Because nobody could ever hook up an ARM SBC to the LVDS connector on a 17" laptop and play a video to fake a boot sequence that would fool a telemarketer in purple gloves, leaving the rest of the case available for whatever can be molded into plastic.

Because TSA is there to protect us from imbicilic terrorists, even though 9/11 was orchestrated by degreed engineers, physicians, etc.?

Or just maybe it's not about terrorists but rather obedience conditioning, and they need a new rule once in a while to keep the people regressing (from presumption of Constitutional rights).

Only one of those hypotheses fits the data.

look into the research from Walter Reed hospital - only part of the brain is asleep. The rest of the brain experiences everything and really screws a lot of people up. Always get general plus spinal.

I remember a few years ago when a big US university rejected Gmail because they could not ensure US-only storage of data and they had data -privacy concerns about the foreign governments (whoops).

At this point I don't really care if my data is in Belarussian hands because they cannot hurt me. Russians should likewise consider wanting to store their data ovetseas.

yeah, Lessig always correctly identifies the corruption thst results ftom power being for sale, and then he proposes creating more power to solve it, 'cause, honest, it'll be different this time. He and his well-meaning friends will make sure of that.

false claim of title is already illegal - the victim should also seek restitution for disparagement of his good name. Make the bastards pay or they'll be back again tomorrow.

the current Internet is popular with the criminal element but we're not going to stop using it for that reason. Same for cash, guns, and safes.

You are repeating that statement again. It doesn't say the opposite of what I wanted- it says exactly what I wanted. There is plenty of evidence that there is a physiological difference between men and women that leads to differences in spatial skills. There is some piss-poor paper that "may" indicate that the difference isn't fully physiological. It in no way indicates that there is no physiological difference. It pretty much reinforces that there is an innate difference.

What the hell are you talking about? What are you trying to imply here? Why do you keep bringing up facial recognition? Facial recognition is a skill that is benefited by a higher "spatial intelligence". It has nothing to do with shooting you blithering idiot. One skill can lead to benefits in two separate things. A good sense of balance can help me ride a bicycle as well as do a cartwheel. Would you be stupid enough to say "what do cartwheels have to do with riding a bike" if I said balance was good for bicycles? You want to know what facial recognition and target shooting have to do with each other? They both happen to be positively affected by spatial skills.

Again with the facial recognition!? Being good at spatial reasoning can help in lots of areas. Including but not limited to facial recognition. Facial recognition is not on topic. It it literally a strawman- it has nothing to do with what we are talking about and I've said nothing about it. I have never said nor implied that facial recognition has anything to do with shooting sports. You keep trying to bring it up as a red-herring. You would have to be an idiot to think it was relevant.

No possibly. It is fully supported. I did not post a bad reference. I posted a link to the Wikipedia article stating that there are serious differences between men and women in this area. The claim that I was supporting was "males tend to perform better in spacial reasoning tasks" which is exactly what Wikipedia said.

I did not find a new article. I merely wrote that the article in question does not imply what you seem to think it implies.

Strawman. Not what I said at all. I said that the null hypothesis of the root cause of differences between genders is physiological. You could make a null hypothesis of "women are better a shooting sports than men" but it would immediately be rejected because all evidence refutes it.

And that hypothesis is accepted because all evidence supports it. My statement was that "males tend to perform better in spacial reasoning tasks" which I have repeated verbatim several time. I am unsure what exactly is eluding you about this. That has nothing to do with null hypotheses.

You say I've been making strawmen, don't indicate where and then go on to write something (mostly incomprehensible) that has nothing to do with strawman fallacies. Do you actually know what a strawman fallacy is? It appears that you do not. I have made no new claims. I just keep repeating "males tend to perform better in spacial reasoning tasks" and that shooting is a spatial task. No new arguments. Same two. I didn't write a lot in my original post; a single sentence. It shouldn't be too hard for you to follow it.

You are correct but still seem to miss the point. It is a big surprise if this large difference isn't physiological. That means that the generally accepted reason is that it is physiological. The study that supposedly indicates that it is not fully physiological still gives very strong evidence that there is a physiological basis for it. Remember that after the training regime the females were still only on-par with the males before they went through the training. It still didn't train or test with anything physical either.

Your attacking of my reasoning was utter nonsense. You've just kept going on about facial recognition. I have not changed any citations or added any new ones. Who exactly is "hallucinating" now? I made a strawman out of what? I really don't know what you are implying here- I still do not think you know what a strawman fallacy is.

Please explain. Are you implying that because you've already made so many at me you aren't going to any more? That would be great.

Is that "male unless otherwise specified" or "male because 90% of bathroom signs use it to signify male"?

Unsafe lane changes cause accidents quite frequently too.

Key word being "merge". No one was talking about merging safely a legally. If you cut someone off and they hit you because they didn't have enough time to stop then it is your fault. If there is a high volume of traffic merging safely and legally while traveling 20 to 30 km/s more slowly is not really a realistic proposition.

Yes that's definitely what the parent said. Good one.

Your attempts at being condescending make you look like a complete idiot. "There's hope for me yet" because I read the research that you said disproved me? (Which of course did not.) You sure showed me... I guess?

