Oh look, an AC opens his comment with a stupid insult. How novel.

As to your comment that the expense of higher education isn't relevant its all about the next disruptive TECHNOLOGY and we don't know what that is going to be... will this technology be in the humanities? Will it be a poetry robot?

Give a flying fucking break.

As to poets just being linguists... how many of those jobs opened up in the last few years and what do they make?

Next issue.

As to my grammatical error, that was a typo. You're attempting to claim superiority to me on an internet forum because of a typo. How pathetic and desperate are you?

As to your conclusion that I am a hypocrite for condemning reactionary behavior when I noted that the person being quoted is a known plagiarist with a poor record of journalistic ethics... So, you think not being a reactionary means having no fucking brain what so ever?

don't respond. Either log in to your real account or just don't post. I'm so fucking tired of these idiot ACs making stupid shit comments behind a triple layer of anonymity.

You people are literally ruining this community with your crap.

Then the entire premise of the article is dumb.

Still... the prequels sucked.

... with the originals. The prequels were shit which is why people had a hard time getting a job.

If I'm not owed anything because I didn't read the article then your sweeping assessment of my post is also wrong. You didn't read or understand my post. You read just far enough to find one thing wrong and then judged it.

You made the same error I did but unlike me, you lack the humility to admit your own mistakes. ;)

Well, that is logically impossible since basically every post after the first had nothing to do with psychology.

What happened was there was ONE post about psychology WHICH I MADE, you said something stupid about it which had nothing to do with psychology... and then there are just endless pages of me asking you to explain what was wrong and you refusing to do it.

You've actually at no point demonstrated that YOU know anything about psychology. Why is that?

So... how could all those posts have proved that I knew nothing about psychology when they weren't even about psychology?

Do you see how completely out of your depth you are with me? I'm not claiming to be a genius... you're just a profoundly stupid person.

I do sorta read your posts... the only thing I look for is whether you answered the challenge though. If you don't, then I just glaze over it because it doesn't matter.

Every time you evade, you admit I'm right. You've so far been calling yourself an idiot and a coward by proxy for days.

And that pathetic attempt to claim to be another dude? Priceless. Seriously... Golf clap for you.

... I love the retard emotional outbursts from these ACs. They're just priceless.

Anyway, when I said was "owed" acknowledgement for aspects of the comment that were right, if I am not owed that, then why is the article owed acknowledgements for aspects that they got right?

Do you see the logical contradiction here?

You're saying I am totally wrong because I said one thing that was wrong about their article.

Yet you claim to be totally right even though you didn't read my full comment and didn't acknowledge that while I had one thing wrong I had other things right.

You can't criticize my post and not give me credit for the aspects I got right without being a hypocrite.

It isn't about giving me something. It is about YOU not being a hypocrite.

I feel like most of the time the AC is the same fucking retard that is doubtless following me around this site trolling me with the same stupid asshattish comments.

  Be less useless, dude.

It just seems like an obvious finding... like... birds can control which way they move in the air when they fly...

Really?

The guy has a record of plagiarism and invented sources. He doesn't do it constantly... just when he "needs" to do it. Which isn't really any better in my opinion.

Should the US not focus on STEM? The issue is this... College is really expensive. The student loans etc are something people have to pay off for years and years. When you put that sort of investment into something you need a return on investment.

So the notion here is that more students should go into the humanities and become poets, philosophers, historians, novelists, etc? We have lots of those already. The US is suffering no shortage of poets. And even if we were, why would the government or an individual spent possibly a 100 thousand dollars educating a poet?

It is a problem.

The money is a very relevant part of this issue. If higher education were entirely privately funded, then I'd say 'Do whatever you want". But it is largely public at this point. The subsidies etc are large enough that they make up a substantial portion of the total cost if they don't cover it outright.

There are a lot of knee jerk reactionaries that will attack me for saying ANYTHING should change or for tipping over their personal sacred cow.

The thing is the money is a big deal. And the most education costs, the more we're going to expect graduates to make. Stem pays pretty well compared to the average humanities degree. Cost less money and we'll be less insistent on a proportionally large return.

So... how you do that is up to you. I can think of a lot of ways to maintain the quality of higher education while reducing costs. But I've little patience for trading spittle laden words with the reactionaries.

I made a single error, the rest of the article is legitimately stupid.

Yes, they said they didn't have any evidence that the change in brain size effected intelligence. My bad.

However, they did say that their findings could be used in policy and legislation changes regarding poverty. Which given that they don't know actually what is going on is an invalid statement.

It could be something as simple as better nutrition leading to more fat being stored in the brain. The extra mass could very well not be meaningful at all.

You're making the same mistake I made... You're reading just far enough to find ONE mistake I made and then judging the whole thing.

I screwed up because I didn't read the thing. But I also got a few things right as well. Give me credit for that at least. It is what I am owed.

That only indicates that some women look out for others. It doesn't do anything to support your case that on average, women are biased positively in favour of other women. It's incredible how you demand fully audited statistics from my claimes but make the most half-assed unsupported claims yourself.
Nor does it support your claim that women are systemically biased against women.

