But that is not really necessary if you simply want to know something about the current population. If the cause of the observed difference (if any) is environment or inheritance is really a different thing.
That's where we get into some shady areas. For one, if it's an environmental difference, but only in the American population in 2008, it doesn't even come close to proving that men are better at it (although you might get away with the statement that, currently in the United States men are better at 3D perceptualisation, so long as the rest of the conditions I listed have been filled, but that's a vastly different statement). Similarly, an environmental distance, even in a worldwide study, from 1970 would be worthless now except as a historical view.
Secondly, if it shows to be a strictly environmental distance, especially one caused because of an environment negative towards women (such as constantly saying that women are bad at driving), then the continuation of jokes of women being bad at driving and the notion that science has proven it okay would be, not only mistaken, but also setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy that I'm not really okay with.
So, yes, the difference between environment or inheritance is a big deal here, even though your first sentence is strictly correct.
Unfortunately, my uni library doesn't seem to have a copy on hand. However, I do have access to just about every journal ever, so if you could just cite the studies that this book references, I'd love to check them out.
I'm amazed by how your brain leaped from "Do we want our culture to be degrading to women?" to "We should have no culture." Is that really what that post said to you?
It's been scientifically proven that statistically men have better 3D perceptualization than women - yes some women are better at it than men, but when you plot it all out you get the regular bell curves, and men typically have higher preforming scores.
Really now? Can you link me to a few unbiased studies the topic with statistically significant sample sizes and shows results of men having, not only higher scores, but statistically significantly higher scores? I assume, of course, that you also have available the justification for why we can trust the tests to be testing purely for 3d perceptualisation, without testing for additional unrelated factors (such as how well you can decipher difficult instructions, a common additional factor in such tests). And I also trust that these studies have properly isolated for sex, ensuring that additional factors such as training and practice in related skills or a lifetime of "you can do anything" vs. "oh, you're just a girl" have no bearing on the final results?
I'll be rather impressed if you can show me any such study. Now, I'll be the first to admit that not all people are created equal and that it is quite possible that people of different sexes and genders and races and sexual orientations have some amount of differences. However, I think you'll find that most of these studies in these topics are entirely inconclusive after you consider all of the factors surrounding them.
It's also worth noting the striking parallels to the number of 19th century studies "proving" that black people were strictly inferior to white people. Confirmation bias can prove anything, as it turns out.
What I want to know is when discrimination became an inherently dirty word. It's meaning is simple: to draw a distinction between things. As a programmer, I need to be able to discriminate between a language that might be good for NLP (say, Lisp) and one that might be good for making a game (say, C++). As an eater, I need to be able to discriminate delicious foods (a rare steak) and foods that might kill me (peanuts). As a drinker, I need to be able to discriminate between a good drink (Johnnie Walker Black Label) and piss-in-a-can (Bud Light).
But as soon as I start talking about people, discrimination is dirty. But you don't mind if we discriminate between men and women and give them separate (but equal! (sometimes)) bathroooms. You don't mind if we discriminate between children (compulsory education) and senior citizens (receiving social security). You even don't mind if we discriminate between white people (most US presidents) and a black guy (Obama, The First Black President).
Now, I'm not saying that this means black people should sit in the back of the bus or be banned from various restaurants. There are bad types of discrimination, too. But you can't just hide behind that word as if it proves that something is wrong. Teenage boys driving muscle cars pay more for their insurance than 40-something soccer moms driving mini vans because they are more likely to have damages. You and I have both been genetically "blessed" to be a little large, so we both impose more fuel costs on the airlines. There is no good reason they shouldn't charge us more except for the fact that the population would get upset over this "discrimination".
I really don't see what you're getting at at all....
Do you want me to look at the pirates' side of the game? It doesn't change, regardless of how the MPAA plays.
Do you want me to look at the pirates as first movers? That doesn't make any sense.
Do you want me to try to minimise profits for the MPAA? That doesn't make sense in terms of them wanting to do well, but it at least would make sense for why they are continuing on as they are.
