Nah, but I can see how someone who's already convinced that he's a Nazi would interpret his words that way. You see what you want to see; reality is secondary.
I interpreted the pejorative as politically incorrect because it denigrates women
But it doesn't. Saying "and you're a woman for suggesting it" could reasonably be seen as denigrating women. Saying "and you're a bimbo for suggesting it" only denigrates bimbo's and the person it's directed at.
Right, this is incredibly stupid. Using his "logic", if there are white supremacists out there who also happen to be programmers, then Linus should stop programming so that he's not associated with those people.
I think it's shit that your comments are being modded as flamebait. Only one of them actually deserves it; the rest do not. However both your and my comments have been getting modded up and down repeatedly, so you shouldn't feel singled out.
That said, the article you linked to is pretty silly, doesn't really support your claim, and certainly isn't science. I don't think it qualifies as flamebait but it certainly isn't something to be proud of, either.
So are you saying science tells us we should do all we can to eliminate the environmental biases?
That's a silly conclusion. You could have asked if science tells us that we should do all we can to eliminate the biological factors, and it would have been no less silly.
What you should do depends very much on what your desired outcome is. Science doesn't dictate ideology. It gives you an "is", not an "aught".
I do think we should try to minimize societal inequity whenever possible, but I'm not going to pretend that "science told me that".
They won't influence anything at all. People who already believed that glyphosate was teh eeeebil will continue to believe it. Those who don't believe it will read the paper and realize it doesn't change anything. In the end this study will change nothing whatsoever.
Thanks for that. I didn't have time to dive into the paper when I first saw this in the news. Figured they were probably playing games with the data but didn't want to jump to conclusions. You've saved me the trouble of going through it myself.
The copy paste buffer IS used, but is only one option. The other option, as mentioned earlier, is using the keepass "keyboard" which does not use the buffer.
That isn't justified when science is telling us that it's mostly social, with only a tiny and often insignificant part being biological.
That's begging the question. I'm pointing out the problems with these studies and you're just saying "well the science says..." as if there were no disagreement over their conclusions. What the science actually shows is that both biology and environment play a role. How much each one contributes depends a lot on the society we are looking at, but even if we limit ourselves to just looking at the USA it is still very much an open question.
A lot of the keygens and cracks are released by reputable groups and can be obtained through official channels, you dipshit. KMSPico gets flagged as dangerous regardless of whether or not it's actually doing anything harmful.
If I don't trust the source I'll run it in a VM instead, then scan the VM afterwards to see if the antivirus picks up a problem. 95%+ of the time there are no issues; it's just flagging the keygen itself as malicious.
That assumes that the variation is biological. How do you exclude social factors?
There's no absolute way to exclude them, that I'm aware of. But that's not really how science works. We don't have to exclude every single possibility before drawing a conclusion, or we would never be able to draw any conclusions at all. As someone pointed out below, when we are talking about differences between sexes biology is a default explanation. If you can exclude biological factors as the explanation, great, then we know they're not at play. This study doesn't do that; rather it reinforces what every other study has found: greater variability in males than in females. You can claim that this doesn't prove that the difference is biological, but given the persistence of these findings across cultures it's a fairly safe bet that biology is a significant factor.
And even if it is biological, does that mean it can't be overcome?
I don't know. I think the better question is whether it's something that we should be trying to overcome in the first place. That's where this stops being a scientific discussion and starts being an ideological one. You seem to think that, if girls are underperforming in some areas, there is a moral imperative to bring them up to par. I disagree. Just like I would disagree that we need to bring boys up to par in areas where they underperform. I'm perfectly fine with having diversity and letting people focus on the things they're actually good at rather than wasting time and money trying to force them to improve at everything else. I see no reason why the sexes need to be identical in every respect, any more than individuals would need to be identical in every respect regardless of sex.
That logic doesn't really work though, because school isn't the only factor in their lives and school isn't one single environment but rather a whole number of different experiences. I remember the atmosphere in some classes being very different to others, for example.
That's true, but it's just another confounding factor in this study which isn't (maybe can't be) ccounted for.
The study confirms a biological difference despite the misleading summary. They're saying they found no difference in the top 10% in STEM but:
1. Not only the top 10% go into stem. More than 20% of degrees are in STEM fields.
2. They admit that the "grade cap" means that even within the top 10% males might actually be better, but there's no way to know because the math/science scores are capped so that a top-level genius will score only as well as someone who is just very smart.
Furthermore their study confirms greater variability between men than between women which definitely indicates that the grade cap is probably handicapping top end male scores more than top end female scores. More importantly, the fact that girls do significantly better OVERALL in school, but only slightly better in STEM, indicates that the school environment is probably not the best way of determining suitability/ability in a given field. Unless you think that girls really are biologically better than boys at everything. If we assume that, as the feminists would have it, girls and boys are equally capable on average, then the higher performance of girls in school would be attributed to environment, and the fact that they don't do as well in STEM as they do in other subjects would still suggest that boys have an edge in those fields.
