Tag Archives: answers

New Science Tells Us That Men In Politics Are Blowhards

by Kristi23Gay Posted on January 28, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A couple of researchers in Switzerland wanted to judge how confident students in different career paths were. First, they split them into groups of 12 and gave each a short test:

  1. In which year was the Nobel Prize in physics awarded to Albert Einstein?
  2. In which year was pope John Paul I (the direct predecessor of John Paul II) elected Pope?
  3. In which year did the reactor accident happen in Chernobyl?
  4. In which year was Elvis Presley born?
  5. In which year did the first flight with the supersonic jet Concorde take place?

The answers are 1921, 1978, 1986, 1935, and 1976. My guesses were 1920, 1979, 1986, 1940,1 and 1973, so I was off by a total of 10 years. How do I think this compared with the rest of my group? I’m going to say I was third best. If it turns out that I was, in fact, only fifth best, I was overconfident by two ranks.

So how did everyone do? The first answer is simple: as you’d expect, men were vastly overconfident in their results and women were vastly underconfident. The chart on the right shows the second answer: political scientists were way overconfident and humanities students were way underconfident. Buck up, history majors! You know more than the budding politicians even if they’re oh-so-sure they know everything.

Bottom line: Science™ says that men in politics are blowhards. Ignore them. Women with English degrees know more than they think. Listen to them. That is all.

1This means that Elvis was drafted into the army at age 23. Doesn’t that seem a little late?

View article:  

New Science Tells Us That Men In Politics Are Blowhards

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Science Tells Us That Men In Politics Are Blowhards

Jim Webb Misses His Moment

by MaryjoQuigley Posted on October 14, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jim Webb needed to make a splash at Tuesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, and his chance to do it arrived early. As the rest of the field sparred over the Iraq War and use of force in Libya and other countries, Webb tried to interject. It was time for the former Marine infantryman, the only person on stage with military experience, to lay the hammer of his combat experience and Pentagon leadership down on the rest of the field.

But when he finally got a chance to speak, Webb’s answer was more of a lecture than a smackdown. He wandered from ethnic divisions in Iraq to a nuclear Iran before unexpectedly diving into the issue of China’s rising power, one of the former Virginia senator’s pet themes. He then finished by picking the first of many fights with moderator Anderson Cooper over his speaking time.

It’s those moments, which came off as petulant, that may define Webb among voters who know little about him. That, or for his jarring answer to the final question of the night, where he said the enemy he was proudest of making was one he killed in Vietnam:

Outside of that, Webb’s debate performance was mostly soft. He was seen as the “wild card” in the days before the debate, an intelligent and unpredictable candidate whose straight talk could catch Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton off-guard. But during the debate he was more often heard demanding airtime than he was seen on camera. When he was, his answers tended to be discursive, with essentially no big moments like Sanders’ “damn emails” line or effective policy shots like Clinton’s jabs at Sanders’ gun record that might grab the attention of media or voters.

His finest moment was a respectful exchange with Sanders, in which Webb gracefully declined to take shots at Sanders’ status as a conscientious objector during Vietnam and Sanders praised Webb’s service and key role in passing the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Both men came off as thoughtful and humane, and Webb got a competitor to talk about his biggest political achievement. But in a debate that was generally civil and substantive, it wasn’t enough.

The question for Webb was always one of organization: Even if he did turn in an outstanding performance, would his small campaign have the resources to make something big of that moment? After tonight’s debate, that question seems less relevant.

Continue reading – 

Jim Webb Misses His Moment

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Jim Webb Misses His Moment

Yet More Crackpotism From the Tea Party Darling in Iowa

by KandiNPVzfidna Posted on October 3, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

TPM’s Daniel Strauss provides us with the latest intel on tea party darling Joni Ernst, currently favored to win a Senate seat in Iowa. Here are her answers to a survey from the Campaign for Liberty in 2012, when she was running for the state legislature:

Strauss naturally focuses on Question 5, in which Ernst happily agrees that Iowa should allow state troopers and local sheriffs to toss federal officials in the slammer if they try to implement Obamacare in their state. This is complete lunacy, but of course no one will take any notice. For some reason, conservative Republicans are allowed to get away with this kind of stuff. There’s a sort of tacit understanding in the press that they don’t really mean it when they say things like this. It’s just a harmless way of showing their tribal affiliation.

However, I’m also intrigued by Question 1. I assume this was prompted by police use of drones, which was starting to make the news back in 2012, but does it also include things like red light cameras and automated radar installations on highways? Does Ernst really oppose this stuff? She might! And maybe it’s a big deal in Iowa. I’m just curious.

UPDATE: And as long as we’re on the subject of Iowa, Senate seats, and the press, maybe you should check out Eric Boehlert’s fully justified bafflement over the national media’s infatuation with a crude Republican smear campaign based on transparent lies about Democratic candidate Bruce Braley and his neighbor’s chickens. Click here for more.

