I wasn't actually slamming Labour per se, just that it fit the poetic meter of 'In Soviet Russia...' much better than the GP's version (although so does spelling out United Kingdom I suppose).
There has to be more to this--if that's how the testimony went then this had to be intentional. No defense attorney would just let all that go through.
Wasn't there a story some weeks ago about how the attorneys in this case wanted to invalidate the law on appeal anyway?
The need for physical access? Sure, someone intentionally spying on YOU might do it, but for someone looking to keylog as many credit card numbers as possible it'd be kinda difficult/pointless.
Hmmm... do you think before you write this? Only black kids glorify criminals? Sopranos? The Godfather Trilogy? That whole Billy the Kid fetish?
Billy the Kid fetish? News to me.
Godfather Trilogy? Certainly never watched it as a kid.
Sopranos? Likewise (though to be fair, I wasn't a kid when it came out).
There's a big difference between being entertained by a story and idolizing a behavior. To think of some more relevant examples in my life than yours, I never dressed like Al Capone, never imitated the speech patterns of Bugsy Malone, and never wanted to get famous the way Bonnie and Clyde did (three criminal icons I was aware of before the age of ten).
the GTA series is a good example: except for one game in the series (where the black protagonist was a thug gangsta of all things, the rest of the main protagonists were white.
Whatever you're smoking to do so little critical thinking, please share. Maybe it'll cure my anxiety.
Of course the black protagonist was a thug gangsta. So were the white and HISPANIC protagonists of the other games. EVERY protagonist in a GTA game is a gangster. What the fuck did you think the game was about?
just like any "hard" science, social sciences also start with hypotheses based on observations. then, those hypotheses are tested in the field, using rigorous methods developed in the social sciences. while these methods might not be as "exact" as self-labeled hard scientists might be comfortable with, they are no less valid than the procedures carried out by a grunt in a lab.
frankly, hard scientists (computer scientists in particular) are too uncomfortable with science that does not follow rigid binary results. if anything, that just shows a dogmatic, unimaginative approach to science which too many scientists sadly follow.
You're both wrong and right. Computer scientists are hardly hard scientists (some are, but they're really just mathematicians working on practical problems, the rest are engineers, not scientists).
Your reinvention of what science is supposed to be is utter bullshit. Science is a methodology derived from an epistemology that comes out of the Enlightenment and the contemporaneous ideas of the British Empiricists (science is not strictly empirical in the epistemological sense, but it borrows ideas most heavily from empiricism, then skepticism, and lastly rationalism).
Inexactness is fine in real science too, in the right places.
Facts (meaning verifiable, empirical observations that multiple observers would agree on--Sample X has a mass of 10g, Johnny crossed the street at 10am, Game X has a player avatar with relatively dark pixel shades that engages in various criminal activities to advance the plot) cannot be inexact. They cannot be interpretable.
Conclusions (inferences, deductions, postulations--pretty much every thing not a fact) can be inexact. They can be as inexact as you like. But they MUST be qualified as such, and can never be anything but contingently true--They are true on the basis of facts A & B, and assumption C.
The problem with soft sciences is that they tend to do a shitty job of handling assumptions compared to hard sciences. Hard sciences rely on mathematics for their conclusions--so the assumptions are already extensively documented by centuries of mathematics proofs. Soft sciences often rely on cultural or linguistic assumptions that are not nearly as well articulated or understood. The problem is, again, that soft sciences do not make the effort (in many cases, some DO) to document and clarify those assumptions.
Exhibit A: Your conclusion that the black protagonist being a thug gangsta in GTA must be stereotyping relies on an implicit assumption than any manifestation of a stereotype must be active stereotyping (if this is assumption is false, then your observation that the black protagonist is a "thug gangsta of all things" is irrelevant because it is insufficient evidence to support your claim).
Your treatment of Japanese avatars programmed by Japanese men as being different than white avatars programmed by white men is another--for some reason you are assuming (or so I conclude from your post. Since you make no effort to document or clarify your assumptions I can only guess) the two cases are different.
