Science!
-
@sloosecannon said:
So does ‼THING‼
‼some object‼ means "some object that is on fire".
Unless you're using Laravel templates in which case it means 'don't not display unsanitised'.
-
-
well, if the code does
!!
who am I to argue?whoosh?
-
Yeah tbh I didn't put in any effort to parse what I wrote. So I have no idea what that statement would come out to... :P
-
If anyone wants to start a flame war off this, please take it to the appropriate thread; I'm just here to post this article that seems like it was tailor-written to annoy @boomzilla.
-
Which article?
Look man, if your shoulder aliens read stuff to you that's cool, but the rest of us don't have their number.
-
Are you blind? Listen, there's two things @boomzilla doesn't like: Scientific consensuses, and everything else.
-
Are you blind?
No.
Listen, there's two things @boomzilla doesn't like: Scientific consensuses, and everything else.
And people on his lawn, surely?
-
The only things I would have wanted to know that the article didn't cover was whether there were questions asked that there wasn't consensus on, and whether there were systematic differences of opinion between the different fields polled. Still, it's not a terrible article; pretty good for something appearing in a newspaper.
-
eems like it was tailor-written to annoy @boomzilla.
Yes! Science by survey, the Best Science! It reminds me of the saying about lawyers:
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."
-
Can we take photos of the table first?
-
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23268743.2015.1083883
##Giffing a fuck: non-narrative pleasures in participatory porn cultures and female fandom
###Abstract
Pornography has long been associated with the development of leading-edge technologies and new media forms, so it should be of little surprise that adult entertainment now circulates online in the form of moving-image GIFs – the 256-colour compressed image files ubiquitous within digital culture. Several critics and cultural commentators have picked up on the rise of this so-called ‘microporn', linking sexually explicit GIFs with supposedly diminished attention spans in the internet age. These discussions emerging around microporn can be somewhat problematic in that they risk replicating and intensifying many of our culture's uncritical assumptions about porn's consumers – that their engagement with the image is passive, thoughtless, and wholly receptive. In this article we argue that microporn is in fact a key indicator of the centrality of participatory practices to twenty-first-century female porn fandom. We undertake an analysis of audience engagement with microporn to ask: what are GIFs and how do they function within the realm of porn and microporn? What are their distinctive pleasures? In what ways do GIFs augment or displace long-form hardcore? In what ways might this emergence challenge conventional scholarly theorizing of the role of narrative within the genre and what might it tell us about female fan culture and pleasure? Existing understandings of the porn consumer, we suggest, are complicated by the proliferation of pornographic GIFs, and new understandings of consumption and pleasure practices can emerge through a consideration of microporn fan cultures.
First microaggression, now microporn! Of course, long before we had animated gifs, or even movies, we had pornographic images. But I guess you gotta publish or perish.
-
Eh, good enough for me, as a male I only distinguish 256 colours anyway.
-
Eh, good enough for me, as a male I only distinguish 256 colours anyway.
that's pretty good colour vision for a male.... most of the ones i know differentiate maybe sixteen on a good day...<a
-
Blue. Dark blue. A little bit darker blue. Light blue. Kind of blue....
EDIT: Fuck...that word just looks wrong now. I hate when I do that to myself.
-
That's five colours... can you think of any more?
-
-
First microaggression, now microporn!
I find the term "microporn" microagressive towards midget porn performers.
-
If anyone wants to start a flame war off this, please take it to the appropriate thread; I'm just here to post this article that seems like it was tailor-written to annoy @boomzilla.
After decades of the media telling people that having guns in the house makes them less safe, we shouldn't be surprised that some of them actually believe it.
For what it's worth, the article annoyed me as well. Good trolling.
-
@accalia said:
That's five colours... can you think of any more?
...not blue?
that's six. shirley you can come up with ten more!
-
Easy! Light and dark not blue.
-
@accalia said:
That's five colours... can you think of any more?
...not blue?
But what SHADE of "not blue"? It must be the right SHADE!
-
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
But what SHADE of "not blue"? It must be the right SHADE!
They're all the same.
They're all the same? That's different.
-
-
Science by survey, the Best Science!
How else would you gauge whether there's consensus in the most relevant fields? You can't exactly do it by putting a scientist in a blender. You also can't do it by seeing whether everyone agrees, as you can always find someone somewhere who doesn't. There's not even consensus on something as basic as whether there's gravity holding us down on this planet (though the people who disagree on that one tend to be high as kites on something else…)
As I said earlier, the article wouldn't pass muster as a scientific paper, but it's way higher than the usual standard for an OpEd piece.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
They're all the same? That's different.
But they're still all not blue.
They feel blue, you colorist!
-
-
:insert_do_not_want_meme_here:
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
They feel blue, you colorist!
But all the other colors are equal: they're not blue.
-
How else would you gauge whether there's consensus in the most relevant fields?
Meta analysis of the relevant studies seems like a much better approach to me. Especially when you're dealing with something that's a hot button political opinion like the subject in question.
-
@Lorne_Kates said:
They feel blue, you colorist!
But all the other colors are equal: they're not blue.
FWIW: I can still follow this line of raisining easier than anything BraFox says.
-
Meta analysis of the relevant studies seems like a much better approach to me. Especially when you're dealing with something that's a hot button political opinion like the subject in question.
I don't think that'd really answer the question of consensus though on the matter by people in the relevant fields. That approach is more suitable for increasing the statistical strength of the data. I'd hope that opinions would tend towards what the data supports, on the grounds that anyone claiming to be a scientist ought to aspire to work that way, but wouldn't assume that.
