Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Going to get modded down as sexist for this, bu (Score 1) 690

From that article:

Moving to cross-country comparisons, we find that earlier results linking the gender gap in math to measures of gender equality are sensitive to the inclusion of Muslim countries, where in spite of women’s low status, there is little or no gender gap in math.

Also, looking at the graphs of gender gap vs gender equality, there's a trend towards no gender gap as equality goes up. Further, the gender gap is all over the place clustered around or just below 0.

Am I missing something here that says the gender gap isn't artificial?

Comment Re:Going to get modded down as sexist for this, bu (Score 2) 690

Understand that in average both sexes are not equally fit for every task and equally gifted in everything is not sexism it is lucidity

Sorry for the poor source, but girls and boys are equal in mathematic ability when you look worldwide, which indicates that differences in the west are due to cultural bias, not natural ability.

Physically, men are stronger than women on average, but mentally it appears that it's entirely or nearly entirely cultural. In that case, saying that they're different on average in mental ability is at the very least supporting a sexist construct in our culture.

Comment Re:Funny (Score 2) 82

Except that if you're using it, then it was probably not the result of a startup that was bought and killed.

That VC money doesn't appear out of thin air. It often comes with the intention of the company being acquired, and was money previously invested in other companies that got acquired. It's all part of the ecosystem.

Comment Re:No, headline is right. (Score 1) 224

It wasn't pertinent to the point I was trying to make and is covered in full in the link that I provided. Sorry if that was legitimately misleading, but my point wasn't that natural sources are so much larger than human ones per se, but that choosing volcanism was misleading and that the overall tone was too hostile.

Comment Re:No, headline is right. (Score 1) 224

I'm sorry, but what lies and bullshit am I using? I pointed out that human CO2 production IS dwarfed by natural production. I didn't go into the other facts because it didn't factor into the point that I was trying to make, that while combating people who disbelieve AGW we should be accurate. The link I gave you went into the full details. I didn't go into the full details because my point was that your comment wasn't accurate about why he was wrong and it was overly combative to boot. I'm curious as to why you're attacking me so strenuously. I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just that the way you've said it is overly combative and not a full answer. Yet you're attacking me by saying I'm spreading lies and bullshit.

Comment Re:No, headline is right. (Score 1) 224

I know. I'm just saying that if you combat ignorance with condescension and hostility, then the ignorant are going to continue being ignorant because of their knee-jerk reaction to the assholes on the side of science.

Or we can keep this argument in the realm of emotion, assholery, and dogma and continue in the way we've been going. I'm sure that'll work out for us in the long run.

Comment Re:No, headline is right. (Score 2) 224

While the GP is wrong in his conclusion, he's right in saying that humans don't product that much CO2 relative to nature. From -

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year.

You're right that volcanism is a very small modern source of CO2, but human activity is still a very small minority of global output. Choosing to use volcanism as the comparison is misleading at best. The science is conclusive in favor of global warming, so accuracy and facts are enough to combat bad conclusions.

Slashdot Top Deals

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.