Counting cards in Vegas is already terribly simple. Robots would never be allowed in a casino.
Yes, but the point is when you have something truly intelligent, it should be able to learn completely new things. Hence, when we have an AI which was only programmed with unrelated knowledge (like card tricks), but it can figure out the necessary -- even simple -- ideas to count cards in a casino simply due to its supposedly "intelligent" algorithms, it would have demonstrated true adaptability, I.e. intelligence.
Once corrected for age demographics (which people tallying raw numbers usually forget to do), the suicide rate in US military is lower than civilian population.
There's probably all manner of "corrections" you can do to make yourself feel all superior and to denigrate the folks actually doing the work.
Huh? How is it "denigrating" the military to note that they have a lower suicide rate than the average population? I would have thought that having a lower suicide rate would be a GOOD thing.
(By the way, I'm ignoring the fact noted elsewhere in this thread that TFA basically says the military is now approaching the average suicide rate of the general population, even though it had been less in the past. Point is -- I can't possibly see how it's an insult to note that a group has a lower suicide rate than other people.)
Rather impressive for organization whose purpose is to kill, maim and blow up shit.
Why do you think that's impressive? You think everyone who served is nothing but a suicidal maniac who wants nothing more than to "kill, maim, and blow up shit"?
Perhaps I'm being too generous to GP here, but I really have no clue where you're getting this attitude from. It sounds to me like GP was noting how stressful and violent military life can be. People who have higher stress in their jobs tend to have higher rates of depression. Groups with higher rates of depression have higher suicide rates. And let's not forget the PTSD mentioned by the AC too.
Yet, despite all of those extra stresses and likely psychological and physical problems which military personnel might encounter in the course of their violent jobs where they not only have to kill or maim but are at risk of being killed or being maimed -- DESPITE all of that, they mostly have a lower rate of suicide than the general population, and only in the past decade or so has it gone up.
As someone who has great respect for those who serve in the military and protect the rest of the population (and who has many family members who have done so), YES -- I do think that's darn IMPRESSIVE. It speaks to the character and training and fortitude of these soldiers that despite being asked to do things that cause emotional and psychological trauma, they manage to maintain enough psychological stability to not succumb to suicide as much as the average person who does not have to deal with such stress.
Something similar happened to me a couple of times. When one falls asleep the brain to muscle control parts shut down. When it does not shut down properly people sleep walk and actually do things during REM. The order in which you this part shuts down, and the part that gets stimuli-response module shuts down seems to be a little muddled for me, it looks like. Long story short, just as I was drifting to sleep, the phone would ring or something, and I would try to reach over to pick the phone, but my arms and legs would not respond. The sheer terror I felt when I could not move my arms and legs was just incredible.
This sounds like the fairly common phenomenon of sleep paralysis, which typically occurs during transitions to or from sleep. Estimates usually say that 5-10% of people experience it, but it has also been proposed as an explanation for lots of claims about ghost encounters, alien abductions, etc. Personally, I think the latter explanation makes a lot of sense. When I was a teenager, I experienced quite a few episodes of this, sometimes involving awareness of the environment around my bed (while unable to move), but with some sort of "supernatural" presence or other thing involved. I of course never thought it was actually supernatural, but rather just nightmares -- at some point I read about sleep paralysis and realized what was going on. I also learned to control it through lucid dreaming, since when it happens now I generally recognize that I am dreaming. Sometimes I will thus immediately wake up, but other times it is quite a struggle -- I end up gradually trying to flail around to get my body to move (and knowing it is a dream doesn't always get rid of the deep feelings of dread that sometimes occur).
The fact that a high school physics teacher couldn't answer the question doesn't surprise me. It isn't a high school level problem.
Perhaps not, but it's a freshman college level physics problem, and it's not all that hard at all conceptually if you understand anything about mechanics.
