Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
go home Sean Young, you're drunk
Was that a hit song in an alternate universe where the wealthiest people were actually getting less rich and getting taxed more?
It's not plural at all. It's a collective noun, so it's singular. And 'math.' (note the period) started as an abbreviation, which lost the period by the 1870s. The wacky form 'maths' didn't come about until the 1910s, 40 years later.
It's a stupid spelling. It's awkward to say (the 's' often ends up nearly silent anyway) and grammatically confusing (it's not plural!), where 'math' is just a straight abbreviation. Couple that with the smug yet completely unwarranted sense of superiority ("the trouble with americans") people get for using it, and you've got a winner.
"That's not true at all."
Yes it is.
I'd provide more evidence, but you didn't - and in any case even the tiniest bit of good-faith searching would find it.
Well put, especially because all this is really about is averages.
The GP's post title is interesting - he refers to the ex-president of Harvard who lost his job (in part) due to comments - that were pretty completely misrepresented - about the aptitude of women in mathematics and science. His basic point - which isn't particularly controversial - is that men tend to have a greater standard deviation for many characteristics than women do, although they tend to have approximately the same averages. This wider bell curve would obviously lead to more men at the highest levels - but also at the lowest. Both of these are well supported observations (especially the low half, which is less controversial - go figure) and are also reasonable conclusions from a genetic standpoint - women have two X chromosomes, which moderate each other, while men have only one (this is why e.g., color blindness are almost exclusively male afflictions) - as well as an evolutionary standpoint (a population-exceptional male can have dramatically more successful offspring than an average male, but a population-exceptional female will have approximately the same number, although more fit, as an average female).
Stereotypes are all about averages, and the reason they've so pervasive is that they're how our brains work. We need to have a mental model of everything around us, so we don't spend 10 minutes trying to understand an apple every time we see one. We couldn't function if we weren't able to say "this is an apple, it acts like the other apples I've experienced" and put it in that bucket.
The problem doesn't even arise when we do that with people - to an extent. We have a stereotype of doctors as intelligent and knowledgeable about our health, for instance, that's usually quite helpful if we're a patient. No, the problem comes when we don't remember that stereotypes are just personal averages, and that a specific individual may not fit the model we have, combined with trying too hard to fit people into buckets when the evidence doesn't fit. The other problem is not discarding a bucket when essentially nobody fits it (e.g., common racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc - all of which persist only because the bigot in question has spent their life cherry-picking and exaggerating interactions).
(Also, back on topic, women aren't any worse at spatial reasoning, they just - on average - take slightly longer to do it)
fly a gun inside
"evolutionary criticism . . . is completely forbidden in US schools."
Well, unless you go to school in one of those states where the school boards also don't think children should be trusted to learn about puberty, carbon dating, and history that wasn't vetted by the Club for Growth and the Daughters of Confederate Heroes.
Based on these comments, Slashdotters are also experts on moving goal posts.
Um... SpaceX has made several resupply missions to the ISS, starting more than a year ago: http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/10/10/1229202/iss-robotic-arm-captures-dragon-capsule.
Not sure where you're confused.
Nope. They may have the equipment, but they need a Category IIIb instrument landing system at the airport to actually do so, along with a crew certified to operate it. All of which are shockingly expensive - you need computer equipment that continues to work after a failure, which in practical terms means you need a lot of computers cross-checking each other and extremely rigorously designed software (I think 7 9's). The ground equipment is similarly extremely expensive, rather tempermental, and requires lots of checking and re-certification (the risk of being wrong is that the plane flies into the ground).
Lesser categories of ILS (i.e., the ones at almost all airports, even commercial passenger carrying ones) require transitioning to visual control at or above the decision height to avoid going missed.
Any number of novels by John Brunner, but Stand on Zanzibar if you have to choose one.
Fred Pohl's short-short "Day Million," about a cyborg spaceman and a transgendered otter-woman meeting, falling in love, exchanging virtual reality sex profiles and never meetin again.
Freeman Dyson's essay "The Greening of the Galaxy."
More to the point, in a car you need to be looking outside pretty much continuously. More than about a half-second of looking away starts to get dangerous, and 2 seconds is downright negligent. But in a small airplane, you have much, much longer (on the order of about 30 seconds) of eyes-inside time - you need it to do all your planning/charts/radios/checklists/etc! And that's just for visual rules - if you're on an instrument flight, you don't even need to look outside until you're trying to land (that's the point of an instrument rating - looking outside doesn't do you much good if you're in a cloud).
The two scenarios aren't even remotely comparable. Driving is a much more "real-time" operation than flying, so distractions should be minimized to a substantially greater extent.