Foundation that a temp worker, quickly elevated her to COO, and then later found out she was a felon. The 2006 Wikimedia Budget is still missing, by the way.
"Current allegations relating to Jimmy Wales soliciting donations for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to protect or edit Wikipedia articles are completely false. The Wikimedia Foundation has never accepted nor solicited donations in order to protect or make edits to a Wikipedia article - nor has Jimmy Wales. This is a practice the Wikimedia Foundation would never condone."
Notice the scope shift from "Jimmy Wales" to "Wikimedia Foundation," and then stating that the Wikipedia Foundation "has never accepted nor solicited donations in order to protect or make edits to a Wikipedia article," not Jimmy Wales.
Slashdot Mirror
"Cultural bias" is a non-starter. IQ tests are not subject matter tests. They are patterns, shapes, numbers, etc. If an IQ test designed by Africans somehow magically made them better scorers, the test would almost certainly be invalid as an IQ test. While it may be hard to take an actual IQ test, there are decent facsimiles floating around the internet. Tickle.com has one that, for me, seemed within the margin of error. Try that. Other than being in English, there's no cultural artifacts involved.
Note, 10-year old Jewish boy attending college: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080514/D90LCS4G0.html
Einstein was a Jew. Jews have a natural tendency towards high IQ due to environmental variables that encouraged endogamy and a culture that highly prized intellectual and educational achievement. Africans, unfortunately, are not known for high IQs, and the environmental variables that would give rise to high IQs are not in place. It would take thousands of years of natural eugenics, as with Jews, to create an outcome where an African Einstein is within the realm of possibility. You cannot take a person and mold them into something else by tossing them into a school. You cannot rewire their brains to such an extent. It would be better to simply seek out the most intelligent Africans you can find, and see how far they can go, without burdening them with a near impossible goal for anyone, of any race.
Your lack of understanding disturbs me.
"Suicide" bomber engenders empathy for the terrorist. The fact that they are killing themselves is secondary to their goal of killing others, sowing terror and paranoia. "Homicide" bomber more accurately describes their intended purpose, and avoids humanizing the perpetrator at the expense of their victims.
Um, no, that's something we all knew about before. I've never heard anyone classify homicide bombers as "insane," or unintelligent, or irrational in the classic sense of the word.
...then Major General Jack O'Neill.
Anyone else beginning to smell a scam? Seems every time these reports are released, it's bawling for more money from the public purse.
I think this pseudo-exploit largely explains why Wikipedia is a miserable failure. If you don't have people intentionally censoring and manipulating information, you have people who aren't qualified to speak on the matter in the first place.
In-depth research polls, err, 24 employees
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/17/ibm-might-dump-windows-mac/
I think judging a bill based solely on what is "best for you and your community" is a wrongful approach. First, one must ask themselves, "is this bill Constitutional under the strictly enumerated powers given to the Federal government?" If not, then obviously the bill is unconstitutional, and should be dismissed out of hand. If it is Constitutional, the second question to ask is "does this bill limit individual rights and liberties?" If yes, then it should be dismissed as an instrument of tyranny. Then, and only then, can one ask the self-interested question of "is this bill good for me and my self-defined community?"
Being a citizen isn't about being led around by the nose by /.. As for being an active citizen, I'm certainly not someone they need to be working on, and using /. to direct the clueless ones is a bit unnerving. Unless the implication is that the only way to be a "good" citizen is to nod your head as you march in line to /.'s drums.
Um, yes, that's general idea behind private property...
Is this really an appropriate fashion to present such content, via full endorsement and support by ./?
Here is a story verifying that the BCC admitted that global warming ceased in 1998: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=436616
As for global warming, even the BBC has been forced to admit reality, and admitted that global warming ceased in 1998. Although they've since modified the article, wiping that portion out. Not at all ethical journalism. So if anyone knows how to retrieve the original version of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm...
Translation: Give us our pork, or else!
Stop giving me attention. I insist. Otherwise, I'll go over my quota.
It's not deprecated, it was maliciously forked!
Your copy of the US Constitution must be different than mine.
I think you're displaying an inability to distinguish the source from the messenger.
Admittedly, I did not pay close enough attention to the tacked on denial, by proxy, on behalf of Jimmy Wales.
The Wikimedia Foundation is not Jimmy Wale's personal spokesman, even if it is his personal expense fund. I don't even see how the Wikimedia Foundation would be in a position to assert that Jimmy Wales is innocent; this is the same Wikimedia Foundation that a temp worker, quickly elevated her to COO, and then later found out she was a felon. The 2006 Wikimedia Budget is still missing, by the way.