Do you want me to look at the MPAA seeing eliminating piracy as better than making profits? The game presented here still remains unchanged as far as the pirates are concerned, though the MPAA's new strategy is to stop creating anything.
I think you are missing the point entirely. I specifically stated that I wasn't trying to argue that the pirates are justified, and yet you're responding as if I had. I just said that the copyright system was broken, and that your statement had exemplified how and why it was broken. Now, I know I did state that the copyright holders were a bigger problem than the pirates, but I was not doing this from the standpoint that pirates were not a problem, nor that the copyright holders were losing themselves more money, nor anything else where your response would have made sense.
Look at this from a game theoretical perspective (yeah, I'm one of those). The MPAA moves first and they can either sell the movie in a cheap and convenient format or not. If they do not, they get no profit from it and then the pirates get the option to put the movie on file sharing sites or not. We have proven that they will by the fact that this is the state we're in. Now, say the MPAA does sell the movie in a cheap and convenient format online. They start making money from this (I know I'd certainly purchase cheap, high-quality, DRM-free movies if the MPAA let me). The pirates then, again, put the movie on file sharing sites, doing exactly what they're doing now.
So, the MPAA, knowing how the pirates will move, have two options. They can continue not selling cheap, convenient movies and make 0 profit or they can start selling them and start making some non-zero profit. The rest of the game doesn't change a smidge.
And yet, if it was an american parent making those decisions for their children, we might applaud them as more responsible than the average parent who lets their kid get up to anything online, unmonitored.
There is a stark difference between a parent setting such rules for their children and a state doing it on their behalf, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best.
This is exactly the sort of thing copyright law was intended to prevent. It's a system that has worked reasonably well for quite some time.
This attitude here is how we got where we are today. Copyright law was intended to promote culture by creating a temporary artificial monopoly as an incentive to create new things, which would, after a short and reasonable time, become the property of the public. Notice how that term is no longer short and reasonable and how the only works newer than the 1920s to enter into public domain have been only done so by specific requests of the authors (and rarely, at that) and you'll notice exactly how the system is broken. Now, I'm not here to root for the pirates (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't root for them at least somewhat in general), but it's clear that the copyright owners refusing to adapt are a far larger problem than the pirates.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but copies of high quality DRM-free movies are already available on every file sharing site. It's not as if the MPAA offering the same would change anything with regards to that. But it would offer them a way to get a slice of the potential profits here, from the people who pirate just because they think $20 is too much for a film, or the ones who want to watch a film now and don't want to wait or whatever.
I dunno - maybe because optimal multiprocessor scheduling is an NP-complete problem?
That only means we can't get an absolutely optimal solution in polynomial time. Fortunately, we are able to get a solution arbitrarily close to optimal in polynomial time. Find the correct balance of time vs. optimality and BAM that NP-completeness isn't really a huge concern.
Or because concurrent computations require coordination at certain points, which is an issue that doesn't exist with single-threaded systems, and it's therefore wishful thinking to assume you'll get linear scaling as you add more cores?
Now you're just putting words into his mouth. Nobody's expecting linear scaling, here! That is an entirely different question.
Absolute craziness is that I've heard the term used to refer to people in, say, Britain. I think Americans might be a bit overzealous in their attempts not to offend.
And has been replaced by a less precise word? I'm still curious what word I'm supposed to use to refer to the group containing my Siberian, Chinese, Pakistani, and Indian friends, since Asian seems to have been hijacked for no good raisin.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and "if you return here you will be considered trespassing on our property" are all it really takes. And, for that matter, only one or the other is really necessary.
I used to run Super Windows 64... I mean 64-bit XP, right up until the day I installed the 7 RC. Never had any issues with drivers, had very few software compatibility issues (all entirely with older games, not that 7 has been doing any better with them), and it generally ran like a dream. That said, 7 gave me a nice little performance boost (thank you hybrid SLI), so I'm happy with getting better performance on a shinier system.
