Archive for January, 2012

Not surpriesed to see fysisists as the smartest. Sumwot surpriesed to see filosofy students do soe wel. Espeshaly skoring hier verbal skors than linguists. Not surpriesed to see edukaeshon and fysikal edukaeshon at the botom. Moest surpriesing for me is that peepl hu study clasiks skor so hie. Mie surpries is probably bekus i never spoek met enywun hu studys that.

Field V-mean M-mean V-SDU M-SDU Average-SDU Difference-SDU
Anatomy 443 568 -0.16 -0.11 -0.13 -0.05
Biochemistry 486 669 0.2 0.56 0.38 -0.36
Biology 477 606 0.13 0.15 0.14 -0.02
Biophysics 523 727 0.51 0.95 0.73 -0.43
Botany 513 626 0.43 0.28 0.35 0.15
Cell & Mol Bio 497 658 0.29 0.49 0.39 -0.2
Ecology 535 638 0.61 0.36 0.49 0.26
Develop Bio 490 623 0.24 0.26 0.25 -0.02
Entomology 505 606 0.36 0.15 0.25 0.22
Genetics 496 651 0.29 0.44 0.36 -0.16
Marine Biology 499 611 0.31 0.18 0.24 0.13
Microbiology 482 615 0.17 0.21 0.19 -0.04
Neuroscience 533 665 0.6 0.54 0.57 0.06
Nutrition 432 542 -0.25 -0.28 -0.27 0.03
Pathology 468 594 0.05 0.07 0.06 -0.02
Pharmacology 429 634 -0.28 0.33 0.03 -0.61
Physiology 464 606 0.02 0.15 0.08 -0.13
Toxicology 465 610 0.03 0.17 0.1 -0.15
Zoology 505 609 0.36 0.17 0.26 0.2
Other Biology 473 626 0.09 0.28 0.19 -0.19
Chemistry, Gen 483 681 0.18 0.64 0.41 -0.47
Chemistry, Analytical 464 652 0.02 0.45 0.23 -0.43
Chemistry, Inorganic 502 690 0.34 0.7 0.52 -0.37
Chemistry, Organic 490 683 0.24 0.66 0.45 -0.42
Chemistry, Pharm 429 647 -0.28 0.42 0.07 -0.69
Chemistry, Physical 513 708 0.43 0.82 0.62 -0.39
Chemistry, Other 477 659 0.13 0.5 0.31 -0.37
Computer Programming 407 681 -0.46 0.64 0.09 -1.1
Computer Science 453 702 -0.08 0.78 0.35 -0.86
Information Science 446 621 -0.13 0.25 0.06 -0.38
Atmospheric Science 490 673 0.24 0.59 0.41 -0.35
Environ Science 493 615 0.26 0.21 0.23 0.06
Geochemistry 514 657 0.44 0.48 0.46 -0.05
Geology 495 625 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.01
Geophysics 487 676 0.21 0.61 0.41 -0.4
Paleontology 531 621 0.58 0.25 0.41 0.33
Meteology 470 663 0.07 0.52 0.3 -0.46
Epidemiology 485 610 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.02
Immunology 492 662 0.25 0.52 0.38 -0.26
Nursing 452 531 -0.08 -0.35 -0.22 0.27
Actuarial Science 460 726 -0.02 0.94 0.46 -0.96
Applied Math 487 730 0.21 0.97 0.59 -0.76
Mathematics 523 740 0.51 1.03 0.77 -0.52
Probability & Stats 486 728 0.2 0.95 0.58 -0.75
Math, Other 474 715 0.1 0.87 0.48 -0.77
Astronomy 525 706 0.53 0.81 0.67 -0.28
Astrophysics 540 727 0.66 0.95 0.8 -0.29
Atomic Physics 522 739 0.5 1.03 0.77 -0.52
Nuclear Physicsl 506 715 0.37 0.87 0.62 -0.5
