Tree Planter

Why the hell is that? So much quality info and few quality pictures. Like Tree Planter said, copyrights. People being protective of their image and not understanding the nature of wikipedia or photographers just being photographers. Heck the FBI even threatened to sue wiki for including its seal on the bureau's page. Stupid. One would think that his photo from the university's official website, huskers.com, could be used as it's a public entity and such works are often open - for example works of the Federal Government enter the public domain upon their creation (so you can print as many copies of the 9/11 commission report as you want and sell them) but works of state governments are left to the states to release and it looks like they've copyrighted it. Ameer could just take a photo of himself, email it to someone, grant open license and have them upload it. Someone could also take a picture of him and upload it with an open copyright license.

Maybe someone has copyrights to a good picture they can give to Wikipedia?

Ameer made to the front page of Wikipedia in the "Did you know... ... that Ameer Abdullah decided to return for his senior year at Nebraska because "life is bigger than football"?

Ameer made to the front page of Wikipedia in the "Did you know... ... that Ameer Abdullah decided to return for his senior year at Nebraska because "life is bigger than football"?

Here we go. Any idea what film it is they're talking about? This terrorist attack on 9/11/12 was likely an al Qaeda terrorist operation. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13824089-us-wont-rule-out-islamist-militant-link-to-attack-on-us-consulate-in-libya?lite

Most people do not have access to scientific articles without paying a huge price. Psychological Science apparently made that article free, but that is not standard practice. I think that technically speaking, I didn't violate the fair usage rights, since I did break it up and I didn't post the whole article (99% yes). Now, I will give my opinion of the article. Up front: I'm extremely liberal in my politics, but when it comes to science, politics go out the window. To the main UK data (which is the date that really matters), the results are in Table 1. What you see is inferred correlations between latent variables and prejudicial attitudes. Path a is the correlation between g (general measure of intelligence) and right-wing ideology. For the four groups, it ranges from -.15 to -.4. What does this mean? Well, it means that there is a negative correlation between a measure of general intelligence and right-wing ideology. But, is this a meaningful correlation? It is statistically significant, but any deviation from chance is statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. Another way to address this question is to ask what the effect size is and in the case of correlation, we square the correlation to get an estimate of the amount of variation explained by the correlation. In this case, it ranges from 0.025 to .16. So, the correlation does not explain much. Moreover, IQ measure are relatively poor at measuring intelligence. They correlate with school and work performance in the range of about 25% to 50%, with a corresponding effect size of 0.0625 to .25. So, my conclusion is that while there may be a negative statistical relationship between the measure of intelligence and right-wing ideology, it is not meaningful. My conclusion is that being stupid or smart, you are probably just as likely to be a right-winger as not. The same reasoning holds for Path c. Path b, is more troubling. The correlations are much higher ranging from .31 to .69, with corresponding effect sizes of about 0.09 to .48. This suggests that right-wing ideologies do play a meaningful role in prejudicial attitudes. However, I see no meaningful relationship between intelligence and right-wing ideology or prejudicial attitudes. Thus, I have seen nothing to conclude that right-wingers are any stupider than anyone else.

Here is the article: Abstract Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models. LINK

I wonder what his ancestors did to get the name Santorum?

It may come down some, but I doubt in the long run. With climate change, many places in the world will become less productive. Nebraska sits squarely on Ogallala aquifer, which make Nebraska land even more valuable in the long run when there is uncertainty in changing weather patterns.

How about let's just think this through (I know that is a lot to ask). If money and resources were unlimited, then we would all be happy and well off (at least a lot of us). They are not. The top 1% are accumulating wealth (percentage wise) must faster than the rest of the 99% of us. Since money and resources are limited, we are engaged in a type of zero-sum game. The increase in wealth of the top 1% comes at the expense of the other 99%. It doesn't require much thought to realize this is headed. Be sure and save your tin cans, may be the 1% will drop in a few coins.

If you and Pike need a Job, I'm sure Bashar al-Assad would like to hire you to shoot protesters in Syria.

It is an easy answer. The tents were gone, which the police were sent into remove, when the students were pepper sprayed. The police had no lawful basis to move the students. Even if they did, it is illegal to use such brutal force when there is no resistance. They don't even do that in prisons when prisoners do not resist. The chancellor of UC Davis doesn't want to give up her $500,000.00+ year job, but she must go.

The 11 students (mostly girls) did not break any laws. The quad at UC Davis is a public area. No permits are required to sit anywhere. During nice weather, students sit everywhere, including where the students were pepper sprayed. By the time the students were pepper sprayed, the tents were gone. So, the students broke no law and did not resist an illegal assault. The videos give a true and accurate portrayal of what happened.

Actually, the police told the students as they were sitting down that they were going to shoot them all, but I guess they realized that they only brought along rubber bullets, so the pepper sprayed them instead. They almost killed one of them, but it looks like she is going to make it.

If he did decommit, maybe we should be happy about this. Check out his stats this fall: Tyler Gabbert Stat