My point, if I haven't beaten into your skull enough already, is that if soft sciences want the respect of hard sciences they need to make the effort of documenting and clarifying their assumptions that centuries of mathematics proofs have made trivial for the hard sciences.
Just to prove that this is possible, I point to the modern study of behavioral and social psychology which have (in less than a century) managed to do just that. When sociology catches up, then I will take it seriously.
Face it: your side lost. Anthropogenic global warming is established fact. Do you also subscribe to Lamarkism, phrenoloy, abiogenic petroleum, and the luminous aether?
That's luminiferous aether thank you very much. It is light-bearing, not light-producing. If you're going to dismiss an entire field of legitimate scientific study with less than a century of quack-hood under its belt, at least spell it correctly!/s
I do not believe your summary of clinical psychology - if indeed this is what you're refering to - to be accurate.
I've met with many clinical psychiatrists (not the same as clinical psychologists--in fact I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a clinical psychologist, in the sense of M.D.) and none of them ever did me or my hallucinations any good./s
furthermore, resting your case on one sole psychologist is pretty demeaning to those that work in this field. Any and all serious psychological research is peer-reviewed. just like any other science.
If you think that peer-review is what makes something a science, then you do not know what science is.
Science is a methodology (which varies somewhat depending on the field) derived from a very specific epistemology. This epistemology has certain invariant characteristics, and if your methodology does not follow from those characteristics then it is not science. Period. No amount of peer-review will change that.
The general features of this epistemology are:
1)Only externally observable phenomena constitute facts (Sample X has a mass of 10g, the bird pressed the lever four times, Joey bit his foot, Your mom got stuck in the grand canyon, etc.) Facts are things we may agree are objectively true.
2)Everything else (all inferences, deductions, postulates, etc.) are not facts. We can at best agree that they are contingently true if certain assumptions are valid.
3)Contingent truths should follow rationally from observable facts based on the smallest possible number of carefully documented and noted assumptions (assume space and time are flat, all electrons are identical and interchangeable, etc.)
Most examples of pseudo-science fail miserably on count three, others fail outright on count 1 (old Psychology--Freudian, Jungian crap--fails here). It wasn't until B.F. Skinner that psychology began to meet count 1 and could even remotely be considered scientific.
Freud is NOT very big in the states. That is to say that Freud is not considered relevant in American psychology programs. The only places that Freud is considered relevant are places like art history, or literature programs where Freud's past influence on the arts does matter. But virtually no American university teaches Freudian psychology as anything other than a historical relic (the way Plato's theory of forms might be taught--interesting for the way it influenced others, but pretty much hogwash).
If you want feminists to not bitch that your game is misogynist, then yes. Me, I just pop the headphones in and enjoy Lara's T&A, giggling at the feminazis' futile whining.
No, fusion has been 50 years away for the last fifty. Where did you ever get the idea that it was only 10 years away? Some hack reporter that couldn't count his own shoelaces? (hint: Two, not four).
Re:hybrid nitrous oxide and rubber rocket engine-W
on
White Knight Two Unveiled
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yes. Truth be told, it doesn't matter what you use as the solid fuel in a hybrid rocket. You can use cardboard, salami, your mom, whatever. Some fuels are certainly better than others, but anything that burns with your oxidizer will work. They're probably using polyethylene or something similar (it's what we used in our college rocket club's hybrid rocket).
Slashdot Mirror
Asynchronous Transfer Mode? (Imagining that as a sexual euphemism gives me all kinds of degrading ideas)
In your other pants.
The child molesters have that covered, so we're free to think about other things.
There is a huge difference between a shortage of applicants and a shortage of hired workers.
"Why did you shoot the camera?"
"Skynet. It's everywhere sir. The resistance is already forming. Which side are you on--Man, or Machine?"