Your statistic would require that women are systemically biased against women.

Why aren't men systematically biased against men? Explain this to me?

Your whole premise requires systemic bias of men and women against women. That is a tall order to prove.

Here you're probably going to start talking about "unconscious" bias which has about as much proof behind it as subliminal messages which have been repeatedly proven to not work. The advertising people did extensive research to see if it actually worked. It doesn't.

You're pushing junk science.

Well, this is veering into ad-homenim, frankly. Don't bother to argue the point, insult the entire disciplin and use that as a way of dismissing the arguments.
As to ad hominem, technically I am not conducting ad hominem. Ad hominem is against a person. An argument against a discipline is totally different. And not actually a logical fallacy. So... try harder.

And you're an academic are you?
As to whether I'm an academic, so you're NOW saying that your study can't be applied outside of academia?

I feel like I'm playing chess against someone that is playing tic tac toe. If you undermine my ability to associate my career with this on the basis that I am in the private sector and this refers to academia then you support my original position that this study can't be applied outside of the context of academia.

You just picked up a gun and shot yourself in the foot with it.

I'm sort of embarrassed for you now.

Did you ask the authors to send you the raw data for you to audit? Did they refuse you?
As to raw data, the data is as good and readily available as climate change. So... tell me how that isn't enough. I'm pretty sure your standards are going to slip around hilariously on that point.

As to what you pretend to know for the sake of rhetoric, ask for the studies. They've been on file since the 1970s. This stupidity has been debunked since it started.

Make my day.

AC agrees with AC?

Okay, well then allow me to say I agree with what Karmashock was saying and think both of you are showing a tragic inability to have a rational thought.

As to cursing, Karmashock made it clear over and over again that he wanted the AC to explain what they were talking about. They said they didn't need to and over a course of DAYS have refused to answer what should be a very simple challenge.

It is obvious that karmashock is right and you ACs are a bunch of nitwits.

See, retard? I don't need to hide behind AC names to sock puppet. I can sock puppet myself. Its funnier and you're an idiot.

I also am about 99 percent certain you're just pretending to be two people now.

Which I can do as well... by all means, continue to sock puppet and I'll pretend to be three or twenty people all called karmashock. :D

Why do I care if it knows I am running windows 7, Firefox version whatever, and have 2000 fonts installed?

What is more, if I really cared about that, I could install a plug in that told websites I was using a different OS, browser, etc. But that isn't private information in my opinion. I don't see how it identifies me.

As to why the feature is in place, it happened in large part because browsers interpret pages differently and often webpages have to have different versions to run properly on different browsers.

I don't see the problem with it. Help me understand.

Explain how I am not secure. If I am not running their javascript, how can they possibly fuck me? HTML isn't going to give me a virus. It can't.

Yeah except for we don't even have AI... so I don't even understand the concern?

What are people really worried about here to the extent it is legit?

Here is my take:

1. Any AI we make is going to be a weak ai first not a strong godlike super intelligence. Its judgment, dynamism, and scope will be limited... so it might be really good at predicting weather patterns or something but it isn't going to see me coming after it with a screwdriver. A machine intelligence also will not have the benefit of our genetic heritage. Why would it have any sense of self preservation without an internalized notion of death? We're born with that. All life on Earth has that encoded into our DNA. But any machine intelligence we make isn't going to consider any of that because it isn't going to have that genetic record of millions of years of killing other things and being killed in the struggle to survive.

2. whatever it is will be rooted in place and dependent on a human controlled infrastructure... aka we can literally pull the plug at any time. The damn thing will probably BE a data center somewhere and while they have all sorts of redundant power and communications... there's not going to be some internalized defense system we put under the control of the AI. There is going to be a sys admin in that building that can literally flick a switch and kill it.

3. the probability of whatever it is to actually do anything actually malicious is minimal. It is far more likely it will do something stupid and computers doing something stupid is nothing new. In the movies, the AI always hacks through everything, breaks through all encryption in seconds, and has improbable levels of control over everything. That isn't realistic. It is likely to be as stymied by security technology as the humans. And all those systems have protocols in place for when they're compromised. You can't launch nuclear weapons by compromising the computers. Two dudes literally have to turn two identical keys in each of those bunkers to launch each silo's worth of nukes. What else is the AI going to do? Crash the stock market? Post nasty things about your mom on facebook?

I'm just not worried about AI. Bring it on.

Of course, I'm one of those people that would put the machine in his head if he could... I'd go cyborg pretty quickly so long as the technology were refined enough that it wouldn't subject me to a life of misery.

And yet you have not explained in any of your posts why I don't know anything about psychology despite being challenged to do so in EVERY SINGLE POST I HAVE DIRECTED AT YOUR STUPID ASS... which is interesting because the burden has always been upon you to back your stupid position up with so much a fucking argument.

And you won't because you know I'll pull your balls out by your throat if you even TRY it. You can't win this argument. You're defending a pseudo science.

You won't present an argument though... because you're an intellectual coward. You say some bullshit and then when called on it run away. fuckwit.

Good.

The title lead me to believe they had done the same thing I've seen done ACTUALLY many many times. Thank you for the correction.