Spatial reasoning and spatial intelligence is more than just abstract reasoning about shapes you bellend. For instance: " visualization of objects from different angles" [Wikipedia] would obviously be extremely helpful in skeet shooting where you have to track and predict a moving object in space. Judging distances and angles and how they relate to where you point a gun is also a spatial problem. Marksmanship involves a lot more than "looking at things".

Great, so all the measurements show that males have an advantage in spatial tasks. Glad we've cleared that up.

Obviously I do. Let me dumb it down for you. Males have a statistical advantage in spatial tasks. Some people (like you) want to assert that this is not a physiological difference. There is very little reason to assume that this is not a physiological difference. Worded another way: There is very little reason to assume it is nurture.

No, that is not what I said at all. Someone asserted that there was no physiological advantage men have in shooting sports. That is not an assertable fact. Men have a distinct advantage which is most likely caused, at least partially, by physiological differences. To claim that it is not physiological just cannot be done.

Holy strawman! Is this the quality of your thought-process? That is an absurdly moronic thing to write. Spatial skills can bring benefit to different areas. Do you not understand that? Kind of like how they can benefit abstract math skills as well as sports skills. "Well what does Trigonometry have to do with throwing a ball?! Herp derp." Is that what you were trying to get across?

Well that's why I explained the burden of proof and it clearly had nothing to do with the order of claims. Men and women are physiologically different. The default assumption when there is a significant difference between men and women is therefore that it has to do with physiological differences. What do you disagree with here? Do you think that your alternative assumption should get a higher precedence? If so- why? Did you have a point or were you just trying to poison the well and make another strawman?

Well really we were talking about whether or not men had an advantage.

Except physiological differences are not the "more complex system". We know for a fact that there are physiological differences. The "more complex system" would be if it wasn't physiological differences.

Men have an advantage in spatial tasks. There is no evidence that disproves or even suggests that this is not physiological in nature. What exactly are you patting yourself on the back about here?

Yes, I am perilously surrounded by strawmen. What a clever trap. Knob.

No- I did not. You keep repeating this but it does not make it true. I provided a citation that says that men and women are different. There was a sentence that said it might not be physiological (which is evidence that the default assumption is that it is physiological). The linked study most certainly did not support making a statement that it is not physiological.

Here is exactly what I wrote:

Well I was not wrong. Males do tend to perform better. So there is a difference and it is likely in no small part physiological. There is a good chance male physiology brings a benefit in shooting sports. And a definite fact that males do have a benefit in shooting sports. So saying that "Male physiology is no advantage whatsoever in shooting sports" just cannot be done.

I wish I could say the same about you but you seem extremely proud of setting up strawmen and saying incredibly stupid things.

I am simply dumbfounded by your continued denying of spatial abilities being directly linked to marksmanship. I honestly cannot even fathom how someone could fail to realize that. Hitting a target is a spatial problem- practically by definition.

My point was supported by the fact that it is a fact (as much of a statistical fact as can be obtained) that males have stronger spatial skills than females (statistically). The only uncertainty is around people asserting that this is nurture instead of nature. There is very little reason to say that this is not a physiological difference. There is no debate about there being a difference between the genders. Do you see how that works as a reference now?

There is irrefutable evidence that males have higher spatial skills than females. Your (or anyone else's) desire to assert that this is not a physiological difference does not put the burden of proof onto me. If there is a difference between males and females the null hypothesis is that it is a physiological difference (we are physiologically different, remember). It is up to you to prove the alternative hypothesis that this is not physiological.

It being innate and physiological is largely a red-herring anyway. The gap exists and you can debate about its cause until you are blue in the face but that doesn't erase the gap. If the gap was as easy to erase as "playing a video game for 10 hours" you would think that women that train to compete in international challenges would not lag behind the men.

You reason like a creationist, "dude". "You can't prove that life came from nothing so therefore God done it."

Addendum: I just read through the research paper that "disproves" it being physiological. A total sample size of 20. 6 men and 14 women. This can be used as a reason to perform more research but to use it as a reason to assume there is no physiological difference is pretty foolish. That the only evidence that it is not physiological you have found is a statistically insignificant research paper from 2007 is not good evidence (although I do not expect Wikipedia to be state of the art or anything).

Addendum 2: Although the women had a greater improvement overall their improved position was barely higher than the men's starting position. Which also left them well below the men's improved position. I'm not sure that paper even supports the claim it is being used to support on Wikipedia.

Is the Doppler Weather signal not modulated so that error correction can be performed? This safety system is vulnerable to simple unintentional analog interference? Can somebody please send over an RF engineer?

You are not sure what "spacial judgement" has to do with lining things up or shooting targets? Judging objects in a spacial sense has nothing to do with this? Exactly what skills do you think hitting a target requires? I'm seriously asking here.

The gender difference may be linked to other things. Whether or not it is innate is irrelevant (and in no way settled). The difference is there and is statistically significant. I am entirely unsure how someone theorizing what causes the difference refutes the difference's existence. Especially since your refutation includes a bunch of "may"s, "some"s and "largely"s. Sounds like a solid case to me.