My brother prefers the order of start car, unlock doors, open door, get in, drive, so even your clever car analogy is bad. Then again, given that this is/., that's probably a given.
This was one of the very unintuitive things I fortunately learned early in my academic career, and it served me very well. Unless you have a ridiculously stringent time limit (as in you are expected to finish the problems no more than, say, a minute before time is up, if ever) you should always look at everything before actually doing any. Even when a few questions seem trivial. It seems silly and unintuitive, but in times when things are not as simple as they seem it will reward you immensely and in the times when things are legitimately simple you don't waste more than a couple of minutes (potentially less depending on test length) and make sure you don't run into any surprises.
Your interpretation really only makes sense if you assume that the steps must be done sequentially, which is usually never true for paper tests. Usually, questions are intended to be done in whatever order best suits you which, in this case, is the order that tells you to not do the rest.
I'm sure you've heard plenty about the relationship between correlation and causation, so I won't even bother repeating that unless you really want.
Though, I am interested in the chart comparing people who have used illegal drugs in the past year to people who have been drunk at least 51 days in a year, and noting that the only statistics that are higher for the illegal drug users are in drug possession or sale, which is rather obvious why, and arson, which is only by a tiny margin (read: statistically insignificant margin), yet I don't see anyone suggesting that every president we've ever had may be unfit because they've used alcohol.
Other than that, the only section that seems to be of any causal interest is about crimes to fuel a drug habit, an issue which would largely disappear with legalization, so it only counts for half credit at best.
Which completely and totally occurred in the cases of Obama and Bush? Or for that matter, most users? Hold them responsible for such actions. Even hold them responsible for doing things to increase the likelihood of such actions while under the influence (hence our drunk driving and public drunkenness laws), but until you show me that coke is going to result in such things, your argument doesn't hold.
Slashdot Mirror
But that is not really necessary if you simply want to know something about the current population. If the cause of the observed difference (if any) is environment or inheritance is really a different thing.
That's where we get into some shady areas. For one, if it's an environmental difference, but only in the American population in 2008, it doesn't even come close to proving that men are better at it (although you might get away with the statement that, currently in the United States men are better at 3D perceptualisation, so long as the rest of the conditions I listed have been filled, but that's a vastly different statement). Similarly, an environmental distance, even in a worldwide study, from 1970 would be worthless now except as a historical view.
Secondly, if it shows to be a strictly environmental distance, especially one caused because of an environment negative towards women (such as constantly saying that women are bad at driving), then the continuation of jokes of women being bad at driving and the notion that science has proven it okay would be, not only mistaken, but also setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy that I'm not really okay with.
So, yes, the difference between environment or inheritance is a big deal here, even though your first sentence is strictly correct.
Unfortunately, my uni library doesn't seem to have a copy on hand. However, I do have access to just about every journal ever, so if you could just cite the studies that this book references, I'd love to check them out.
I'm amazed by how your brain leaped from "Do we want our culture to be degrading to women?" to "We should have no culture." Is that really what that post said to you?
It's been scientifically proven that statistically men have better 3D perceptualization than women - yes some women are better at it than men, but when you plot it all out you get the regular bell curves, and men typically have higher preforming scores.
Really now? Can you link me to a few unbiased studies the topic with statistically significant sample sizes and shows results of men having, not only higher scores, but statistically significantly higher scores? I assume, of course, that you also have available the justification for why we can trust the tests to be testing purely for 3d perceptualisation, without testing for additional unrelated factors (such as how well you can decipher difficult instructions, a common additional factor in such tests). And I also trust that these studies have properly isolated for sex, ensuring that additional factors such as training and practice in related skills or a lifetime of "you can do anything" vs. "oh, you're just a girl" have no bearing on the final results?
I'll be rather impressed if you can show me any such study. Now, I'll be the first to admit that not all people are created equal and that it is quite possible that people of different sexes and genders and races and sexual orientations have some amount of differences. However, I think you'll find that most of these studies in these topics are entirely inconclusive after you consider all of the factors surrounding them.
