And how high up to you have to be before you're in what constitutes space for the purposes of this? Is a picture from an airplane ok? What if the airplane were a Concorde? (Yeah, I know they're grounded, indulge me...)
Television programs are specifically designed to reach a particular demographic so that the ad time can be sold for the highest price possible, with the premise being something like, "this thirty seconds at this time slot will give you the eyeballs of 1,500,000 males between 15-24." Then the ratings, the collection of which is automatic for Tivo users and cable subscribers, confirm to what extent the advertiser got that. (If not, they have to run the ad extra times until it does earn all eyeballs promised, but that's another story.)
If I understand the online analogy correctly, advertising networks like DoubleClick.net treat web sites sort of like TV programs--so DoubleClick sells ads for certain websites based on what the website says its demographics are. The advertisers pay, the advertising network and the website split the money.
Cookies are traditionally used to try to correlate user behavior with certain groups of sites--for instance, do people who read tech articles on Washington Post also read the NY Times? So upon reading the NebuAd site, wading through the glop of deliberately vague marketspeak and earnest assurances of privacy, it seems to be sort of an ad delivery network--sort of like DoubleClick--but with the additional feature of having invented a better metric of user activity, via the ISP instead of cookies on the user's computer. Therefore they can have a complete picture of a user's behavior, and the user, if they even know what's going on, has to work a lot harder to do anything about it--deleting cookies or installing firewalls and anti-spyware doesn't cut it anymore. The ISP is now making money off the advertising, either directly or through NebuAd, so they have no incentive to encrypt traffic nor abet the user in doing so.
Both NebuAd and Embarq doth protest too much about their privacy policies. The important thing is that they could be spying on anything they want to and the end user is completely in the dark. We only know about this because Embarq at least put it on the privacy policy, but were they even legally obliged to do so to begin with?
At least that's what it looks like from out here...
What if, for the sake of argument, the average male was inherently better than the average female at mathematics? What is this difference? How much of the performance gap between the "average" male and the "average" female is due to this inherent difference and not cultural factors? Is this theoretical inherent difference between the genders as significant as that between individuals of either gender? In other words, does it make sense to talk about girls' problems in math, or rather to target special help for individuals of either gender who have math problems? Or how about, for that matter, grooming exceptionally talented individuals of either gender for science and math careers?
Whether or not this inherent gender difference even exists, it is still a near certainty that girls' math and science performance and participation is negatively affected by cultural factors, including the persistance of the debate as to girls' inherent inferiority in these areas. So wouldn't it make sense to try to identify and encourage individual girls who show signs of exceptional talent, so that their talents aren't unnecessarily lost to society? It's not as if the U.S. has an overload of native-born scientists and mathematicians these days.
FWIW, I read a study a few years back claiming that anemia lowers one's capacity for technical thinking, and that even the mild anemia suffered by the average high schooler who has started having periods was sufficient to explain the achievement difference between pubescent boys and girl. Any medical types want to comment?
Slashdot Mirror
And how high up to you have to be before you're in what constitutes space for the purposes of this? Is a picture from an airplane ok? What if the airplane were a Concorde? (Yeah, I know they're grounded, indulge me...)
Television programs are specifically designed to reach a particular demographic so that the ad time can be sold for the highest price possible, with the premise being something like, "this thirty seconds at this time slot will give you the eyeballs of 1,500,000 males between 15-24." Then the ratings, the collection of which is automatic for Tivo users and cable subscribers, confirm to what extent the advertiser got that. (If not, they have to run the ad extra times until it does earn all eyeballs promised, but that's another story.)
If I understand the online analogy correctly, advertising networks like DoubleClick.net treat web sites sort of like TV programs--so DoubleClick sells ads for certain websites based on what the website says its demographics are. The advertisers pay, the advertising network and the website split the money.
Cookies are traditionally used to try to correlate user behavior with certain groups of sites--for instance, do people who read tech articles on Washington Post also read the NY Times? So upon reading the NebuAd site, wading through the glop of deliberately vague marketspeak and earnest assurances of privacy, it seems to be sort of an ad delivery network--sort of like DoubleClick--but with the additional feature of having invented a better metric of user activity, via the ISP instead of cookies on the user's computer. Therefore they can have a complete picture of a user's behavior, and the user, if they even know what's going on, has to work a lot harder to do anything about it--deleting cookies or installing firewalls and anti-spyware doesn't cut it anymore. The ISP is now making money off the advertising, either directly or through NebuAd, so they have no incentive to encrypt traffic nor abet the user in doing so.
Both NebuAd and Embarq doth protest too much about their privacy policies. The important thing is that they could be spying on anything they want to and the end user is completely in the dark. We only know about this because Embarq at least put it on the privacy policy, but were they even legally obliged to do so to begin with?
At least that's what it looks like from out here...
What if, for the sake of argument, the average male was inherently better than the average female at mathematics? What is this difference? How much of the performance gap between the "average" male and the "average" female is due to this inherent difference and not cultural factors? Is this theoretical inherent difference between the genders as significant as that between individuals of either gender? In other words, does it make sense to talk about girls' problems in math, or rather to target special help for individuals of either gender who have math problems? Or how about, for that matter, grooming exceptionally talented individuals of either gender for science and math careers?
Whether or not this inherent gender difference even exists, it is still a near certainty that girls' math and science performance and participation is negatively affected by cultural factors, including the persistance of the debate as to girls' inherent inferiority in these areas. So wouldn't it make sense to try to identify and encourage individual girls who show signs of exceptional talent, so that their talents aren't unnecessarily lost to society? It's not as if the U.S. has an overload of native-born scientists and mathematicians these days.
FWIW, I read a study a few years back claiming that anemia lowers one's capacity for technical thinking, and that even the mild anemia suffered by the average high schooler who has started having periods was sufficient to explain the achievement difference between pubescent boys and girl. Any medical types want to comment?