I wasn't actually slamming Labour per se, just that it fit the poetic meter of 'In Soviet Russia...' much better than the GP's version (although so does spelling out United Kingdom I suppose).
You really think you have the ballot?
In Labour Britain, TV watches you!
Not true. They also represent a massive number of smaller labels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels
Some labels are not RIAA, but most are.
There has to be more to this--if that's how the testimony went then this had to be intentional. No defense attorney would just let all that go through.
Wasn't there a story some weeks ago about how the attorneys in this case wanted to invalidate the law on appeal anyway?
Ah, but they are new to this whole overlord thing. They've been underlords for so long that they're being a bit hamfisted about it too.
That's a feature, not a bug.
The need for physical access? Sure, someone intentionally spying on YOU might do it, but for someone looking to keylog as many credit card numbers as possible it'd be kinda difficult/pointless.
Hmmm ... do you think before you write this? Only black kids glorify criminals? Sopranos? The Godfather Trilogy? That whole Billy the Kid fetish?
Billy the Kid fetish? News to me.
Godfather Trilogy? Certainly never watched it as a kid.
Sopranos? Likewise (though to be fair, I wasn't a kid when it came out).
There's a big difference between being entertained by a story and idolizing a behavior. To think of some more relevant examples in my life than yours, I never dressed like Al Capone, never imitated the speech patterns of Bugsy Malone, and never wanted to get famous the way Bonnie and Clyde did (three criminal icons I was aware of before the age of ten).
You might want to see a doctor Anonymous Cowardon. I don't think it's healthy to talk to yourself like that...
the GTA series is a good example: except for one game in the series (where the black protagonist was a thug gangsta of all things, the rest of the main protagonists were white.
Whatever you're smoking to do so little critical thinking, please share. Maybe it'll cure my anxiety.
Of course the black protagonist was a thug gangsta. So were the white and HISPANIC protagonists of the other games. EVERY protagonist in a GTA game is a gangster. What the fuck did you think the game was about?
just like any "hard" science, social sciences also start with hypotheses based on observations. then, those hypotheses are tested in the field, using rigorous methods developed in the social sciences. while these methods might not be as "exact" as self-labeled hard scientists might be comfortable with, they are no less valid than the procedures carried out by a grunt in a lab.
frankly, hard scientists (computer scientists in particular) are too uncomfortable with science that does not follow rigid binary results. if anything, that just shows a dogmatic, unimaginative approach to science which too many scientists sadly follow.
You're both wrong and right. Computer scientists are hardly hard scientists (some are, but they're really just mathematicians working on practical problems, the rest are engineers, not scientists).
Your reinvention of what science is supposed to be is utter bullshit. Science is a methodology derived from an epistemology that comes out of the Enlightenment and the contemporaneous ideas of the British Empiricists (science is not strictly empirical in the epistemological sense, but it borrows ideas most heavily from empiricism, then skepticism, and lastly rationalism).
Inexactness is fine in real science too, in the right places.
Facts (meaning verifiable, empirical observations that multiple observers would agree on--Sample X has a mass of 10g, Johnny crossed the street at 10am, Game X has a player avatar with relatively dark pixel shades that engages in various criminal activities to advance the plot) cannot be inexact. They cannot be interpretable.
Conclusions (inferences, deductions, postulations--pretty much every thing not a fact) can be inexact. They can be as inexact as you like. But they MUST be qualified as such, and can never be anything but contingently true--They are true on the basis of facts A & B, and assumption C.
The problem with soft sciences is that they tend to do a shitty job of handling assumptions compared to hard sciences. Hard sciences rely on mathematics for their conclusions--so the assumptions are already extensively documented by centuries of mathematics proofs. Soft sciences often rely on cultural or linguistic assumptions that are not nearly as well articulated or understood. The problem is, again, that soft sciences do not make the effort (in many cases, some DO) to document and clarify those assumptions.