Optics 495 729 0.28 0.96 0.62 -0.68
Physics 540 743 0.66 1.05 0.85 -0.4
Planetary Science 545 694 0.7 0.73 0.71 -0.03
Solid State Physics 514 743 0.44 1.05 0.74 -0.62
Physics, Other 519 723 0.48 0.92 0.7 -0.44
Chemical Engineering 490 729 0.24 0.96 0.6 -0.72
Civil Engineering 456 705 -0.05 0.8 0.38 -0.85
Computer Engineering 465 716 0.03 0.87 0.45 -0.85
Electrical Engineering 465 722 0.03 0.91 0.47 -0.89
Industrial Engineering 426 699 -0.3 0.76 0.23 -1.06
Operations Research 483 743 0.18 1.05 0.61 -0.88
Materials Science 509 728 0.39 0.95 0.67 -0.56
Mechanical Engineering 471 721 0.08 0.91 0.49 -0.83
Aerospace Engineering 498 725 0.3 0.93 0.62 -0.63
Biomedical Engineering 504 717 0.35 0.88 0.62 -0.53
Nuclear Engineering 500 720 0.32 0.9 0.61 -0.58
Petroleum Engineering 414 676 -0.4 0.61 0.1 -1.01
Anthropology 532 562 0.59 -0.15 0.22 0.73
Economics 508 707 0.39 0.81 0.6 -0.43
International Relations 531 588 0.58 0.03 0.3 0.55
Political Science 523 574 0.51 -0.07 0.22 0.58
Clinical Psychology 484 554 0.18 -0.2 -0.01 0.38
Cognitive Psychology 532 627 0.59 0.28 0.44 0.3
Community Psychology 441 493 -0.18 -0.6 -0.39 0.43
Counseling Psychology 444 500 -0.15 -0.56 -0.35 0.41
Developmental Psychology 476 563 0.12 -0.14 -0.01 0.26
Psychology 476 546 0.12 -0.25 -0.07 0.37
Quantitative Psychology 515 629 0.45 0.3 0.37 0.15
Social Psychology 518 594 0.47 0.07 0.27 0.4
Sociology 490 541 0.24 -0.28 -0.02 0.52
Criminal Justice/Criminology 418 477 -0.37 -0.71 -0.54 0.34
Art history 536 549 0.62 -0.23 0.2 0.85
Music History 536 596 0.62 0.08 0.35 0.54
Drama 514 541 0.44 -0.28 0.08 0.72
Music History 490 559 0.24 -0.17 0.03 0.4
Creative Writing 553 540 0.76 -0.29 0.24 1.06
Classical Language 619 633 1.32 0.32 0.82 0.99
Russian 584 611 1.03 0.18 0.6 0.85
American History 533 541 0.6 -0.28 0.16 0.88
European History 554 555 0.77 -0.19 0.29 0.97
History of Science 596 661 1.13 0.51 0.82 0.62
Philosophy 591 630 1.08 0.3 0.69 0.78
Classics 609 616 1.24 0.21 0.72 1.02
Comp Lit 591 588 1.08 0.03 0.56 1.06
Linguistics 566 630 0.87 0.3 0.59 0.57
Elementary Education 438 520 -0.2 -0.42 -0.31 0.22
Early Childhood Education 420 497 -0.35 -0.58 -0.46 0.22
Secondary Education 484 576 0.18 -0.05 0.07 0.24
Special Education 424 497 -0.32 -0.58 -0.45 0.26
Physical Education 389 487 -0.61 -0.64 -0.63 0.03
Finance 466 721 0.03 0.91 0.47 -0.87
Business Adminstraiton 434 570 -0.24 -0.09 -0.16 -0.14
Communication 458 517 -0.03 -0.44 -0.24 0.41
Theology 537 583 0.63 -0.01 0.31 0.64
Social Work 428 463 -0.29 -0.8 -0.54 0.52

This wil be very interesting indeed. How ar thae going to handl this wun?

