And here's your "It's not sexism because [pile of blantantly and boringly sexist beliefs]" post that you can't seem to avoid in these discussions. That it's in direct contradiction to much more scientific observations about how society and sexual roles interact that I posted is just icing.
So... now you're the person who wants them to be destroyed. You know, the evil, mustache twirling villains from your own post not 20 minutes ago. I mean... you were presenting that as outright evil. And now it's the highest calling?
Oh, look, an article objecting to a specific methodology, that in no way was made illegal.
Okay. Those are equal. Yep. Look, your objection requires people to believe in a huge-criminology wide conspiracy to suppress data, whereas my objection just references a law on the books.
I'm not even going to refute what you're saying, because, hell, Straus is a criminologist, and I'm not. But I will accuse you of willful false equivalence. Don't do that.
And I'm reminded about someone who objected to this line of reasoning saying "who cares if its social and political, let people make their choice".
And while I let that vacuous line of reasoning slide before, I'm going to nip in the bud here and point out that if you don't care about that, you also shouldn't care about us people trying to effect social and political changes.
Or, and this is crazy. I'm totally aware of your argument, made that clear, and also made my contempt of the exact nonsense you spewed readily apparent, and I don't want have anything more to do with it.
It's almost as if some people just really want it to be legal to destroy human embryos.
In your imaginary land where any people are this hostile, what do you think is done with leftover embryos from fertility treatments, right now?
Do you think they're all frozen forever, just in case someone needs a spare implanted in their uterus? Do you think that maybe they get grown in secret cloning vats that let them turn into human beings?
Or do you join us in reality land where they're put in a nice clean chamber labeled "biohazard" and hauled off by a medical waste company to be sterilized and destroyed. You're just going to have to learn to live in a reality where huge numbers of embryos are destroyed by the human body, excreted out unnoticed, and untold others are created in a lab so that desperate people can have children, only to be disposed of for a host of reasons, like in-viability or that previous implantations "took". Reality just doesn't treat them the way you imagine they are currently treated.
Did you not see that disclaimer at the bottom of my post. Please, consider shutting up instead of what it is you're actually doing. This is not a debate worth having again and again and again and again.
People coming in and demanding proof of things their politics made illegal to study are really annoying.
It's similarly illegal to study gun violence under a US public health research grant, even though every other class of mortality is nominally okay. In my state, it's illegal to use state funds to research the effect of global warming on coastal water levels.
People who ban researching things for political reasons(rather than say consistency with existing laws outside of research) are harmful. There's something very wrong with the notion of not researching things that might reflect negatively on your ideology.
Yeah, not-for-profit corporations tend to be, on average, pretty scummy. That's not to say the intent of the law that allows them is bad or that all of them are.
Just that most have the majority true: *Earning a profit. Not to distribute to shareholders but to "grow". *Paying their executives exorbitant salaries that just so happen to replace the large sums that regular CEOs usually get from profit sharing. *Using "not for profit" as a shield against unethical behavior, as if qualifying money as "profit" is the only way it corrupts. *Charging market prices for services.
Some combinations of these are okay, but others are just shitty. I try not be too cynical a person, but when I hear a company describe itself as "not for profit" my first thought is "tax system gamer" and not "charity".
The only error in your post is that most people can't bring themselves to care enough about Microsoft anymore to go as far as hating them. Say what you want about 95 through early XP era blue-screens, they were recognizable.
Now, though, windows is basically synonymous with white collar office work, and not a lot else. A lot of people don't even use it at home for internet browsing anymore.
There's a lot of reasons, if you're an OS developer, to have an app store, but security is pretty low on them. #1: It lets you control what applications are available on your platform. No worrying about someone treading on your toes, selling something you sell. #2: It gives you a cut of every app sold. This means that you can make your OS a loss leader, and take your profits from the sales of people making things people actually like. #3: Building your brand. Marketing poisons everything. People talking, even occasionally, about your company's store, versus some website or store where they bought something is good for the recognizably of your other crap #4: Yeah, okay. A gesture towards quality control #5: Yeah, okay. A gesture towards security.
They is one major academic publication, by one Dr. DB Kates that they can cite their "millions" thing from but any sort of serious analysis of the methodology of the thing raises huge problems.
