Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Music / Re: "I get it, I just don't like it"
« Last post by Andrew Clunn on Today at 07:37:36 AM »
2
General Discussion / Re: Campus Rape Statistics
« Last post by Damage Magnet on Today at 07:33:40 AM »
is it worth suggesting that one of the problems here is that this conflates issues?
Specifically you conflate campus rape Statistics with unwanted sexual advances. Can we agree there is a difference and not a small one.

Full disclosure. I have made unwanted sexual advances. I have been firmly rebuffed. I have gone away and cried in my beer that the world is not fair. I would be mortified to think that I somehow am part of a rape problem.

A single rape is one too many and those who campaign want to make the best case they can but lets not confuse unwanted advances with rape.

I believe the article posted by JuniorSpaceman explains that they do attempt to distinguish between the two by asking multiple questions which results in a 1 in 7 for rape specifically. The question which seems to determine if it is rape as opposed to assault still seems to be phrased in a way where you would get more yes answers than you would expect.

It's phrased:
Quote
Since you began college, has someone had sexual contact with you when you were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep?

I would actually answer yes to that. I've been drunk and unable to consent. I've never regretted it happening the next day and if I was in my right mind I'm pretty sure I would consent but I don't think regretting it or not matters. With "drunk" inserted into that question I'm surprised the number of people who said yes isn't higher.
Thank you for this reply. Spent a couple of days thinking about that reply and what would I say about it.

First of all the question absolutely does describe behaviour that would disturb me. I personally do not think I could come up with a better question . At university I was pretty much Tee total (financial not moral motivation) so I could answer no to it safely.
Assuming that everyone answered the question accurately then I no longer accuse them of conflating harmless and harmful behaviour. Sorry!

Despite my being wrong I am still going to grumble a bit that maybe it was phrased in a way that opens idiots (like apparently me) to misread it.
3
Auto correct is a birch. 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein-folding/

Duck duck go for life.

When you make claims on this forum it falls to you to be able to back them up.
4
There was no value judgement made in that post.  I actually honestly just expressed what JS was asking.  Pick a fight later, after I've shit all over empathy and compassion in general.
5
We're you  referring to understanding the (previously odd) relationship between temperature and protein folding speed?  I am unaware that there's any practical application that's come from that.  Please provide a link so I can learn about it.


(1)
I don't understand your initial part of your query. (as underlined above)

(2)
Use google to search for quantum computing applications.
6
We're you referring to understanding the (previously odd) relationship between temperature and protein folding speed?  I am unaware that there's any practical application that's come from that.  Please provide a link so I can learn about it.
7
Tech Talk / Re: Self-Driving Cars
« Last post by phooey on Today at 06:42:37 AM »
Did you read the article.  Its precisely the reason Ford doesn't want to make a level 3:

"Jim McBride, autonomous vehicles expert at Ford, said this is "the biggest demarcation is between Levels 3 and 4." He's focused on getting Ford straight to Level 4, since Level 3, which involves transferring control from car to human, can often pose difficulties. "We're not going to ask the driver to instantaneously intervene—that's not a fair proposition," McBride said."

Yes, but I only read what was written, I didn't add my words. Nowhere does he suggest the car would shift control to the driver as you suggested.

So you mean maybe it would just make a friendly suggestion, ("I really feel this would be in your best interest to take over right at this moment! Like right NOW would be better than later, I am just saying. If I was you I wouldn't delay much longer my friend. I am, not joking...!")
8
Forum Games / Re: Fact or Crap? 2017 Edition
« Last post by starnado on Today at 05:41:21 AM »
(click to show/hide)
9
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #606
« Last post by ralfsen on Today at 04:09:54 AM »
I don't know enough to debate the number of innocents and language-problems and corrupt cops actually influencing the numbers to a significant degree. Seems unthinkable where I live tho. I do agree that the lower crime in cities with more immigration study is interesting and should be a good measure. Would love to have heard the numbers and methods on that one too.

Where do you live?

Those of us who are white and middle-class in America have a very different experience with the police than poor people and people of color do. Working with the homeless for about 5 years I saw the police treat homeless guys and Native Americans very differently than they treat middle-class white folks. Even well-meaning cops treated these guys very differently. It's hard to believe that the nice cops who arrested me would treat Indians so differently, but they did.

Scandinavia
10
Podcast Episodes / Re: Episode #606
« Last post by LaPalida on Today at 04:03:28 AM »
Hmm I'm trying to interpret the Pew graph and from what I understand it seems to show that, if we take a slice of an age group say 16 year olds, 25% of the criminals are native born, 23% are second gen. immigrants and ~17% are first gen. immigrants. So that makes up 65% of the criminals. Who are the rest 35%? Tourists?

That's not what the graph is showing.

According to this graph, if you take a slice of 16 year olds, 25% of the native born 16 year-olds have been involved in a crime, 23% of the 2nd gen 16 year-olds have been involved in a crime, and 17% of the 1st gen 16 year-olds have been involved in a crime.

It is not a pie chart of all crimes committed.  I would imagine that the 25% of native born 16 year-olds who have been involved in a crime would be a MUCH larger proportion of the number "all crimes committed by 16 year-olds", as I don't imagine that the ratio of all native born to 2nd gen to 1st gen 16 year-olds is 1:1:1.

Hah I think you're right. I originally interpreted it similarly but got confused when someone else interpreted the graph the other way because they thought that it was ridiculous that 25% of 16 year olds were criminals. It could be that most people interpret 'crime' and 'criminal' as something terribly violent which a lot of it is but I bet that a lot of the 16 year olds get their sentences for smoking weed or something like that.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
personate-rain