  • Governments need to get rid of fysikal muny befor it bekums posibl to just print them for les than thae ar wurth. I predikt that this wil not taek meny yeers.
  • How wil the manufactors of 3D-printers themselvs handl the situaeshon? Wen peepl kan just print their oen printers insted of bieing them, hou wil thae maek muny? A frend of mien sujests that thae wil maek muny from seling the materials uesed to print of. That sounds reesonabl.
  • Printing other personaliezed items is just the nekst step from ordering unik t-shurts from siets such as

I stumbld upon this:

It seems lejit i.e., not a hoex.

Heer is a good analysis of the wurk in kwestshon:

Reeding this stuf just maeks me eeven mor want to to reed: however i kant fiend it on the net enywear. Yet!

Chomsky seems to hav been spot on wen he roet or saed (perhaps, kudnt fiend a gud sors on this kwoet)

“There are lots of things I don’t understand — say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat’s last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I’m interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. — even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest — write things that I also don’t understand, but (1) and (2) don’t hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven’t a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of “theory” that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) … I won’t spell it out.”

Kwit in protest and sum koments

Mor bakground

“He said: “There is a view – and the Home Secretary takes this view – that you cannot make a comparison and it is misleading because some things are legal and other things are illegal.

“I think there are a significant number of people who agree with me as well that these kinds of comparisons are useful. I certainly didn’t intend to cause offence to the victims of ecstasy or their families. One death is one too many.”

But his earlier comments were criticised by victims’ families. Pauline Sumner, whose daughter Julie died in 2000 in Birmingham after her drink was spiked with half a tab of ecstasy, said: “Maybe Prof Nutt should try losing a daughter to that drug the way I did and perhaps he wouldn’t be so flippant about it in future.“

The stupid. It hurts.

The ieronikal thing is that the inkreesing strength of the drugs is itself a result of drug policys. The reeson for that is this: the drugs ar ileegal in English, so thae ar prodoosed outsied English and imported. Wen importing ileegal things, it is much beter if the material is as smorl as posibl. Wun wae of doing this is to inkrees the strength of the produkt. This hapens for meny drugs cf. Leap’s End Prohibition Now!.

The sientifik paepers

Equasy — An overlooked addiction with implications for the current debate on drug harms

“The current maximum penalties are as follows: Class A drugs: for possession – 7-year imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine; for supply – life imprisonment and/or fine; Class B drugs: for possession – 5-year imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine; for supply – 14-year imprisonment and/or fine; Class C drugs: For possession – 2-year imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine; For supply – 14-year imprisonment and/or fine.”

Thae must be kraezy! Lief sentens for seling MDMA or LSD? Idiots.

The paeper is graet. I wud kwout the gud parts but the problem is that it is oenly a fue pajes long. If i kwoeted the gud stuf, i wud hav to kwoet the entier paeper!

Other paepers


Drug harms in the UK a multicriteria decision analysis

Because of clarity, I feel that I should write this review in standard English. (How boring!) The book can be downloaded here: or from my mirror (in one file) here: New Spelling book

First, the book contains an unusual high number of mistakes. From their style, it seems that they are the result not of OCR software, but of the human typer writing it wrongly. Since the book is from the 1940s, it was not written on a computer (well, it is technically possible but unlikely). These errors should be fixed as they can sometimes throw the reader off. This is especially important because this is the kind of material where the spelling is important. (For an example see the two tables from the book, reproduced below).

Second, when the authors present the reformed/nonstandard/proposed new spelling of a word, they often do not write the old spelling which sometimes makes it very hard to guess which word they are referring to. This is pretty annoying.