#1 It's a phone based poll, where they used percentage of respondents as an analogue of the population. This, in-and-of-itself is pretty reasonable. #2 The crucial metric of "percentage of respondents who say they used a gun to defend themselves in the past 5 years" is well under the 3%ish of people who freely lie on phone polls, even on subjects where they have no incentive to lie. For closer to 50% response rates, this tends to balance out, as the lies get evenly distributed. For very small margins it becomes a huge problem. This is exacerbated by heavily politicized gun owner respondents have a known motivation to lie. #3 Through no fault of the criminologist who ran the study, people like, the GP condense that above mentioned 5 year statistic into 1 year. There are statistically meaningful ways to do this, but piling all 5 years as happening in the last year is dumb. #4 The results were glaringly inconsistent with the overall rate of crimes occurring. Crimes deterred by guns being a greater number than actual police reports when less than half the US population are gun owners is grounds to be suspicious. In conjunction with #2 it's grounds to say that the study provided no meaningful insight.
And even that's not clear enough a definition to get past the people who keep throwing around the term. There has to be a false appearance of official sanction for the action. Either directly on the part of a cop, as in your example, or through the implication that there would be no prosecution of whatever crime they were entrapping you into.
If, to a regular citizen, there's no reason to believe that the person suggesting the crime has any official power whatsoever, it's not entrapment.
Not quite true. Very recently registered and non-registered users can't create articles. There's a page for them to suggest those articles to people with the amazing skill of creating a username and password.
Because, in the end, misinforming is often worse than not informing. If there's no discernible way for the people reviewing the article to check if it's valid, there's serious concern about PR and marketing injecting false information into your supposedly neutral encyclopedia, misleading everyone using your site.
The line is going to be somewhere. They have verbal debates about all-but-the-most-obvious of deletions(which officially still require four eyes, one pair to propose speedy deletion, one to delete).
Slashdot Mirror
And here's your "It's not sexism because [pile of blantantly and boringly sexist beliefs]" post that you can't seem to avoid in these discussions. That it's in direct contradiction to much more scientific observations about how society and sexual roles interact that I posted is just icing.
It could be that it was a contextless copy-past spam post that doesn't even begin to address what I actually said.
I mean, maybe redundant would've been a better mod, but your agenda doesn't justify crappy posts.
So... now you're the person who wants them to be destroyed. You know, the evil, mustache twirling villains from your own post not 20 minutes ago. I mean... you were presenting that as outright evil. And now it's the highest calling?
Really?
Oh, look, an article objecting to a specific methodology, that in no way was made illegal.
Okay. Those are equal. Yep. Look, your objection requires people to believe in a huge-criminology wide conspiracy to suppress data, whereas my objection just references a law on the books.
I'm not even going to refute what you're saying, because, hell, Straus is a criminologist, and I'm not. But I will accuse you of willful false equivalence. Don't do that.
And I'm reminded about someone who objected to this line of reasoning saying "who cares if its social and political, let people make their choice".
And while I let that vacuous line of reasoning slide before, I'm going to nip in the bud here and point out that if you don't care about that, you also shouldn't care about us people trying to effect social and political changes.
It's a problem because it's clearly fucking systemic, and caused by social factors.
It's not just "fewer women that men" enter the career.
It's that "fewer women than used to, where every other intensely technical field has had the opposite trend"(this article)
It's that People are more likely to pick men for mathematical tests that both genders are proven to do equally well on, even when in the test cases where the specific women are known to outperform the specific men
It's that sexism is actually cited by women leaving the field
It's that gender based social norms enforced on children clearly influence their likliehood to enter a sex-typical field
These aren't just whatever, "it's just people making choices". It's clearly social and political influence.
We keep statistics, yes, but only in the context of criminal law.
To study, say, gun ownership as a matter of public health, as a risk factor for overall mortality, is illegal(with public funds).
Or, and this is crazy. I'm totally aware of your argument, made that clear, and also made my contempt of the exact nonsense you spewed readily apparent, and I don't want have anything more to do with it.
It's almost as if some people just really want it to be legal to destroy human embryos.
In your imaginary land where any people are this hostile, what do you think is done with leftover embryos from fertility treatments, right now?
Do you think they're all frozen forever, just in case someone needs a spare implanted in their uterus?
Do you think that maybe they get grown in secret cloning vats that let them turn into human beings?
Or do you join us in reality land where they're put in a nice clean chamber labeled "biohazard" and hauled off by a medical waste company to be sterilized and destroyed. You're just going to have to learn to live in a reality where huge numbers of embryos are destroyed by the human body, excreted out unnoticed, and untold others are created in a lab so that desperate people can have children, only to be disposed of for a host of reasons, like in-viability or that previous implantations "took". Reality just doesn't treat them the way you imagine they are currently treated.
Did you not see that disclaimer at the bottom of my post. Please, consider shutting up instead of what it is you're actually doing. This is not a debate worth having again and again and again and again.
Nah.
People coming in and demanding proof of things their politics made illegal to study are really annoying.
It's similarly illegal to study gun violence under a US public health research grant, even though every other class of mortality is nominally okay.