It's also worth noting the striking parallels to the number of 19th century studies "proving" that black people were strictly inferior to white people. Confirmation bias can prove anything, as it turns out.
Did you warn them when autocomplete wouldn't autocomplete pornographic searches? Because that's been happening for a while, and nobody cares.
What I want to know is when discrimination became an inherently dirty word. It's meaning is simple: to draw a distinction between things. As a programmer, I need to be able to discriminate between a language that might be good for NLP (say, Lisp) and one that might be good for making a game (say, C++). As an eater, I need to be able to discriminate delicious foods (a rare steak) and foods that might kill me (peanuts). As a drinker, I need to be able to discriminate between a good drink (Johnnie Walker Black Label) and piss-in-a-can (Bud Light).
But as soon as I start talking about people, discrimination is dirty. But you don't mind if we discriminate between men and women and give them separate (but equal! (sometimes)) bathroooms. You don't mind if we discriminate between children (compulsory education) and senior citizens (receiving social security). You even don't mind if we discriminate between white people (most US presidents) and a black guy (Obama, The First Black President).
Now, I'm not saying that this means black people should sit in the back of the bus or be banned from various restaurants. There are bad types of discrimination, too. But you can't just hide behind that word as if it proves that something is wrong. Teenage boys driving muscle cars pay more for their insurance than 40-something soccer moms driving mini vans because they are more likely to have damages. You and I have both been genetically "blessed" to be a little large, so we both impose more fuel costs on the airlines. There is no good reason they shouldn't charge us more except for the fact that the population would get upset over this "discrimination".
I really don't see what you're getting at at all....
Do you want me to look at the pirates' side of the game? It doesn't change, regardless of how the MPAA plays.
Do you want me to look at the pirates as first movers? That doesn't make any sense.
Do you want me to try to minimise profits for the MPAA? That doesn't make sense in terms of them wanting to do well, but it at least would make sense for why they are continuing on as they are.
Do you want me to look at the MPAA seeing eliminating piracy as better than making profits? The game presented here still remains unchanged as far as the pirates are concerned, though the MPAA's new strategy is to stop creating anything.
So, to be blunt, what the hell do you mean?
I think you are missing the point entirely. I specifically stated that I wasn't trying to argue that the pirates are justified, and yet you're responding as if I had. I just said that the copyright system was broken, and that your statement had exemplified how and why it was broken. Now, I know I did state that the copyright holders were a bigger problem than the pirates, but I was not doing this from the standpoint that pirates were not a problem, nor that the copyright holders were losing themselves more money, nor anything else where your response would have made sense.
Look at this from a game theoretical perspective (yeah, I'm one of those). The MPAA moves first and they can either sell the movie in a cheap and convenient format or not. If they do not, they get no profit from it and then the pirates get the option to put the movie on file sharing sites or not. We have proven that they will by the fact that this is the state we're in. Now, say the MPAA does sell the movie in a cheap and convenient format online. They start making money from this (I know I'd certainly purchase cheap, high-quality, DRM-free movies if the MPAA let me). The pirates then, again, put the movie on file sharing sites, doing exactly what they're doing now.
So, the MPAA, knowing how the pirates will move, have two options. They can continue not selling cheap, convenient movies and make 0 profit or they can start selling them and start making some non-zero profit. The rest of the game doesn't change a smidge.
And yet, if it was an american parent making those decisions for their children, we might applaud them as more responsible than the average parent who lets their kid get up to anything online, unmonitored.
There is a stark difference between a parent setting such rules for their children and a state doing it on their behalf, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best.
This is exactly the sort of thing copyright law was intended to prevent. It's a system that has worked reasonably well for quite some time.
