What if I show you a study that indicates that people don't come to conclusions in an unbiased way. That they in fact decide what their conclusions are and then only consider information that supports their conclusion.
I'd say you demonstrate it very well.
I have no read the study.
So I was right. Not only are you still referring to them as singular, you haven't read any of them, and yet are calling them pseudoscience sight unseen.
I on the other hand HAVE read a couple of the earlier studies. I couldn't give a damn about what the article said. I just linked to one that referenced the fact that this had been scientifically studied.
You seem to be getting more and more upset by the fact that your preconceived notions are contradicted by the science.
??? I did. My reply is why it wouldn't make inroads in laptops and desktops. It's a UI designed for small screens and touch, not desktops with mice of trackpads.
Guns don't magically load them selves, take aim, and fire all on their own.
I can't imagine what is happening in your brain to make you think that is a sequiteur, let along a refutation of "Risk versus utility is far higher for guns."
You're trying to say that guns in people's hands are risk free? Or that cars go off on killing sprees by themselves? What? It makes no sense.
Please tell me which laws restrict vehicle ownership where there isn't a comparable one for firearms?
I said restrict owners, not restrict ownership.
Regulations for both vary from state to state, but in general:
Yes I am assuming ALL studies are wrong until they have been scrutinized. This is the scientific method.
Are you saying they haven't been peer reviewed?
No, your are not assuming all studies are wrong. You're assuming the ones that don't fit your preconceived notions are wrong. And it's certainly not scientific to call studies that you know little about, but don't say what you want: "guesses".
You can prove that there is a correlation between being black and being a criminal in the US, but this correlation is not relevant, because there is no causal link that being black causes you to be a criminal. There is a more obvious correlation of poverty and criminality, and a correlation beteen being black and poverty.
Of course there is. And the point is that scientists say that. It's not a case that the scientists are stupid and uneducated, and they need "TsuruchiBrian" to come along and repeat slashdot's favourite mantra "Correlation is not causation".
1) And yet, gun crimes are much less of a problem than car crimes.
2) And all those safety features, licensing and training of cars and drivers haven't made cars safer than guns.
Neither of those statements stand up. Both are subjective as there is no hint as to measurement, and whilst it appears they make sense to you in the sense you had in mind, they are opposite to what I would have subjectively said.
Perhaps if you tried something that could be objectively measured.
I can't help myself. The first time I see someone posting something stupid I am impelled to correct them. The second time I'm driven to point out their ignorance.
Then why does Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, also have one of the highest successful suicide rates?
If you're so simple that you don't realise that multiple variables can influence an outcome, you have no place on Slashdot.
The Japanese have a much stronger sense of duty, failure and shame, and are lousy at getting together with the opposite sex. Those things and other cultural differences lead to a higher suicide rate. Which says absolutely nothing about the GPs correct point that gun availability raises the proportion of successful suicides. They are entirely different variables.
a) Risk versus utility is far higher for guns. b) Many more laws already exist to restrict car owners for the purpose of safety than exist to restrict gun owners.
So if I find a study on the internet that says plants have feelings, I am free to say that "science says plants have feelings"? Are you insane? There are countless scientific studies that are flawed.
And you are assuming all the studies are flawed, not because you have looked at the studies and found reasons they are flawed. Heck not just flawed, but you're accusing them of being pseudoscience on no better reason that you don't agree. But because they don't say what you want them to say. That is indeed anti-science.
Conservative doesn't even mean the same thing in other countries. Conservatives in Europe would be left wing democrats in the US.
I said conservative. Small c. It certainly does mean the same. There's a difference in how far to the right the American right wingers have managed to move politics. The Republican Party is far to the right of the UK Conservative Party. But conservative minds are still conservative minds. Theirs is still the politics of fear, the world over.
a) Of course 1 study is science. b) It's better than your opinion. c) It's more than one. There's 3 studies from 3 different years on 3 different countries on the first page of Google.
