Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Bitcoin isn't money but it's still a financial (Score 1) 118

<i> I want to be responsible for my money, and I want to be able to use it freely, without government snooping.</i>

Use cash - it's like bitcoin but it can't be tracked across the Internet.

Of course, if you take cash from some people and then give it to other people, well then you must be a criminal.

Comment: Re:Not new (Score 1) 253

by Kielistic (#47414967) Attached to: US Tech Firms Recruiting High Schoolers (And Younger)

Do you really want to hire someone who stuck at a degree even though they strongly believed it was a unproductive use of their time

Absolutely. Most people view a good chunk of their jobs as "unproductive wastes of their time"- they still have to do it. Have you ever met a programmer that didn't think at least 75% of what they had to do was a waste of time?

Comment: Re: Actually makes good sense (Score 5, Interesting) 676

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.

Comment: Distance to Harm (Score 1) 204

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.

Comment: Re:interesting times... (Score 1) 220

The article you first pointed to actually said the opposite of what you wanted.

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.

How would that help for target shooting? How would facial recognition help for either?

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.

It is indeed, but spatial reasoning measures very much more than that. Many of the tasks, e.g. face recognition which you persist in ignoring do not. Did you checkl the results with the irrelevant factors removed?

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.

Possibly. But again, it's not my fault you started off by posting bad references

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.

You've now found a better article that actually supports your point. That's nice: quoting articles that say the opposite is not a good debating tactic.

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.

No, the null hypothesis is not "men are better at it than women", because you could equally well select the opposite null hypothesis "women are better than men". So, you see there is nothing remotely null about it.

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.

The hypothesis might be "there are differences" as you point out now, but your earlier argument was that "men are better" is the null hypothesis.

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.

It wasn't hard. You keep surround yourself with straw men, after all. Mostly you say something deeply dubious then claim my resonse is to a better reasoned argument that you present after my response. You don't seem to understand that I'm picking apart your original claims. Making new claims in no way invalidates my criticism of your original claims.

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.

So your evidence for physiological difference was an article that said it might not be physiological but this somehow supports your claim. That's good to know.

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.

I never claimed your were. I claimed your points were unsupported by your citations. I was manifestly correct and now you've come up with better citations. You see this is your problem: you never actually comprehended the points I made. You assumed that because I was attacking your reasoning, I was attacking your conclusion. That is a logical fallacy in which I did not engage yet you have hallucinated that I did. And you made a beautiful straw man out of it.

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.

Why set up straw men when you already have so many?

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.

A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.