[tahoe-dev] List server leaves invalid DKIM signatures

[Natanael]

1: Why is this off topic thread still going?

2: You can't make any scientific conclusions based on biased samples. We
don't really have any sets of women and men with circumstances equal enough
to tell what the cause of the differences in these fields is. The actual
scientific studies exist don't show drastic differences in capability, they
suggests that both are equally capable (although there is support for
preference differing on average).

Now, back on topic please.

- Sent from my phone
Den 25 nov 2013 14:04 skrev "James A. Donald" <jamesd at echeque.com>:

> On 2013-11-25 21:48, Lukas Pirl wrote:
>
>> Interesting - are there such correlations for hair colors also?
>>
>
> Darwinism tells us that females are likely to be worse than males at
> certain activities, and better than males at other activities, in
> particular and especially, at creating life.  See Darwin's lengthy
> discussion of sexual selection and male/female differences in "The Descent
> of Man"
>
> This is likely to explain the observed underperformance of females at a
> wide range of activities.  We should no more expect a significant number of
> females in a group selected for exceptional ability in fields that involve
> logic and maths, than a significant number of females in a group selected
> for running fast.
>
> Indeed, if a group selected for running fast had any females at all in it,
> the heavy hand of political correctness would be obvious, and we would
> expect the females in the group to lag conspicuously behind.
>
> There are plenty of women that can run faster than me, but there are no
> women running athletes than can run as fast as a male running athlete.
>
> Since group differences exist, if we select people to perform some
> difficult task, then, if we are highly selective, if the task is hard, some
> groups will be massively overrepresented among those so selected, and some
> groups massively underrepresented, or, quite often, entirely absent.
>
> Women should be content that they are clearly superior at the most
> important job that there is.
>
> Who discovered radon?
>
> The discovery of radon happened at roughly the same time as the discovery
> of radium, and was far more important, because radon revealed that
> radioactivity involved elements decaying from one element into another, the
> transformation of the elements.
>
> The fact that you know who discovered radium, but do not know who
> discovered the other hundred odd elements without looking them up, should
> tell you Marie Curie was not famous for being a scientist, but famous for
> being a *woman* scientist, received her Nobel for doing science while
> female, much as a dancing bear is not famous for dancing well, but because
> it can dance at all.
>
> Indeed Marie Curie did not discover radium.  She was the most junior
> person on the three person team that discovered radium, though the course
> of action that led to the discovery was her idea.  You not only don't
> remember who discovered radon, you do not remember the other two people on
> the team that discovered radium.
>
> If women were equal on average to men in stem fields, you would have a
> more impressive poster girl than Marie Curie.
>
> _______________________________________________
> tahoe-dev mailing list
> tahoe-dev at tahoe-lafs.org
> https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/attachments/20131125/f237bc80/attachment.html>