In my state, it's illegal to use state funds to research the effect of global warming on coastal water levels.
People who ban researching things for political reasons(rather than say consistency with existing laws outside of research) are harmful. There's something very wrong with the notion of not researching things that might reflect negatively on your ideology.
Considering it's essentially* illegal to study, you can wait forever, you ignorant ass. Your policy proving itself right doesn't justify anything.
(Also this wasn't stem cells at all).
*If you want to argue against this point on minutia that ignore the reality of how preliminary medical research is performed, please just shut up.
In fact, a (totally free) google doc spreadsheet can have a built-in customizable webform that lets you add rows with validation.
About the only reason you'd want something more complicated is if the sign-up process flows more like a wizard than a form.
Yeah, not-for-profit corporations tend to be, on average, pretty scummy. That's not to say the intent of the law that allows them is bad or that all of them are.
Just that most have the majority true:
*Earning a profit. Not to distribute to shareholders but to "grow".
*Paying their executives exorbitant salaries that just so happen to replace the large sums that regular CEOs usually get from profit sharing.
*Using "not for profit" as a shield against unethical behavior, as if qualifying money as "profit" is the only way it corrupts.
*Charging market prices for services.
Some combinations of these are okay, but others are just shitty. I try not be too cynical a person, but when I hear a company describe itself as "not for profit" my first thought is "tax system gamer" and not "charity".
The only error in your post is that most people can't bring themselves to care enough about Microsoft anymore to go as far as hating them. Say what you want about 95 through early XP era blue-screens, they were recognizable.
Now, though, windows is basically synonymous with white collar office work, and not a lot else. A lot of people don't even use it at home for internet browsing anymore.
You thought wrong.
There's a lot of reasons, if you're an OS developer, to have an app store, but security is pretty low on them.
#1: It lets you control what applications are available on your platform. No worrying about someone treading on your toes, selling something you sell.
#2: It gives you a cut of every app sold. This means that you can make your OS a loss leader, and take your profits from the sales of people making things people actually like.
#3: Building your brand. Marketing poisons everything. People talking, even occasionally, about your company's store, versus some website or store where they bought something is good for the recognizably of your other crap
#4: Yeah, okay. A gesture towards quality control
#5: Yeah, okay. A gesture towards security.
Or, you know, its whiny legalism that doesn't understand the intent, meaning, or purpose of the law.
Yeah, but a totally innocuous app that the store maintainers are liable to let through.
They is one major academic publication, by one Dr. DB Kates that they can cite their "millions" thing from but any sort of serious analysis of the methodology of the thing raises huge problems.
#1 It's a phone based poll, where they used percentage of respondents as an analogue of the population. This, in-and-of-itself is pretty reasonable.
#2 The crucial metric of "percentage of respondents who say they used a gun to defend themselves in the past 5 years" is well under the 3%ish of people who freely lie on phone polls, even on subjects where they have no incentive to lie. For closer to 50% response rates, this tends to balance out, as the lies get evenly distributed. For very small margins it becomes a huge problem. This is exacerbated by heavily politicized gun owner respondents have a known motivation to lie.
#3 Through no fault of the criminologist who ran the study, people like, the GP condense that above mentioned 5 year statistic into 1 year. There are statistically meaningful ways to do this, but piling all 5 years as happening in the last year is dumb.
#4 The results were glaringly inconsistent with the overall rate of crimes occurring. Crimes deterred by guns being a greater number than actual police reports when less than half the US population are gun owners is grounds to be suspicious. In conjunction with #2 it's grounds to say that the study provided no meaningful insight.
And even that's not clear enough a definition to get past the people who keep throwing around the term. There has to be a false appearance of official sanction for the action. Either directly on the part of a cop, as in your example, or through the implication that there would be no prosecution of whatever crime they were entrapping you into.
If, to a regular citizen, there's no reason to believe that the person suggesting the crime has any official power whatsoever, it's not entrapment.
Well, yeah, when BBC's Jimmy Savvile, the media just didn't have any nonces left to stand up for the oppressed.
Not quite true. Very recently registered and non-registered users can't create articles. There's a page for them to suggest those articles to people with the amazing skill of creating a username and password.
What exactly is "the public"?
I feel that analogy might just be more complicated than the actual math.
Because, in the end, misinforming is often worse than not informing. If there's no discernible way for the people reviewing the article to check if it's valid, there's serious concern about PR and marketing injecting false information into your supposedly neutral encyclopedia, misleading everyone using your site.
The line is going to be somewhere. They have verbal debates about all-but-the-most-obvious of deletions(which officially still require four eyes, one pair to propose speedy deletion, one to delete).