We should remember that just because the majority of relevant eminent scientists think a thing is true doesn't mean that it is actually true. There have been cases where they've been dead wrong (the theory of continental drift is a classic example of this). Yet conversely, a consensus also doesn't mean they're wrong. The polling described in the paper doesn't appear to have examined the reasons why the polled thought that way, which I suppose is fair enough: the more detail you collect, the harder it is to summarise for others.
-
I don't think that'd really answer the question of consensus though on the matter by people in the relevant fields.
It would answer the question about the consensus of the actual research. One's opinion (again, *especially on a topic like this) does not necessarily follow the numbers.
We should remember that just because the majority of relevant eminent scientists think a thing is true doesn't mean that it is actually true. There have been cases where they've been dead wrong (the theory of continental drift is a classic example of this). Yet conversely, a consensus also doesn't mean they're wrong.
Yes, I totally agree, which is kind of the heart of my initial response.
The polling described in the paper doesn't appear to have examined the reasons why the polled thought that way, which I suppose is fair enough: the more detail you collect, the harder it is to summarise for others.
Yeah. It's kind of interesting, but I interpret it as saying more about the researchers than about the subject matter.
-
are foxes colorblinded like dogs?
-
Alice blue?
-
are foxes colorblinded like dogs?
This fox is a proper trichromate, most foxes however are dichromates
-
It would answer the question about the consensus of the actual research.
Well, there's also the issue that reporting the same findings that everyone else has reported is a good way to not get published anywhere prestigious. That's always a problem with the system of publishing we've currently got: nobody really cares if you're just adding another grain of sand to the pile.
I suspect that (given the definitions used up above) that wider availability of guns does increase the rate of multiple-homicide/suicide rate. The reason is that it means that if someone has significant depression, they're more likely to successfully kill their family if they're armed with a firearm than with, say, a knife or if they choose strangulation as the method of killing. (I don't know why people in the throes of depression decide to kill their family sometimes, but I know it happens and sufficiently often for it to be something that is something that needs to be accounted for.) I know this won't address all cases, but it might be enough to account for the major statistical differences between different parts of the world.
The rates of non-home mass shootings are much lower. I have no idea if they're going to be similarly correlated with gun ownership rates or not. If the incidents are spontaneous — someone just flips and decides to kill — then we'd expect to see a correlation there, though perhaps non-linear due to the effect of media reporting. Incidents like the terrorist attacks in Paris are something else, a different (and much rarer) class of crime.
-
The rates of non-home mass shootings are much lower. I have no idea if they're going to be similarly correlated with gun ownership rates or not.
There's also a big difference between legally purchased and owned guns and the opposite.
-
There's also a big difference between legally purchased and owned guns and the opposite.
Maybe. They're still weapons capable of being lethal at range. (That is the point of them, after all.)
There are several categories of people that we don't want to have access to guns.
- Unsupervised/improperly supervised minors.
- Crazy people.
- Criminals.
In the first case, it's about making sure that people who aren't yet able to responsibly use a weapon only do so under practice conditions and in ways where they won't harm anyone. In the third case, making guns illegal to own won't have much significant impact as they're breaking the law in other ways too (most often to do with drugs, but that's by the by; there's a lot of different criminal activities). The one side-effect of both of these is that gun owners ought to have a safe (or other suitable lockable storage) for holding their weapons and ammunition when not in use, so as to prevent abuse by people not yet competent to use a weapon, and also theft by crooks.
It's second case where gun control lobbyists are focused. Nobody wants a deranged nutter on the loose with a lethal weapon, especially a comparatively fast-action ranged weapon. Gun control might have some impact here, but improved mental health support services might be both more effective and less intrusive.
-
-
The one side-effect of both of these is that gun owners ought to have a safe (or other suitable lockable storage) for holding their weapons and ammunition when not in use, so as to prevent abuse by people not yet competent to use a weapon, and also theft by crooks.
I'm going to reiterate a story I told here some time ago. When I got my first gun I'd already heard stories about kids snooping around. So I unloaded it, showed the kids it was unloaded, and let 'em hold it, to demystify it. I said, "I don't want you playing with this. If you want to hold it or something, come to me and I will unload it and let you get it out of your system." And you know what? It worked. I took the forbidden aspect away and they never went near it.
-
It's second case where gun control lobbyists are focused.
Not really. They say that, but their actions don't match their words. For example, President ObamAA+ and the Democrats in Congress have been talking about how terrorists on watch lists shouldn't be able to get guns. Well, there's actually two watch lists...and the second one is chock full of people who aren't terrorists, including, for a time, a US Senator. Most people can't even find out they're on it, let alone have a way to get off of it, so first off, this list is actually denying an enumerated right to people who aren't suspicious enough to get arrested. But second, not letting people on it get guns seems to be a way to implement a DoS against people. Thirdly, of course, is the laughable idea that 'oh, but we won't let people on the list know they're on it', which is an obvious crock, because getting denied on a 4473 if you haven't done something that would normally disqualify you (like being a felon) is probably a pretty strong hint that you're on the list. Especially if you'd already managed to buy a gun, but were suddenly denied.
-
I'll just leave this here:
-
After decades of the media telling people that the ocean is wet, we shouldn't be surprised that some of them actually believe it.
-
Yeah, but there are still plenty of people who believe that you shouldn't let people go there because they might drown in a shark.
-
but sharks dont see humans as pray, they only bite people by mistake!
-
Who said anything about bites?
-
the shark in my tank
-