Lastly, they mention that the ratios are different in university than in highschool, with women losing a lot of their edge in university. However I don't see a breakdown of university vs high school scores, which seems like a curious omission.
All in all it's an interesting study which doesn't really support the conclusions being drawn here.
The Europeans who colonized the Americas by ship were no more "naturalized immigrants" than the Asians who colonized it by walking over the Bering Strait. Don't let your racist tendencies cloud your view of history.
Why bother running an antivirus if you're just going to disable it to run malicious software in spite of its warnings
Because a lot of the time the antivirus will "warn" you about software which poses no risk. I've had port scanner and such flagged as "hacking tools" and prevented from running. If you're certain that the software you're about to run doesn't actually pose a risk then it makes sense to temporarily disable the antivirus (or put in an exception rule if possible).
Unfortunately for Cody, his love making was done in the state of Texas, where the legal age of consent is 18. If he had simply been living up north by one state, he might not be in such hot water.
Incorrect. Regardless of the age of consent, BUYING sex from someone under 18 is generally very illegal.
RT's is the only piece I could find about this, that's in English
Which, of course, means that it's like totally real and 100% accurate. Because it tells you things you want to believe and comes to us from the super trustworthy Russian government.
I've re-stated it multiple times; at this point if you're still misinterpreting it you're either having issues with the English language or you're doing it on purpose. Either way I don't think I can help you.
That wouldn't change the fact that it's still getting used up on a human timescale.
When the "human timescale" is 500+ years, it's not really much of a concern. Which fuels were we using 500 years ago? Wind, wood, and whale oil? Hell, the first steam engine wasn't invented until 300 years ago. What makes you think that we'll still be using fission 500 years in our future?
Slashdot Mirror
Like it or not, that "just be less of a wuss, snowflake" attitude has become associated with some pretty awful people
So has the "ohmagawd, I'm OFFENDED!!!" attitude. Hopefully we'll see Linus start distancing himself from them as well.
Nah, but I can see how someone who's already convinced that he's a Nazi would interpret his words that way. You see what you want to see; reality is secondary.
I interpreted the pejorative as politically incorrect because it denigrates women
But it doesn't. Saying "and you're a woman for suggesting it" could reasonably be seen as denigrating women. Saying "and you're a bimbo for suggesting it" only denigrates bimbo's and the person it's directed at.
Right, this is incredibly stupid. Using his "logic", if there are white supremacists out there who also happen to be programmers, then Linus should stop programming so that he's not associated with those people.
It's an insidious type of capitulation.
I think it's shit that your comments are being modded as flamebait. Only one of them actually deserves it; the rest do not. However both your and my comments have been getting modded up and down repeatedly, so you shouldn't feel singled out.
That said, the article you linked to is pretty silly, doesn't really support your claim, and certainly isn't science. I don't think it qualifies as flamebait but it certainly isn't something to be proud of, either.
Found the women's studies major ...
So are you saying science tells us we should do all we can to eliminate the environmental biases?
That's a silly conclusion. You could have asked if science tells us that we should do all we can to eliminate the biological factors, and it would have been no less silly.
What you should do depends very much on what your desired outcome is. Science doesn't dictate ideology. It gives you an "is", not an "aught".
I do think we should try to minimize societal inequity whenever possible, but I'm not going to pretend that "science told me that".
They won't influence anything at all. People who already believed that glyphosate was teh eeeebil will continue to believe it. Those who don't believe it will read the paper and realize it doesn't change anything. In the end this study will change nothing whatsoever.
maybe just to research chemicals being used and not use the harmful ones
Good luck watering your plants then. Bees definitely die when exposed to excess amounts of that stuff.
Thanks for that. I didn't have time to dive into the paper when I first saw this in the news. Figured they were probably playing games with the data but didn't want to jump to conclusions. You've saved me the trouble of going through it myself.
Nah man, but the Illuminati will totally suppress this info. You've clearly been going to the wrong Alternative News sites.
The copy paste buffer IS used, but is only one option. The other option, as mentioned earlier, is using the keepass "keyboard" which does not use the buffer.
That isn't justified when science is telling us that it's mostly social, with only a tiny and often insignificant part being biological.
That's begging the question. I'm pointing out the problems with these studies and you're just saying "well the science says ..." as if there were no disagreement over their conclusions. What the science actually shows is that both biology and environment play a role. How much each one contributes depends a lot on the society we are looking at, but even if we limit ourselves to just looking at the USA it is still very much an open question.