And, in fact, if AP physics is offered at a high school, this definitely is a high school level problem. I taught AP physics for a while years ago, and I was intimately familiar with the AP exams -- and some of the rotational problems could be quite a bit more complex than this basic conceptual problem.
It also isn't the sort of thing that would cause me to question everything that a teacher says. It simply represents a limit to the teacher's knowledge, rather than a teacher communicating incorrect information.
That's absolutely true. Teachers don't know everything -- and the good ones will admit when they don't. That's okay.
On the other hand, again as someone who has taught high school physics, this is a basic conceptual problem. Most high school teachers have degrees in their fields -- if someone with an undergraduate degree in physics can't answer this question, there's something wrong. (On the other hand, many states allow a general "secondary science" or "physical sciences" certification, in which case this teacher may not have a physics degree. But still... I don't have a physics degree, I haven't taught physics in many years, and I don't consider this a hard question.)
The Peter Principle is a concept in management theory in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in his or her current role rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence."
While this is part of the story, it can get even worse under situations with a lot of pressure.
The summary says:
it does make you wonder how long organizations can afford to continue promoting incompetent bosses in today's very dynamic and competitive business world.
There are a couple misunderstandings here. First off, "very dynamic and competitive" often means a lot of small businesses simply won't succeed. So, frankly, most businesses will NOT afford it. They will fail or be bought out by a competitor.
The other problem is that in such high-pressure situations (and even in less pressured situations in the business world) promotions tend to be made on the basis of those who can demonstrate outlier positive results. Someone who makes a major advance that gives a significant sudden advantage in the marketplace will often be valued more than someone who has given consistently positive -- but more mediocre -- results for years.
The problem with promoting outliers is that they are often just that: outliers. Which means there's usually a lot of luck or "just being in the right place at the right time" involved. It's like picking a stock on the basis of which company performed best last week -- sure a 50% gain in a few days looks terrific, but is it sustainable? Or is that really just a lucky break, a weird blip in the market, a one-time shift, etc.?
Promotions can sometimes happen on the same basis, particularly when there is competitive pressure to take risks and produce an outlier result. Many will fail, but some will succeed -- and is their success due to skill, or simply due to the fact that they actually made some really risky decisions that just paid off by chance? If the latter, you've just promoted a guy because he tends to be a risky outlier, not because he actually has proven he can keep things going up steadily for years as a manager or executive.
So I absolutely agree with the parent that demotion NEEDS to be a part of corporate culture. It's the only way to weed out the statistical blips and outliers that get promoted for their chance performance, particularly in a competitive world that encourages higher risk-taking.
Peer-review is as good or bad as the individual journal.
While this is probably true, I would go further and say that this particular issue (from TFS) has relatively little to do with peer-review.
Most peer reviewers are not paid. When I've written reviews for articles, I'm assuming that I'm volunteering my time as an expert on the subject matter. So my primary purpose is to critique the argument, look at the design, see whether the conclusions are justified, etc.
Things like fixing commas, rewording sentences, and proofreading for some sort of stupid error where the authors forgot to delete something -- that's not my primary purpose. If I have time and I see pervasive problems of style, I might say something in the review. If those stylistic things end up confusing the argument or making the thing hard to read, I might say something.
But if I were reading this article, and there were a half-dozen comments or questions I had about methodology or argument on this page, would I bother saying, "Oh yeah, and don't forget to fix the stupid missed citation!" Maybe. But it wouldn't be my highest priority.
I don't know what happens at this journal, but most high-quality journals have at least some copyediting done before publication. If the author didn't catch this error during revision, it should have been caught by the copyeditor. But the peer reviewer? Are we going to ask for expert volunteers in some academic discipline to fix commas next?
Granted, the average quality of "journals" has probably plummeted in recent decades as there are far more PhDs, papers, and journals than in the past. But by the same token, the quality of the top 100 journals (or any fixed number) has probably increased.
It depends on what you mean by "quality." If, by "quality," you mean the level and rigor of articles and research in major journals, maybe you have a point.