See original: 

Yet More Crackpotism From the Tea Party Darling in Iowa

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yet More Crackpotism From the Tea Party Darling in Iowa

How Hackable Are Your Security Questions?

by Gabrielle Hartzog Posted on September 3, 2014

Mother Jones

Kevin Roose writes today that security questions are ridiculously easy to hack and we should get rid of them:

There are all kinds of ways to lock down your most important accounts — Gizmodo’s guide is a good place to start….Eventually, some advanced form of biometric authentication (fingerprints, retina scans) may become standard, and security questions may get phased out altogether.

But until then, when so many better options exist, there’s no reason a company like Apple should be relying on questions like “What was the model of your first car?” for password recovery in 2014. If that’s the best way we have of making sure a user is legit, we might as well change all of our passwords to “1234” and hope for the best.

All kinds of ways? I was intrigued. So I clicked on the Gizmodo link and found….two suggestions. The first is two-step authentication, which is a fine idea for anyone with a cell phone. The second is encrypting all your data. But like it or not, this is much too hard for most people to implement. There’s just no way it’s going to become widespread anytime in the near future.

So, basically, there aren’t all kinds of ways to lock down your most important accounts. There’s one. And even it only works on some accounts. If my bank doesn’t offer it, then I can’t use it.

I’d offer a different perspective. First, the level of security you need depends on who you are. If you think the NSA is after you, then your security better be pretty damn good. If you’re a celebrity, then it needs to be pretty good. If you’re just some regular guy, then the truth is that fairly ordinary measures are adequate. You should use decently secure passwords, but that’s probably about all you need to do for most of your accounts. Two-step authentication is a good idea for cloud accounts.

As for security questions, I suppose I’m on Roose’s side. Just get rid of them. They’re too easy to guess, especially for friends and family. Instead, either use a password manager or else create random passwords for your accounts and write them down on a piece of paper that you hide somewhere. I know you’ve been told forever to never write down your passwords, but the truth is that low-tech paper is actually pretty damn secure compared to anything digital.

Still, I can’t help but take Roose’s post as something of a challenge. Can we come up with security questions that don’t suck? At a minimum they need two characteristics. First, the answers have to be clear and distinct. I’ve never been able to use “first pet,” for example, because that’s a little fuzzy. I can think of several possibilities. Second, the answers need to be genuinely hard to guess, even for family and friends—but still easy to remember for you. They don’t need to be perfect, but they should certainly be better than “first car.” Any ideas?

UPDATE: Also, I’m curious about something. For us ordinary mortals, there has to be some way to recover lost passwords. What should it be?

From – 

How Hackable Are Your Security Questions?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Hackable Are Your Security Questions?

Do People Really Dislike Jeopardy Champ Arthur Chu Because He Hits the Buzzer Too Hard?

by Bikor11 Posted on February 27, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Let’s talk about something completely trivial for a bit: Arthur Chu, the polarizing Jeopardy! champion currently on a 7-game winning streak. Caitlin Dewey explains why so many people don’t like him:

Since time immemorial — read: September 1984 — “Jeopardy!” has followed a simple pattern: Contestants pick a category; they progress through the category from top to bottom; they earn winnings when they, through their hard-earned and admirable intellect, get the questions right.

Chu has turned that protocol upside down … and shaken the change out of its pockets. For one thing, he sometimes plays to tie, not win, thereby guaranteeing he brings a lesser competitor to challenge him the next day. He skips around the board looking for Daily Doubles, gobbling them up before competitors find them, in the process monopolizing all the high-value questions. Most unforgivably to many, Chu tries to squeeze in the most questions per round by pounding the bejesus out of his buzzer and interrupting Alex Trebek.

It’s the bolded comment I’m curious about. I understand why people could be annoyed by Chu skipping around the board so aggressively. Aside from a sense that he might be taking unfair advantage of his experience vs. a pair of newbies, it makes it a little harder to follow the game at home. I also get why some people might not like the idea of playing to tie. Both of these complaints may be overstated—Chu isn’t the first guy to go searching for Daily Doubles, and playing to tie only affects a few seconds of game play—but I understand them.

That said, what’s up with the complaint that he tries to ring in aggressively? That doesn’t even make sense. Everyone tries to ring in aggressively. Being fast on the buzzer is one of the cornerstones of the game. It might even be more important than knowing lots of answers. (Pretty much everyone who makes it onto the show knows lots of answers.)

So where does this come from? Am I missing something?

POSTSCRIPT: I myself initially found Chu a little annoying, though mostly for his affect more than his actual game play. But I’ve warmed to him just because he’s so damn good. He’s a serious buzzsaw at the game, and it’s hard not to admire that. I noticed last night, though, that the other contestants were starting to mimic his strategy. I wonder if that will be his undoing before long?

