Kitinä

exPertti kirjoitti:

NuoriD kirjoitti:Naisvihamielisintä koskaan lukemaani tekstiä, G-miehen kirjoitukset ovat naisten ylistystä tähän verrattuna:

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Woman

Lukematta linkkiä voin helpottaa mieltäsi, että tuo "ensyklopedia" on tarkoitettu ihan hauskanpitopaikaksi. Taitaa olla sen porukan, joka tuota kirjoittaa, mottona "There are no real women in internets".

NuoriD kirjoitti:Tiedän kyllä.

exPertti kirjoitti:

NuoriD kirjoitti:Tiedän kyllä.

Joten pointtisi oli? Vähän eri asiana olisin pitänyt jos olisit löytänyt miespuolisen Sofi Oksasen nettisivut.

NuoriD kirjoitti:Tuskin kukaan selväjärkinen kirjoittaisi tuollaista tekstiä. Ymmärtäisit paremmin, jos avaisit ko. linkin.

"A woman is the useless mass of skin around the vagina. Only topic of interest about a woman is whether she spits or swallows (and if she spits, punch her in the cunt, fuck her, then chuck her). It is also wise to remember to jizz in her hair and punch her in the face; remember that women enjoy Domestic_violence. And remember that women are basically worthless, other than their ability to make you ejaculate. " etc.

Krypton and xenon appear in Earth’s atmosphere — and in the universe as a whole — only in trace amounts. Detailed analyses of the gases provide clues about where those atmospheric components originated, says Greg Holland, an isotope geochemist at the University of Manchester in England. Those analyses, reported in the Dec. 11 Science, suggest that those gases, as well as many others now cloaking our planet, arrived via comets or were swept up from nearby gas clouds during the late stages of Earth’s formation.

Senaattori Jeffrey Piccola December 3. 2009 kirjoitti:Some legislators have been contacted by organizations and constituents that have the Commonwealt further withhold Penn State's funding until appropriate action is taken by the university against associate professor Michael E. Mann

The work of Dr Mann and other scientists at the CRU is being used to develop economic and environmental policies in states and countries across the world. Considering the saliency of the work being conducted by the CRU, anything short of the pursuit of absolute science cannot be accepted or tolerated.

NORAD is the bi-national U.S.-Canadian military organization responsible for the aerospace and maritime defense of the United States and Canada. NORAD, created by a 1958 agreement between Canada and the United States, provides advanced warning of impending missile and air attacks against its member nations, safeguards the air sovereignty of North America, and maintains airborne forces for defense against attack.

Kevin Dunbar is a researcher who studies how scientists study things — how they fail and succeed. In the early 1990s, he began an unprecedented research project: observing four biochemistry labs at Stanford University. Philosophers have long theorized about how science happens, but Dunbar wanted to get beyond theory. He wasn’t satisfied with abstract models of the scientific method — that seven-step process we teach schoolkids before the science fair — or the dogmatic faith scientists place in logic and objectivity. Dunbar knew that scientists often don’t think the way the textbooks say they are supposed to. He suspected that all those philosophers of science — from Aristotle to Karl Popper — had missed something important about what goes on in the lab.

The lesson is that not all data is created equal in our mind’s eye: When it comes to interpreting our experiments, we see what we want to see and disregard the rest. The physics students, for instance, didn’t watch the video and wonder whether Galileo might be wrong. Instead, they put their trust in theory, tuning out whatever it couldn’t explain. Belief, in other words, is a kind of blindness.

But this research raises an obvious question: If humans — scientists included — are apt to cling to their beliefs, why is science so successful? How do our theories ever change? How do we learn to reinterpret a failure so we can see the answer?

Modern science is populated by expert insiders, schooled in narrow disciplines. Researchers have all studied the same thick textbooks, which make the world of fact seem settled. This led Kuhn, the philosopher of science, to argue that the only scientists capable of acknowledging the anomalies — and thus shifting paradigms and starting revolutions — are “either very young or very new to the field.” In other words, they are classic outsiders, naive and untenured. They aren’t inhibited from noticing the failures that point toward new possibilities.

This is why other people are so helpful: They shock us out of our cognitive box. “I saw this happen all the time,” Dunbar says. “A scientist would be trying to describe their approach, and they’d be getting a little defensive, and then they’d get this quizzical look on their face. It was like they’d finally understood what was important.”

Manaaja kirjoitti:Slämärikö?