Exhibit A: Your conclusion that the black protagonist being a thug gangsta in GTA must be stereotyping relies on an implicit assumption than any manifestation of a stereotype must be active stereotyping (if this is assumption is false, then your observation that the black protagonist is a "thug gangsta of all things" is irrelevant because it is insufficient evidence to support your claim).
Your treatment of Japanese avatars programmed by Japanese men as being different than white avatars programmed by white men is another--for some reason you are assuming (or so I conclude from your post. Since you make no effort to document or clarify your assumptions I can only guess) the two cases are different.
My point, if I haven't beaten into your skull enough already, is that if soft sciences want the respect of hard sciences they need to make the effort of documenting and clarifying their assumptions that centuries of mathematics proofs have made trivial for the hard sciences.
Just to prove that this is possible, I point to the modern study of behavioral and social psychology which have (in less than a century) managed to do just that. When sociology catches up, then I will take it seriously.
Face it: your side lost. Anthropogenic global warming is established fact. Do you also subscribe to Lamarkism, phrenoloy, abiogenic petroleum, and the luminous aether?
That's luminiferous aether thank you very much. It is light-bearing, not light-producing. If you're going to dismiss an entire field of legitimate scientific study with less than a century of quack-hood under its belt, at least spell it correctly! /s
I do not believe your summary of clinical psychology - if indeed this is what you're refering to - to be accurate.
I've met with many clinical psychiatrists (not the same as clinical psychologists--in fact I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a clinical psychologist, in the sense of M.D.) and none of them ever did me or my hallucinations any good. /s
furthermore, resting your case on one sole psychologist is pretty demeaning to those that work in this field. Any and all serious psychological research is peer-reviewed. just like any other science.
If you think that peer-review is what makes something a science, then you do not know what science is.
Science is a methodology (which varies somewhat depending on the field) derived from a very specific epistemology. This epistemology has certain invariant characteristics, and if your methodology does not follow from those characteristics then it is not science. Period. No amount of peer-review will change that.
The general features of this epistemology are:
1)Only externally observable phenomena constitute facts (Sample X has a mass of 10g, the bird pressed the lever four times, Joey bit his foot, Your mom got stuck in the grand canyon, etc.) Facts are things we may agree are objectively true.
2)Everything else (all inferences, deductions, postulates, etc.) are not facts. We can at best agree that they are contingently true if certain assumptions are valid.
3)Contingent truths should follow rationally from observable facts based on the smallest possible number of carefully documented and noted assumptions (assume space and time are flat, all electrons are identical and interchangeable, etc.)
Most examples of pseudo-science fail miserably on count three, others fail outright on count 1 (old Psychology--Freudian, Jungian crap--fails here). It wasn't until B.F. Skinner that psychology began to meet count 1 and could even remotely be considered scientific.
Freud is NOT very big in the states. That is to say that Freud is not considered relevant in American psychology programs. The only places that Freud is considered relevant are places like art history, or literature programs where Freud's past influence on the arts does matter. But virtually no American university teaches Freudian psychology as anything other than a historical relic (the way Plato's theory of forms might be taught--interesting for the way it influenced others, but pretty much hogwash).
If you want feminists to not bitch that your game is misogynist, then yes. Me, I just pop the headphones in and enjoy Lara's T&A, giggling at the feminazis' futile whining.
How else did he put up with Cortana for so fucking long?
I was so sad they named it General Fusion and not Mr. Fusion. SOOOO sad. Or maybe it was the whisky.
No, fusion has been 50 years away for the last fifty. Where did you ever get the idea that it was only 10 years away? Some hack reporter that couldn't count his own shoelaces? (hint: Two, not four).
Yeah but there's a big difference between meth-head sex, and super-model sex on camera under a ceiling mirror.
War, death, and pestilence.
Yes. Truth be told, it doesn't matter what you use as the solid fuel in a hybrid rocket. You can use cardboard, salami, your mom, whatever. Some fuels are certainly better than others, but anything that burns with your oxidizer will work. They're probably using polyethylene or something similar (it's what we used in our college rocket club's hybrid rocket).