See more here:  

Do People Really Dislike Jeopardy Champ Arthur Chu Because He Hits the Buzzer Too Hard?

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Do People Really Dislike Jeopardy Champ Arthur Chu Because He Hits the Buzzer Too Hard?

Watch the Christian Right Argue Over Whether the Earth Is Really 6,000 Years Old

by rzana79 Posted on February 15, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

How do we know that Bill Nye won the creationism debate with Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis earlier this month? Simple: The Christian Right is now airing its grievances over the outcome publicly, with one of its top leaders saying the debate made Christians look completely out of touch.

Via Right Wing Watch, here’s a video from last week of televangelist Pat Robertson blasting the idea that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, as Young Earth creationists like Ham assert. “There ‘aint no way that’s possible,” explains Robertson, noting that anyone working in the oil industry can see as much as they drill through layer after geological layer to extract ancient hydrocarbons. “You can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there,” Robertson continued. “Let’s be real. Let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Watch Robertson’s comments above.

But that’s just the beginning: Ham then responded to Robertson and raised the stakes further on Facebook. “Pat Robertson is so misinformed and deceived,” Ham lamented. “Sad that so many will believe him.” Ham later continued:

Oh, that God would convict and open the eyes of Christian leaders and Christian college and seminary professors, so many of whom are as uninformed and deceived as Pat Robertson. God have mercy.

The truth is that Ham did make a joke of himself, actually arguing at one point that lions were vegetarians before Noah’s Flood. Such are the intellectual contortions required of Young Earth creationists who seriously want to insist, against not just biological but also geological and physical evidence, on an Earth that is younger than its oldest living tree.

Robertson, meanwhile, is no paragon of rationality: This is the same guy who asserted, in response to Walt Disney World’s “Gay Days,” that “I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you … It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.” And yet here, he comes off as the voice of moderation. Indeed, Robertson even seems to embrace a form of theistic or “progressive” evolution that is not necessarily incompatible with scientific understanding.

This suggests that, if nothing else, the creationism debate was highly disruptive of the evolution-creationism status quo. Just maybe, there will be enough upheaval on the Christian right to trigger a serious reconsideration of their attacks on science education across the country. (Wishful thinking, we know.)

Continue at source:

Watch the Christian Right Argue Over Whether the Earth Is Really 6,000 Years Old

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Watch the Christian Right Argue Over Whether the Earth Is Really 6,000 Years Old

Observatory: These Females Prefer a Familiar (Fish) Face

by Myrna Posted on January 6, 2014

A certain neuron prompts female medaka fish to consent faster to mating, researchers says, and may lead to further insights regarding social decision making. View post –  Observatory: These Females Prefer a Familiar (Fish) Face ; ;Related ArticlesObservatory: Mutant Petunias Sing the BluesA Symbol of the Range Returns HomeDot Earth Blog: In One Image: Cold Snaps In Global Context ;

See the article here:

Observatory: These Females Prefer a Familiar (Fish) Face

Posted in alo, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Holmes, LAI, Monterey, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Observatory: These Females Prefer a Familiar (Fish) Face

Evolution – Joe Manganiello

by Myrna Posted on December 3, 2013

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Evolution

The Cutting Edge Guide to Breaking Down Mental Walls and Building the Body You’ve Always Wanted

Joe Manganiello

Genre: Health & Fitness

Price: $13.99

Publish Date: December 3, 2013

Publisher: Gallery Books

Seller: Simon and Schuster Digital Sales Inc.


WANT IT. The mind: If you are ready for change—real change, no looking back change—this is where you need to be. This is the source, the manual, the Rosetta Stone that can teach you to clear your mind, transform your body, and change your life . . . forever. There’s only one question, and only you can answer it: How bad do you want it? DO IT. The tools: Everyone possesses the capability to look the way they want. Joe Manganiello learned that when he achieved the “impossible,” overcoming difficult obstacles at every level by transforming himself into the ripped star of True Blood . It took nothing less than one hundred percent commitment, discipline, routine, and drive. Joe is living proof: If he can do it, so can you. EVOLVE. The results: The evolution never ends. You’ll live it every day, with an insane amount of internal confidence and absolutely no regrets. Not the struggle, the sacrifices, the sweat, and definitely not the image you see in the mirror. You’ll wake up each morning to a new future. All the answers are now in your hands. How far do you want to go?

Continue at source – 

Evolution – Joe Manganiello

Posted in alo, FF, GE, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Evolution – Joe Manganiello

Who Was Vivian Maier? These Enigmatic Self-Portraits Only Add to the Mystery

by Toni Tolve Posted on November 8, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

If you open up Vivian Maier: Self-Portraits seeking answers as to who she was, prepare to be disappointed. Even when Maier turns the camera on herself, she doesn’t offer much.