A lot of the keygens and cracks are released by reputable groups and can be obtained through official channels, you dipshit. KMSPico gets flagged as dangerous regardless of whether or not it's actually doing anything harmful.
If I don't trust the source I'll run it in a VM instead, then scan the VM afterwards to see if the antivirus picks up a problem. 95%+ of the time there are no issues; it's just flagging the keygen itself as malicious.
That assumes that the variation is biological. How do you exclude social factors?
There's no absolute way to exclude them, that I'm aware of. But that's not really how science works. We don't have to exclude every single possibility before drawing a conclusion, or we would never be able to draw any conclusions at all. As someone pointed out below, when we are talking about differences between sexes biology is a default explanation. If you can exclude biological factors as the explanation, great, then we know they're not at play. This study doesn't do that; rather it reinforces what every other study has found: greater variability in males than in females. You can claim that this doesn't prove that the difference is biological, but given the persistence of these findings across cultures it's a fairly safe bet that biology is a significant factor.
And even if it is biological, does that mean it can't be overcome?
I don't know. I think the better question is whether it's something that we should be trying to overcome in the first place. That's where this stops being a scientific discussion and starts being an ideological one. You seem to think that, if girls are underperforming in some areas, there is a moral imperative to bring them up to par. I disagree. Just like I would disagree that we need to bring boys up to par in areas where they underperform. I'm perfectly fine with having diversity and letting people focus on the things they're actually good at rather than wasting time and money trying to force them to improve at everything else. I see no reason why the sexes need to be identical in every respect, any more than individuals would need to be identical in every respect regardless of sex.
That logic doesn't really work though, because school isn't the only factor in their lives and school isn't one single environment but rather a whole number of different experiences. I remember the atmosphere in some classes being very different to others, for example.
That's true, but it's just another confounding factor in this study which isn't (maybe can't be) ccounted for.
The study confirms a biological difference despite the misleading summary. They're saying they found no difference in the top 10% in STEM but:
1. Not only the top 10% go into stem. More than 20% of degrees are in STEM fields.
2. They admit that the "grade cap" means that even within the top 10% males might actually be better, but there's no way to know because the math/science scores are capped so that a top-level genius will score only as well as someone who is just very smart.
Furthermore their study confirms greater variability between men than between women which definitely indicates that the grade cap is probably handicapping top end male scores more than top end female scores. More importantly, the fact that girls do significantly better OVERALL in school, but only slightly better in STEM, indicates that the school environment is probably not the best way of determining suitability/ability in a given field. Unless you think that girls really are biologically better than boys at everything. If we assume that, as the feminists would have it, girls and boys are equally capable on average, then the higher performance of girls in school would be attributed to environment, and the fact that they don't do as well in STEM as they do in other subjects would still suggest that boys have an edge in those fields.
Lastly, they mention that the ratios are different in university than in highschool, with women losing a lot of their edge in university. However I don't see a breakdown of university vs high school scores, which seems like a curious omission.
All in all it's an interesting study which doesn't really support the conclusions being drawn here.
The Europeans who colonized the Americas by ship were no more "naturalized immigrants" than the Asians who colonized it by walking over the Bering Strait. Don't let your racist tendencies cloud your view of history.
Why bother running an antivirus if you're just going to disable it to run malicious software in spite of its warnings
Because a lot of the time the antivirus will "warn" you about software which poses no risk. I've had port scanner and such flagged as "hacking tools" and prevented from running. If you're certain that the software you're about to run doesn't actually pose a risk then it makes sense to temporarily disable the antivirus (or put in an exception rule if possible).
If the law says something stupid it won't be obeyed and nor should it.
It's not, which is how you end up with 19 year old "sex offenders" with distraught 16 year old girlfriends.
Unfortunately for Cody, his love making was done in the state of Texas, where the legal age of consent is 18. If he had simply been living up north by one state, he might not be in such hot water.
Incorrect. Regardless of the age of consent, BUYING sex from someone under 18 is generally very illegal.
RT's is the only piece I could find about this, that's in English
Which, of course, means that it's like totally real and 100% accurate. Because it tells you things you want to believe and comes to us from the super trustworthy Russian government.
I've re-stated it multiple times; at this point if you're still misinterpreting it you're either having issues with the English language or you're doing it on purpose. Either way I don't think I can help you.
I agreeagreeit deserves to be seen. +5 funny!
That wouldn't change the fact that it's still getting used up on a human timescale.
When the "human timescale" is 500+ years, it's not really much of a concern. Which fuels were we using 500 years ago? Wind, wood, and whale oil? Hell, the first steam engine wasn't invented until 300 years ago. What makes you think that we'll still be using fission 500 years in our future?
He's lost whatever little mind he had left ...