huj123

Steam used to have password crackers out there, not sure about now

Look up example questions for the Loebner Prize, and see if you can tweak your bot to answer some of them.

Reminds me of a winner of the World’s Worst Sentence award:

"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."

The left wing, whatever it's worth, is certainly not rejecting the theory of evolution. Just because men are evolutionarily predisposed to go to war doesn't mean that not wanting them to go to war is rejecting the theory of evolution.

There is definitely a bias in academia against explaining why the world is the way it is in biological terms. Look at what happened to Larry Summers. Watch the Norwegian documentary Hjernevask (Brainwash) (it's on the net with English subtitles). The psychologist Robert Plomin said this in an interview:

‘My very first conference was by this old guy Leon Kamin, the author of a book called The Science and Politics of IQ,’ says Plomin. ‘Kamin came back to academia just so as to stop this pernicious stuff about genetics entering psychology.

...Then he started saying: “We’ve got to stop this talk of genetics now!” And I realised it didn’t matter to Kamin what was true. He believed in what he called “science for the people”, which was what he thought it would be useful for the people to know. I mean, that killed me because it was Kamin and these elite Harvard professors deciding what’s for the people! The idea was that science should serve politics.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intell...

Suggesting that violence may have a biological basis is a taboo for many people. For example, consider this commentary on a recent study on Chimpanzee violence. The popular explanation has been that the reason they do it is because of human interference, not biology:

Prof Frans de Waal, an animal behaviour expert from Emory University in the US, said the new study was an important contribution.

"I'm very glad they're publishing this," he told BBC News. It answers a "long, long history of resistance", Prof de Waal explained, to the idea of natural, inter-community violence in chimpanzees.

"It has always been contentious - we've had meetings where people screamed at each other.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29237276

If those on the left are fine with accepting evolution, then why would the biological explanation have a long history of resistance? Why would it be contentious?

Plenty on the left do deny/ignore evolution when it comes to topics in human society.

The highest predictor of academic success, is the academic success of ones parents. The next highest predictor is the socio-economic status of ones parents (or guardians).

Of course they are, but the confounding factor is genes shared between the parents and children. What do adoption studies say about those 2 variables?

The achievement gap is the result of stark socioeconomic inequality.

The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker came out in 2002 and showed why this thinking is flawed. The achievement gap is significantly caused by genetic differences, and the correlation to income is not totally causation. The term used by geneticists "heritability" gives the proportion of differences between people (within a population), on some trait, that is caused by genetic differences. The traits that will determine your success at school, like personality and IQ are significantly heritable.

Here's a recent study from the UK that looked at identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic) twins and gave heritability estimates for different school subjects: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/42/15273

Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131211185323.ht...

The researchers found that for compulsory core subjects (English, Mathematics and Science), genetic differences between students explain on average 58% of the differences between GCSE scores. In contrast, 29% of the differences in core subject grades are due to shared environment -- such as schools, neighbourhoods or families which twins share. The remaining differences in GCSE scores were explained by non-shared environment, unique to each individual.

Overall, science grades (such as Biology, Chemistry, Physics) were found to be more heritable than Humanities grades (such as Media Studies, Art, Music) -- 58% vs 42%, respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall#Controversy_af...

People have looked for the evidence for his claim but can't find it. I've had people repeat the claim to me and cite Grossman or Marshall, but when I asked them to give a specific source for it they couldn't.

I focused on lessons I had learned reading Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s book “On Killing,”

Dave Grossman reportedly cites someone named S. L. A. Marshall who made the claim that only a small percentage of infantry ever fired their weapons, to support the idea that most people have some natural reluctance to kill in battle. I just want to point out that there is zero evidence for this claim: https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/shoot-to-kill/

The "genetic determinism" thing is just a strawman. No scientists believe that genes alone determine everything about a person. For example the heritability of height in the US is 90%~, and no one says that it's 100%.