 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
>>
>> I agree. Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.
>
> I, for one, don't agree. What's wrong with the concept of a generalised
> test to determine an individuals approximate level of mental development?
Absolutely nothing. However, there's nothing "approximate" about saying
"Your IQ is 174, and his is 168, ergo you are smarter."
An approximation would be fine.
> And the US Navy's nuclear submarines being able to be completely
> remote-controlled if you send them the right access codes (since it was
> in some movie).
The only movie I know of that showed that was Star Trek II ;)
> And the US having low-yield nukes (specifically nukes)
> that don't produce radiation, or if they do, it decays within days,
> instead of a century or so.
Neutron bombs. They kill off the population, and leave the real estate
intact.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> They kill off the population, and leave the real estate
> intact.
Relatively speaking. It's still a G-D nuclear bomb you're talking about,
after all. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> They kill off the population, and leave the real estate intact.
>
> Relatively speaking. It's still a G-D nuclear bomb you're talking about,
> after all. :-)
"Although neutron bombs are commonly believed to "leave the
infrastructure intact", current designs have explosive yields in the
kiloton range,[11] the detonation of which would cause heavy destruction
through blast and heat effects. A yield of one kiloton is not high for a
nuclear weapon, but is still nearly two orders of magnitude bigger than
the most powerful conventional bombs."
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:20:04 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>
>Yes a mere male. I can do 4D visualization in my head, but I can't
>handle insufficient or conflicting information.
>
Oh! Come on, I bet you can do better than that. I use colour and smell as extra
dimensions when I want to go higher than 4. Just think of something rotting
over time. ;)
>
>Well no, more like 'Jean called...' and I have a cousin called Jean who
>might have called, she has a brother with that name as has of our
>neighbours and a close collaborator or two. All might have called and it
>is up to me to figure out which one. You can only do that if at some
>point she refers to something you already know. In which case there was
>no point in mentioning it (for a male). Luckily she is a woman so there
>is a good change that somewhere she mentions a couple of things she told
>a few times before. Then you only have to hope that it is specific
>enough and you can figure it out before she figures out you don't have a
>clue who she is talking about.
"The way of the world" I'm afraid :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:57:02 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>Chambers wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> I believe that IQ tests are a flawed concept.
>>
>> I agree. Any meaningful test needs to have a much more specific focus.
>
>I, for one, don't agree. What's wrong with the concept of a generalised
>test to determine an individuals approximate level of mental development?
There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
development and IQ tests.
Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
favour of the concept of IQ.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
> favour of the concept of IQ.
Why is that funny?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
> development and IQ tests.
...there shouldn't be. :P (The def. listed in the wiki article said
ratio/difference between user score and average score of their age
group...or something like that)
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>
>Why is that funny?
Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:01:27 -0400, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> There is a difference between tests to determine a person's level of mental
>> development and IQ tests.
>
>...there shouldn't be. :P (The def. listed in the wiki article said
>ratio/difference between user score and average score of their age
>group...or something like that)
Well, for people who like that sort of thing that's the sort of thing they like.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:44:28 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Funnily enough it is mostly those who get (or report) high scores, who are in
>>> favour of the concept of IQ.
>> Why is that funny?
>
> Funny peculiar not funny ha ha
I don't find it peculiar at all.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
