The study was done in only one perspective, wich is adding women to a group of men. In other words, men perform better in the presence of women. Next should be trying to add women to more women, or maybe adding men to a group of women, in order to have a bigger picture about how the collective intelligence works when mixing genders.
They studied a number of things and "... when they controlled for the number of women in a group, it was shown that it was the emotional sensitivity scores which won out."
Whatever its merits or flaws, the study was not simply about adding women to groups of men.
1) I read the article
2) Did they try adding women to a women only group ?
3) Did they try adding men to a women only group ?
4) Did they try adding more women to a mixed group ?
5) Did they try adding more men to a mixed group ?
6) Did they try to remove all men from a group and replace them by women ?
6) Does this have to do with women being in a group, or does this just have to do with the group having elements from both genders collaborating ? The conclusions made in the article ,to me, seems more buzz-seeking than enriching.
I think you're severely misunderstanding what it is they did in this experiment. The overall emphasis was not at all on the gender of the participants. As the article took pains to point out, they formed the groups based on a variety of intelligence scores - not gender.
Initially, they discovered that the most significant factors were "the high average social sensitivity of group members, a high rate of sharing who gets to communicate, and more females". Then they controlled for the number of females in each group, and discovered that the number of females actually didn't matter so much - the women in the study were just more likely (than the men) to have high social sensitivity, so a team with many women would be more likely to do well. But a team consisting of all men would also do very well, as long as you made sure to pick men with high social sensitivity.
The Bible is written in three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) so running any sort of analysis would be difficult, and in any case I'm not sure what it'd tell us.
Running an analysis on the translation into English would rather depend on what translation you were using. For instance the King James Bible is rather heavy on the now-obsolete "thee/thou" forms, whereas a modern translation isn't.
Perhaps analyzing translations themselves would be fruitful. Compare them to other translations, or to other works by the same authors (for the translator-authors), etc.
No, poor mistranslation there.
"We have certainly created man in the best of stature;
Then We return him to the lowest of the low,
Except for those who believe and do righteous deeds, for they will have a reward uninterrupted."
"The Fig" 95:4-6
Until I'd read that I'd not realised what a powerful play the royal we is. It's an attempt to craft the identity of the listener into the project of the speaker. In its own way a hack - it makes for our reasoning via our language processing.
What if my email provider, let's call it @MySuperAwesomeEmailProvider.com just goes out of business and decided to stop the service. Then I can't answer to the emails you will "life-ping" me with. And I won't even be able to change my email address on your system because I would have lost my account password. And then the next day, I don't think I would be able to go out.
Do you have a policy for how users can _prove_ that they are who they're claiming to be ?
Can you handle having _too_many_ users under the terms of that policy ?
The only proof we have is the email validation, but the service doesn't claim to actually be a will. It's more about emailing your friends or family one last time.
I don't understand the question about too many users, can you clarify?
I do care, this shows that Mark is following G+ moves, wich also can indicate that Mark is acknowledging the fact that G+ is a direct competitor to FB. and also, You can prove it yourself :
1) Add Mark to a circle.
2) You will see him popup in the list of people in your circles who have played the game
The only thing this indicates is that Mark is keeping tabs on the latest hot news. It means that when a reporter asks him the question "Do you think G+ is a competitor to Facebook?" then he can give answer. The answer could be a simple no, but unless he's actually used G+ how could he honestly answer that question?
I'm talking about a beautifull user interface and user experience, that would make your life on Linux more enjoyable, be it using a text editor, browsing your file system, watching a movie or even clicking a button. I'm not talking about applications, nor about what you can run or what you can't run on it, and no, I don't use photoshop, nor play Portal. I have a mac, and I have a Gentoo too. Tried Ubuntu, and fell in love with fedora once. If you are happy with your GTK, I am not. I'm sad for the limited options I have. And don't tell me "build it yourself" this is the way open source works, because I've been there, I tried, and it didn't work so well. Projects like this need financial support. Long financial support. And no, Linux is NOT a desktop. And finally, please, stop being against the idea of a beautiful Linux desktop.
A better desktop environment.
People have said the same thing with the Chrome browser before. "What would Google do which makes their flavor of a browser better than others? Well I guess, a lot.