This attitude here is how we got where we are today. Copyright law was intended to promote culture by creating a temporary artificial monopoly as an incentive to create new things, which would, after a short and reasonable time, become the property of the public. Notice how that term is no longer short and reasonable and how the only works newer than the 1920s to enter into public domain have been only done so by specific requests of the authors (and rarely, at that) and you'll notice exactly how the system is broken. Now, I'm not here to root for the pirates (though I'd be lying if I said I didn't root for them at least somewhat in general), but it's clear that the copyright owners refusing to adapt are a far larger problem than the pirates.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but copies of high quality DRM-free movies are already available on every file sharing site. It's not as if the MPAA offering the same would change anything with regards to that. But it would offer them a way to get a slice of the potential profits here, from the people who pirate just because they think $20 is too much for a film, or the ones who want to watch a film now and don't want to wait or whatever.
I dunno - maybe because optimal multiprocessor scheduling is an NP-complete problem?
That only means we can't get an absolutely optimal solution in polynomial time. Fortunately, we are able to get a solution arbitrarily close to optimal in polynomial time. Find the correct balance of time vs. optimality and BAM that NP-completeness isn't really a huge concern.
Or because concurrent computations require coordination at certain points, which is an issue that doesn't exist with single-threaded systems, and it's therefore wishful thinking to assume you'll get linear scaling as you add more cores?
Now you're just putting words into his mouth. Nobody's expecting linear scaling, here! That is an entirely different question.
Absolute craziness is that I've heard the term used to refer to people in, say, Britain. I think Americans might be a bit overzealous in their attempts not to offend.
And has been replaced by a less precise word? I'm still curious what word I'm supposed to use to refer to the group containing my Siberian, Chinese, Pakistani, and Indian friends, since Asian seems to have been hijacked for no good raisin.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and "if you return here you will be considered trespassing on our property" are all it really takes. And, for that matter, only one or the other is really necessary.
Wow I think I need sleep. I read that first line as "I haven't finished baking Apple pie." Can I have some? I'm kind of hungry.
I used to run Super Windows 64... I mean 64-bit XP, right up until the day I installed the 7 RC. Never had any issues with drivers, had very few software compatibility issues (all entirely with older games, not that 7 has been doing any better with them), and it generally ran like a dream. That said, 7 gave me a nice little performance boost (thank you hybrid SLI), so I'm happy with getting better performance on a shinier system.
But that would certainly not be the way that best suits you in this case.
Most of what you say is true. Fortunately, we are able to harness entropy sources to achieve truly random results. It's quite useful.
My brother prefers the order of start car, unlock doors, open door, get in, drive, so even your clever car analogy is bad. Then again, given that this is /., that's probably a given.
This was one of the very unintuitive things I fortunately learned early in my academic career, and it served me very well. Unless you have a ridiculously stringent time limit (as in you are expected to finish the problems no more than, say, a minute before time is up, if ever) you should always look at everything before actually doing any. Even when a few questions seem trivial. It seems silly and unintuitive, but in times when things are not as simple as they seem it will reward you immensely and in the times when things are legitimately simple you don't waste more than a couple of minutes (potentially less depending on test length) and make sure you don't run into any surprises.
Your interpretation really only makes sense if you assume that the steps must be done sequentially, which is usually never true for paper tests. Usually, questions are intended to be done in whatever order best suits you which, in this case, is the order that tells you to not do the rest.
I'm sure you've heard plenty about the relationship between correlation and causation, so I won't even bother repeating that unless you really want.
Though, I am interested in the chart comparing people who have used illegal drugs in the past year to people who have been drunk at least 51 days in a year, and noting that the only statistics that are higher for the illegal drug users are in drug possession or sale, which is rather obvious why, and arson, which is only by a tiny margin (read: statistically insignificant margin), yet I don't see anyone suggesting that every president we've ever had may be unfit because they've used alcohol.
Other than that, the only section that seems to be of any causal interest is about crimes to fuel a drug habit, an issue which would largely disappear with legalization, so it only counts for half credit at best.
Which completely and totally occurred in the cases of Obama and Bush? Or for that matter, most users? Hold them responsible for such actions. Even hold them responsible for doing things to increase the likelihood of such actions while under the influence (hence our drunk driving and public drunkenness laws), but until you show me that coke is going to result in such things, your argument doesn't hold.