edit: below comment mentions using comp rsus
14,226 karma · joined August 20, 2012
edit: below comment mentions using comp rsus
After Paris Attacks, C.I.A. Director Rekindles Debate Over Surveillance
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/us/after-paris-attacks-cia...
The notion that somone might not "fit [a] mold", is a trivial comment. The implication that if someone mis-states this comment as saying someone might not "fit [the] mold" is simply the substitution of the definite for the indefinite article.
Put another way, there is no "literal" truth to the comment. There is not [a] mold; nor are there [any] molds that exist (in the literal sense) at any college. That whole expression is a figue of speech.
TLRD--this whole thing is about a fucking typo in an e-mail.
eg lets say we load a bunch of shrapnel into a tree so it maims or permanenly injures whoever the next logger is...tha is basically the same thing as lobbing hand grenades into the public square. the attacks are meant to target random people, caught unawares, in a way that conveys a persistant threat of continued, scalable future action.
Now lets take some other shady randome violence like the KGB assinating a civilian in London with radioactive isotopes in his tea. Is that terrorism? No, its a specific threat carried out in a limited capacity against a designated target. It might be criminal or a war crime or wahatever bad thing describes it, but its not "anti civilian warfare", in the same way that not all war casualties are "war crimes" in the normal usage.
--LA Times Headline
Peace to all.
NB...The words in my signature didn't come from a random sampling of the dictionary...they were from a screen grab of HN moderation tools...
On the topic of changing subjects, no not really.
Those words are outrageously inflamatory.
The scope of this is so limited to be a self fulfilling prohpesy...
thats like saying a stone wheel would be good enough
if we didn't have pneumatic/michelin tires
anything is good enough when its the only option
The "tech world" just seems like a straw man and easily falls down, for the obvious reasons.
“This is a fundamental flaw in the study. It is likely that the changes in metabolic outcomes observed can be explained by the experimental diet providing fewer calories than the children’s usual intake.”
Given the amount of time wasted on diet/nutrition fads I'm starting to thing the US government should actually do some science on these issues.
Just eyball the proportion of working adults in the 50 to 60 year range. It is only ~5x the number of disabled. In other words, that is a huge %--maybe 20%--of potential workers in that age bracket.
Any employment process that disables 20% of its workforce would be normally considered a problem.
But instead we call the un-employable 'diabled', to sweep the data under the rug.
It almost certainly helps keep other people in their jobs, tho (like burecrats and academics).
That still seems exceptionally low. Posted this upthread but in 2010 20% of the student body was in Biology (once topical sub-specialties were aggregated).
20% of ~3500 would be closer to `700, which is 3.3x the number of declared comp sci students.
Or maybe my math is wrong? I'm more interested in the actual knowledge being put in and attention being paid out than a critique of the degree naming conventions.
Notice the arbitary abstraction of, eg
Bio Sciences Human Biology
1955 1. History 2. Economics 3. Psychology 4. Political Science 5. Bio Sciences
1965 1. History 2. Political Science 3. English 4. Psychology 5. Economics
1975 1. Psychology 2. Bio Sciences 3. Economics 4. History 5. English
1985 1. Economics 2. Human Biology 3. Bio Sciences 4. Electrical Engr 5. English
1995 1. Bio Sciences 2. Human Biology 3. Economics 4. Psychology 5. English
and now we look at 2010 (from quora)
Biological Sciences (1.32%) but Human Biology (12.58%) Biology (5.74%)
=~20% of Standford majors in 2010 are "biology majors" in plain language usage.
Based on data on Bachelor's Degrees conferred in the 2009-2010 school year[1], the top majors are:
Human Biology (12.58%)
Economics (8.10%)
International Relations (6.20%)
Biology (5.74%)
Computer Science (4.94%)
Engineering (4.71%)
Psychology (4.54%)
Political Science (4.25%)
English (3.96%)
History (3.62%)
Management Science and Engineering (3.39%)
Mechanical Engineering (3.10%)
Science, Technology, and Society (2.30%)
Communication (2.18%)
Electrical Engineering (2.07%)
Mathematics (2.01%)
Earth Systems (1.84%)
Physics (1.84%)
Sociology (1.49%)
Biological Sciences (1.32%)*http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/1991-04-28/old-motor-oil...