But, if by "quality" of a publication, you mean the copyediting -- that has absolutely DECREASED in recent years. I can't tell you how many sets of proofs I've seen with all sorts of idiotic formatting errors, places where an editor tried to fix prose or move something in the layout and caused an absolute disaster to happen, etc. Heck, this isn't just articles -- I've seen recent books from major university presses that seem to have the same level of copyediting a cheap romance novel would have received 40 years ago. And heaven forbid that you have some complex set of figures or images that need to be laid out in a specific way -- the designers seem to go out of the way to screw things up by resizing or moving things about, even if you send them images designed to fit the page layout precisely.
I haven't read the article referenced in TFA. But this all sounds like a proofreading and a copyediting problem. Peer reviewers? Yeah, I suppose they should have caught it if that citation would actually make a difference in the argument. Otherwise, I'm not sure what this has to do with peer review quality AT ALL.
Racism is a belief (note the ism). Whether or not it exists is based on what individuals think -- in the case of racism, thinking that the goodness/badness or other attributes of an individual are defined by their race. A system cannot hold a belief, therefore there can be no such thing as "systemic" racism. Bad results can be caused by racism, but they cannot themselves be racism.
My first reaction to this is that you sound like a guy who is stuck in a highway traffic jam caused because some idiot tailgated some other guy and someone else cut someone off suddenly causing everyone to brake -- and this caused a traffic wave which lasted for 15 minutes, but you're like, "Hmm -- yeah, tailgating doesn't exist anymore in our traffic system. It's been completely gone for at least 15 minutes." Even if racism no longer exists anywhere in the hiring structure (which is a doubtful premise), it doesn't mean that the "traffic" just instantly fixes itself. Its effects can linger for a long time. So, our various social institutions, educational institutions, etc. may still have gaps in black/white interaction caused by previous generations of racists, and without actively fighting to overcome these things, we may continue to propagate effects that keep the older division alive.
I'm not saying this is always a huge effect, but it does exist -- and it ultimately was caused by racism. It just may take effort to recognize where those gaps still exist and make sure they don't propagate (or take actions to change it), rather than just "doing things like everybody does" and intentionally keeping the status quo.
But the bigger issue is that it really doesn't take an overt KKK conspiracy to introduce something that begins to skew things significantly. A LOT of people seem to harbor subtly racist views when you hear them talk in unguarded ways. It's less common among younger people, but I've been really shocked a number of times in my life when someone I've known for years comes out with a "Well, I'm not racist... but..." line, which usually is followed by something that is in fact racist, even if it's not of the extreme KKK variety. Or even people attempting to pay a race a compliment (as actually is seen in a number of threads here), where it becomes clear that people are actually making some sort of significant correlation with race that can cause other judgments to be skewed.
It's not the guy in the pointy white hood that usually causes "systemic racism," but rather the guy on the hiring committee who just makes a decision based on someone who "seems more like me" or a decision which assumes that someone will "fit into our culture better," where that "culture" is more assumptions based on race than any actual evidence from an interview or whatever.
As humans, we inherently look for patterns. We're obviously going to see associations between people who look alike. And given the fact that races often tend to self-segregate and thereby create cultural differences, there is often some truth to the fact that it's more probable that someone who looks like someone else will have oter cultural aspects in common.
But that's of course not generally causative -- it's just a correlation, and it's not always true. But lots and lots of studies seem to show that people who are not overtly racist often can make judgments about other people that could have racist repercussions.
Whether that's caused by actual beliefs of people who just don't talk about them, or whether it's a deeper cognitive issue, the fact is that many otherwise nice people end up acting in racist ways. And other individuals don't. Denying that such problems exist is not helpful in leading us all to become more like the people who don't seem to have as many inherent biases.
Who would mandate this compliance? The state can not as it would be considered unreasonable search as has been shown in a few recent court cases.