We don't even know how the human brain works, It is completely ridiculous to make any concrete scientific claims about the brains of conservatives being mor eprone to fear. This is the epitome of pseudo science. I am not even a conservative.
Denial of science doesn't necessarily mean you're a conservative. It just makes it likely.
People of different races do have different attributes due to their genetics. But not necessarily the ones you mention. Science, not bigotry is always the guide.
However whatever the differences are it's not reason for racist behaviour nor any justification for discrimination.
That YOU don't see any difference in fear between liberals and conservatives IS subjective. Science does see a difference.
The position you take is one that is "fearful" of guns
No it's not. Your theory is wrong.
No one really claims to be motivated by fear. Everyone claims that other are motivated by fear to delegitimize their position. This whole argument of who's position is the "fearful" position is not a logical or objective one. It's completely subjective and adds nothing to the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
Now tell that to the people who want to register and restrict guns, and / or restrict ammo. Especially the latter.
I'm one of those...
They have said in so many words: you have the right to bear arms, but not to shoot them.
No, I've never said that, nor heard anyone else say it. Nor has Google.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22you+have+the+right+to+bear+arms,+but+not+to+shoot+them%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=YSqNUZ_vLNCJhQeKwoCAAg&safe=strict
Will you please stop making shit up.
Well, he'll have less work to do than you did. But there'd be even less to do if she had an iPad.
What if I show you a study that indicates that people don't come to conclusions in an unbiased way. That they in fact decide what their conclusions are and then only consider information that supports their conclusion.
I'd say you demonstrate it very well.
I have no read the study.
So I was right. Not only are you still referring to them as singular, you haven't read any of them, and yet are calling them pseudoscience sight unseen.
I on the other hand HAVE read a couple of the earlier studies. I couldn't give a damn about what the article said. I just linked to one that referenced the fact that this had been scientifically studied.
You seem to be getting more and more upset by the fact that your preconceived notions are contradicted by the science.
??? I did. My reply is why it wouldn't make inroads in laptops and desktops. It's a UI designed for small screens and touch, not desktops with mice of trackpads.
They're not Apple, so you won't find many people here interested in stories of how they abuse their workforce.
Give this man a prize, he hit the nail on the head. Momputing is where it is at.
Absolutely. But poor sales of ChromeBooks suggest that's not the right product for momputing.
Moms like iPads and iPhones.
I don't get why Google isn't leveraging Android here.
Because Android ain't a Desktop UI.
It would be like telling Apple "Give up and stop making iOS, just license Android instead."
Other than the fact that iOS is very successful and ChromeOS isn't. So not really like it at all.
No, it's even better in print.
Guns don't magically load them selves, take aim, and fire all on their own.
I can't imagine what is happening in your brain to make you think that is a sequiteur, let along a refutation of "Risk versus utility is far higher for guns."
You're trying to say that guns in people's hands are risk free? Or that cars go off on killing sprees by themselves? What? It makes no sense.
Please tell me which laws restrict vehicle ownership where there isn't a comparable one for firearms?
I said restrict owners, not restrict ownership.
Regulations for both vary from state to state, but in general:
Universal license requirement. Passing a driving test. Speed limits. Mandatory insurance. Parking restrictions. Roadworthiness (lights, tire tread etc.). Manufacturing safety standards.
Yes I am assuming ALL studies are wrong until they have been scrutinized. This is the scientific method.
Are you saying they haven't been peer reviewed?
No, your are not assuming all studies are wrong. You're assuming the ones that don't fit your preconceived notions are wrong. And it's certainly not scientific to call studies that you know little about, but don't say what you want: "guesses".
You can prove that there is a correlation between being black and being a criminal in the US, but this correlation is not relevant, because there is no causal link that being black causes you to be a criminal. There is a more obvious correlation of poverty and criminality, and a correlation beteen being black and poverty.