In death, as in life, Maier left few clues about who she was, why she pursued photography, or what she was thinking. Four years after her death, and six years after the discovery of her photos (which author Alex Kotlowitz wrote about for Mother Jones), very little is known about her. She was born in New York in 1926, worked as a Nanny in Chicago, and died in 2009. She spent her life compulsively taking pictures. Most of those who knew her never even realized she was a photographer. Then again, she may not have considered herself a photographer.

May 5, 1955

With this book of Maier’s self-portraits, we hope for clues. We want to be a witness to her life. But we’re really just spectators, seeing only what she lets us—often just her shadow. Sometimes it’s almost like a game of Where’s Waldo: You need to find her in the frame, catching her reflection in the corner of a mirror that’s secondary to an otherwise great street photo. She is usually alone or with children. Rarely smiles. Mostly out in the world, on the street, experimenting with reflections, composition, shadows and shapes. We get more questions than answers.

The book, compiled by filmmaker and street photographer John Maloof, who first discovered Maiers’ work in 2007 while researching a book on the history of a neighborhood in Chicago, contains 60 never-before-published images. Most are black and white, shot with a medium format camera. However, in the ’70s and beyond, we see Maier more in color, shot on 35mm film. In the later work we see an aging Maier, generally even more alone than in earlier photos.

June 1978, Chicago area

It’s tempting to approach the book with a modern sensibility of the self-portrait, thinking of these as Maier’s selfies. That would be a mistake. As Elizabeth Avedon puts it in her opening essay:

So often contemporary photography needs something…It demands an audience, requires funding. It needs someone to like it, share it or comment to it. Images today are not content to exist on their own, they constantly seek opinion and validation…Vivian Maier’s work is extraordinarily different in that it only needed to be made.

According to Maloof, Maier almost never showed her work. Most of it she never even saw herself. The pictures “only needed to be made.”

1956, Chicago area

Some people see a particular vanity in photographers’ self-portraits. But with Maier’s, it seems like a case of the photographer trying to figure out her subject. Given that she died with most of her film undeveloped and negatives unprinted, it’s a safe bet that she never found the answers she may have been searching for.

May 1978, Chicago area

Vivian Maier: Self-Portraits by Vivian Maier, edited by John Maloof, is available from powerHouse Books.

Excerpt from: 

Who Was Vivian Maier? These Enigmatic Self-Portraits Only Add to the Mystery

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Was Vivian Maier? These Enigmatic Self-Portraits Only Add to the Mystery

Straight Talk, No Chaser – Steve Harvey

by Myrna Posted on March 26, 2013

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Straight Talk, No Chaser

Steve Harvey

Genre: Self-Improvement

Price: $7.99

Publish Date: December 7, 2010

Publisher: HarperCollins e-books

Seller: HarperCollins


In the instant number one New York Times bestseller Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man , Steve Harvey gave millions of women around the globe insight into what men really think about love, intimacy, and commitment. In his new book he zeros in on what motivates men and provides tips on how women can use that knowledge to get more of what they need out of their relationships, whether it's more help around the house, more of the right kind of attention in the bedroom, more money in the joint bank account, or more truth when it comes to the hard questions, such as: Are you committed to building a future together? Does my success intimidate you? Have you cheated on me? In Straight Talk, No Chaser: How to Find, Keep, and Understand a Man , Steve Harvey shares information on: How to Get the Truth Out of Your Man Tired of answers that are deceptive? Harvey lays out a three-tier, CIA-style of questioning that will leave your man no choice but to cut to the chase and deliver the truth. Dating Tips, Decade by Decade Whether you're in your twenties and just starting to date seriously, in your thirties and feeling the tick of the biological clock, or in your forties and beyond, Steve provides insight into what a man, in each decade of his life, is looking for in a mate. How to Minimize Nagging and Maximize Harmony at Home He said he'd cut the lawn on Saturday, and you may have been within reason to think that that meant Saturday before ten in the evening, but exploding at him is only going to ruin the mood for everyone, which means no romance. Steve shows you how to talk to your man in a way that moves him to action and keeps the peace. And there's much more, including Steve's candid answers to questions you've always wanted to ask men. Drawing on a lifetime of experience and the feedback women have shared with him in reaction to Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man , Harvey offers wisdom on a wealth of topics relevant to both sexes today. He also gets more personal, sharing anecdotes from his own family history. Always direct, often funny, and incredibly perceptive, media personality, comedian, philanthropist, and (finally) happily married husband, Steve Harvey proves once again that he is the king of relationships.

View original article:

Straight Talk, No Chaser – Steve Harvey

Posted in alo, FF, GE, HarperCollins e-books, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Straight Talk, No Chaser – Steve Harvey