User: thedustbustr

Re:Logic, statistics, rationality, logic and reaso

On: Who Needs Harvard?

You automatically lose the flamewar for saying "quasi." Do not pass go, do not collect $200.


As the koreans say, ggnorekthx.

Re:Arithmetic and Reading Challenged

On: Who Needs Harvard?

If you had actually read my original replay to your initial post, you'd notice that I did all the heavy duty math already :)

Bravo

On: Who Needs Harvard?

And to put a capstone on this post: It's "blatant," not "blatent". You moron.

Slashdot in a nutshell :)

wow, you got me to bite twice, must be a good day

On: Who Needs Harvard?

By any reasonable criteria for "seats that could/should be given" Harvard's bias against white gentiles is greater than the bias against blacks.

AGAIN you are spinning the source. You cry reverse discrimination when white gentiless are not given adequate seats with respect to population, ignoring that blacks too are discriminated against.

That you read something more into it is your own prejudice blinding you to the actual arithmetic stated.

Prejudice? For accurately interpreting your source? I should say the same to you. In fact, I think I will. That you read something more into it is your own prejudice blinding you to the actual arithmetic stated.

OK, I'll bite (+5, Troll)

On: Who Needs Harvard?

White gentiles, comprising 73% of the general population get only 18% of the seats at Harvard. They are under-represented by a _factor_ of 4 times. If blacks were similarly under-represented at Harvard, they would have only 3% of the seats. In fact, they have 8%.

So, if their representation cooresponded with the population percentage, they would compose 12% of the university, but they actually have 8%, showing that blacks are also under-represented. Your source spins this such that blacks appear to be taking seats that could/should be given to white gentiles, which is obviously not the case.

oh boy

On: Mitch Kapor Warns Against Firefox Gloating

*pets the anonymous troll* There, there, it willa ll be ok.

Carlson Curves

On: MIT Making Computer Parts from DNA

From TFA:

One of Endy's friends at MSI, Rob Carlson, charted the rates at which various biotechnologies were improving. The DNA-reading machines used by the Human Genome Project were doubling in efficiency every 18 months. DNA synthesis was accelerating even more quickly. If reality kept up with these "Carlson curves," then by 2010 a single lab worker would be able to synthesize a couple of human genomes from scratch every day.

Moore's Law, anyone? I shall now generalize this concept, establishing TheDustbustr's theorem: The efficiency of the product of any emerging technology will double every 18 months, until fundamental theoretical limits in the technology are approached.