Prior to 9/11, all court cases suggested that it would be illegal for government agents to conduct invasive searches on everyone who wants to travel. (Security screening before was done by non-government agents, was only a minimal search, and a more extensive search could only be conducted by law enforcement if there was a good reason, i.e. probable cause). The government's interpretation of "unreasonable search" is thus in flux, and "think of the kidnapped children" might be enough to overcome the Constitution these days.
Also, do keep in mind that court rulings have been about whether police can install trackers, but that's a slightly different question from whether the government could mandate private companies to install them "for safety reasons" or something... As long as law enforcement still needed a warrant to get access to the data (or, in these times, I should say "needed a warrant" in quotes, since clearly we can find ways to minimize that pesky Constitution problem too), I wouldn't discount some way for the government to "strongly encourage" all private companies to do this.
Some insurance companies may but there will always be at least one who will not. There will always be a customer base who prioritize privacy over rates and there will always be at least one company to serve that client base.
That's very optimistic. That's like saying "there will always be an airline which offers service without a required search" since some people would prefer privacy. It's true that you can get around the TSA by owning your own plane (or knowing someone who owns a private plane), but that's hardly a reasonable alternative for most people. (And the TSA proposed closing that "loophole" years ago, but has backed off... For now.)
Indeed, MIT even asks its applicants about their failures during the applications and admissions process; they want to be sure that a school full of kids that were valedictorians and salutatorians in their previous academic pursuits will not crack when they start struggling and failing there.
It's even more than that -- MIT wants students who will accept a system, unlike some other top tier schools, where you're not basically guaranteed an A once you're admitted. Grade inflation is a huge problem at top tier schools, and it's really hard to deal with since any professor who tries to give "real" grades will suffer -- poor evaluations, and just the annoyance of dealing with dozens of upset students who are used to getting A's in everything since kindergarten, no matter what effort they put forth.
MIT has a unique and rather effective way of dealing with this: first semester freshman year is "pass/no record". Not pass/fail, but no record -- meaning if you get an A, B, or C, your permanent transcript only says " P"; if you get a D or F, the class doesn't even show up on your external transcipt, so no one outside MIT gets to even know you took the class and failed.
Aside from giving students a chance to learn through failing with no immediate consequences, it also allows a bunch of valedictorians and people with perfect SATs to realize many of them are no longer the smartest person in the room, and they're going to have to work harder. Perhaps even beyond helping the students' egos and "self-calibration" to a new environment, it also allows professors to "set a standard" without creating permanent consequences for new students. If you do get a student running to your office -- with tears streaming (or worse, threatening a lawsuit, and yeah those things do happen) -- saying, "But, but... I can't get a B on my test -- I have to get into med school!" you can just tell them to take a deep breath and try their best in the future, since this grade won't influence their permanent record.
Then by the next semester, many of the freshmen have failed or gotten a low grade somewhere, so they've realized they just won't be handed an A for showing up. So they either try harder or realize that their effort is just now going to get them a B or even a C. A little bit of failure honestly changes the entire culture of the school.
Maybe people who couldn't get anything better than "shift work" had duller brains to start with.
While this is certainly a possibility, even if you took a quick glance at TFA (I know, I know...), you might find out there seems to be more than that:
Those with more than 10 years of shift work under their belts had the same results as someone six and a half years older. The good news is that when people in the study quit shift work, their brains did recover. Even if it took five years.
Why would dumb people "recover" lost brain function if they never had it in the first place?
And once you read that in TFA, it might actually make you want to click on the link to the study itself, where you can discover the methodology in the abstract without even reading the article:
Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 3232 employed and retired workers (participation rate: 76%) who were 32, 42, 52 and 62â...years old at the time of the first measurement (t1, 1996), and who were seen again 5 (t2) and 10 (t3) years later. 1484 of them had shift work experience at baseline (current or past) and 1635 had not.
"Prospective cohort" -- i.e., they had a control group, which they measured periodically. The shift workers did significantly worse....