Of course there is. And the point is that scientists say that. It's not a case that the scientists are stupid and uneducated, and they need "TsuruchiBrian" to come along and repeat slashdot's favourite mantra "Correlation is not causation".
1) And yet, gun crimes are much less of a problem than car crimes.
2) And all those safety features, licensing and training of cars and drivers haven't made cars safer than guns.
Neither of those statements stand up. Both are subjective as there is no hint as to measurement, and whilst it appears they make sense to you in the sense you had in mind, they are opposite to what I would have subjectively said.
Perhaps if you tried something that could be objectively measured.
I can't help myself. The first time I see someone posting something stupid I am impelled to correct them. The second time I'm driven to point out their ignorance.
Sayeth the guy trying to defend the claim that the US has a "high suicide rate" purely due to the prevalence of firearms.
a) You're referring to a different guy. That's why I referred to him as the GP.
b) He didn't say "purely". He's intelligent. You're simple.
Fine. Replacing all those guns with cattle stunners will be a step forward. At least there will be no killing other people from a distance.
What you're posted is the definition of a mathematical moron.
Or horrible to have gun nut parents.
Then why does Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, also have one of the highest successful suicide rates?
If you're so simple that you don't realise that multiple variables can influence an outcome, you have no place on Slashdot.
The Japanese have a much stronger sense of duty, failure and shame, and are lousy at getting together with the opposite sex. Those things and other cultural differences lead to a higher suicide rate. Which says absolutely nothing about the GPs correct point that gun availability raises the proportion of successful suicides. They are entirely different variables.
a) Risk versus utility is far higher for guns.
b) Many more laws already exist to restrict car owners for the purpose of safety than exist to restrict gun owners.
So if I find a study on the internet that says plants have feelings, I am free to say that "science says plants have feelings"? Are you insane? There are countless scientific studies that are flawed.
And you are assuming all the studies are flawed, not because you have looked at the studies and found reasons they are flawed. Heck not just flawed, but you're accusing them of being pseudoscience on no better reason that you don't agree. But because they don't say what you want them to say. That is indeed anti-science.
Conservative doesn't even mean the same thing in other countries. Conservatives in Europe would be left wing democrats in the US.
I said conservative. Small c. It certainly does mean the same. There's a difference in how far to the right the American right wingers have managed to move politics. The Republican Party is far to the right of the UK Conservative Party. But conservative minds are still conservative minds. Theirs is still the politics of fear, the world over.
1 study != science
a) Of course 1 study is science.
b) It's better than your opinion.
c) It's more than one. There's 3 studies from 3 different years on 3 different countries on the first page of Google.
We don't even know how the human brain works, It is completely ridiculous to make any concrete scientific claims about the brains of conservatives being mor eprone to fear.
This is the epitome of pseudo science. I am not even a conservative.
Denial of science doesn't necessarily mean you're a conservative. It just makes it likely.
There's no reason the control that pops up couldn't be a slider. That took me 30 whole seconds to think of.
I can tell.
A slider is used for values between fixed limits.
Fact is, a well designed interface can accept multiple types of input, but you're too much of a fanboy to see it.
CAN accept? Of course it CAN accept. That's a different thing from "works perfectly". Again, you're just revealing you have low standards.
People of different races do have different attributes due to their genetics. But not necessarily the ones you mention. Science, not bigotry is always the guide.
However whatever the differences are it's not reason for racist behaviour nor any justification for discrimination.
That YOU don't see any difference in fear between liberals and conservatives IS subjective. Science does see a difference.
The position you take is one that is "fearful" of guns
No it's not. Your theory is wrong.
No one really claims to be motivated by fear. Everyone claims that other are motivated by fear to delegitimize their position. This whole argument of who's position is the "fearful" position is not a logical or objective one. It's completely subjective and adds nothing to the discussion.
It's not subjective. It's been scientifically studied. I already gave you the link.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
You just don't want to believe it. So you disregard the science. And that's another conservative trait.
The 1970s called. They want their joke back.