(Why is it that everyone at Slashdot seems to automatically assume every study is done by idiots who could not possibly foresee their first possible objection? And why do such posts get modded up? There are lots of crap studies out there, but not every obvious objection was unforeseen by most research teams. Sorry for the exaperation, but if you're not even going to bother to RTFA, stop modding idiots up who also haven't.)
The fact is, the top two most popular get on the ticket, regardless of party. And that's better for the voters.
[Citation needed]
Seriously -- we'll have to see how this system works out for a few years to see exactly what it does. There are plenty of scenarios where it seems it might easily work AGAINST voter interest, as does any system which asks for people to just vote for one candidate, rather than ranking them or expressing views on those they actually do NOT want.
For example, suppose there's a district with 40% Democrat and 60% Republican. The Dems have two candidates running the primaries, while the Republicans have four. It is very possible if the votes are split somewhat evenly in both parties for the two Democratic candidates to end up with ~20% each and be the top two candidates, while the Republicans only get 10-15% each and NONE of them gets on the ballot.
Granted, this is a contrived example to illustrate a point, but various kinds of more subtle inequities could result from this system.
So, even if 60% of the electorate would prefer NEITHER of those two candidates, the only choices are created by 40% of the electorate. (I don't know California's write-in laws -- but even if it's allowed, write-in campaigns are incredibly difficult... so once the general election candidates are decided, it could become very difficult for others to win. The more likely result is that many of the 60% will just tend to stay home on general election day.)
Why is it libertarians never understand the issue they talk about? It's always 'how can I twist this into an attack on me?"
Why is it that most people express opinions on voting systems without understanding the various options out there? First-past-the-post still sucks, even if it's turned into a sort of "run-off" for the top two candidates system. You want something ACTUALLY better for voters overall, try one of the many possible ranked voting systems or perhaps one of the range voting possibilies. There are many possible problems in voting systems, and there are many possible ways to rank them. California's system seems mostly about giving voters a choice in districts or localities which are dominated by a single party. While a noble goal, this modification does little to overturn the two-party system in general -- which is the actual problem, and the one which often results in ignoring large sections of voters for no apparent reason.
(By the way, for the record -- I'm not promoting libertarianism here. I just think the two-party system is really bad and tends to result in less choice on many important issues. I don't really care what other options are offered, as long as voters get actual choices beyond the current two-party "monopoly.")
But in other country sodomy is actually only anal sex.
Well, in SOME other countries, but I believe we were having a discussion of the word in English, so I presumed that the English meaning was most important.
An example is the french dictionary which *solely* describe it as anal coitus.
Yes, and in Germany the word Sodomie describes bestiality or zoophilia, rather than anal sex. What's your point?
Basically, up until the 19th century or so, the word just meant "unnatural sex" or "sexual acts not leading to procreation" -- including in French. That might include anal or oral sex, bestiality, masturbation, whatever. Since the term described a number of fairly private sexual "sins," most church authorities avoided specifying all the detailed different ways one could participate in "sodomy."
In the 19th and 20th centuries, medical and legal specificity led to the term becoming more defined, but it was defined differently in different places. In France, it has come to mean anal sex specifically. In Germany, as mentioned, it was associated with bestiality. In the English-speaking world, it retained most of its original meaning of "deviant sex" in general, though it often has a closest association with homosexual sex (of whatever type) and particularly anal sex (though "buggery" is a more exact English term for that).
I would not be surprised to elarn that in russia it is the same, unfortunately I cannot check a russian dictionary.
Really, with all the internet at your disposal?
Well, have a look here, where you can find out that in Russian, the historical meaning is similar to what it was in most places, i.e., "unnatural" intercourse, and in modern times it mostly means either anal sex or bestiality or both (or only one, depending on the source). If you want to refer to anal sex specifically, you, well, call it anal sex, or perhaps use some antiquated old Church legal terms.
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