Third, the book lacks phonetic symbolism making it somewhat harder to know which sounds the authors are referring to, especially given the second problem above. The book contains two summaries of the proposal. I will try to put them in phonetic symbols and with the standard spelling of the respelled words. Here they are first in unaltered form:

Table 1

Table 2

And here is my table:

Table 3 – New Spelling proposal (with extra examples by me)

Sound Spelling Examples
p p pin
b b bin
t t tin
d d din
k k kin, cat→kat, can→kan
g g got
f f fat
v v vat
s s set
z z zest
ʧ ch chat
ʤ j jet, jinn, ginger→jinjer
h h hot
l l lot
r r rot
w w win
wh wh whim
y y yet
m m met
n n net
ŋ ng (nk) sing (thank)
x kh Loch→lokh
ʃ sh shut
ʒ zh vision→vizhon
θ th thing
ð dh this→dhis
short vowels
æ a bat
ɛ e bet, net, let, fed
ɪ i pit, fit, nit, lit
ɒ o pot, lot, slot
ʌ u but, cut→kut
ʊ oo good, should→shood
ə(r) er sister, mister, lister
long vowels/diphthongs
ɑː aa father→faadher
ɑːr ar far, starry→stary
ae made→maed
ɛə ae fair→faer
ee feel, peel, seal→seel
ɪə ee fear→feer
ɔː au haul, draw→drau
ɔː (?) or short, horn, north
əʊ oe foe, low, go→goe, so→soe
uu noon→nuun, soon→suun
ʊə uu poor→puur
ie lie, fie, pie, cry→krie
aɪə ie lier, fire→fier, mire→mier
ou count→kount, town→toun
aʊə ou sour, our, flour, flower→flour
ɔɪ oi coin→koin
ɔɪə oi employer→emploir
juː ue hue, new→nue, few→fue
jʊə ue pure→puer,
ɜː ur fur, purr→pur, sir→sur

-OR-, -AU-, -AW-

Some of the proposed changes are strange, perhaps owing to the time gap between when this book was written and English (England-English) pronunciation today. I don’t agree that there is a distinction between the vowel in “short” and in “haul”, and OED agrees with me. Supposing that there is no important difference here, which spelling should be used? I think that it is best to settle on one of the proposed spelling, and simply choose the one that is used the most. From their data on p. 57, it seems one has to choose between -OR-, -AU-, -AW-. Each of them has problems but I think -OR- is by far the most commonest, both in terms of words with it and in terms of words with it used. The very common word “or” has it. Choosing either of the other proposals results in a respelling of that very common word, unless we want to keep its spelling inconsistent with the rest of the system (more on this later). Still, choosing -OR- results in lots of homographs “ore”→”or”, “awe”→”or” (results in things like “stand in or”). Perhaps context will clear it up, I suspect so, but it will be odd, very odd to begin with.

-OO- and -UU- and -U-

Then there is the deal with -OO- and -UU- and -U-. Some of the simplifications that are made in Cut Spelling cannot be made with this proposed, e.g. “should”→”shud”, “could”→”cud/kud”, “true”→”tru” “would”→”wud”. I’m not so sure it is a good idea to go for this maximalistic phonetic direction when there are some useful and already in use reformed spellings that we would have to discard. Perhaps it is just better to make -U- ambiguous between /ʊ/ and /ʌ/. This gives shorter spellings although less phonetic. Although this also results in things like “book”→”buk”. Perhaps in the future, after a such reform, one could introduce a diacritical sign to distinguish them if they are a problem. We need not go after a perfect system to begin with.

They, their, there

The proposed changes result in three homographs for some very commonly used words. This result seems particularly disturbing when reading and writing text in New Spelling. One gets things like “Dhae see dhe pursons oever dhaer and thaer animals”. I.e., New Spelling results in the same homograph with “there” and “their” as does Cut Spelling, and with “they” coming close as well. Perhaps it is best to adopt a word-sign/logograph for such words? Or just a strange spelling to avoid confusing homographs. Phonetics does not automatically weigh more than other trouble with a language. It is important to be pragmatic when reforming a language. The authors does in fact discuss adopting word-signs/logographs, see page 101 in the appendix.

-TH- and -DH-

The authors propose to distinguish in the spelling between these two very common sounds. They choose the least economic decision, i.e. to represent /ð/ with -DH- a completely new digraph. This results, ofc, in a staggering number of changes and especially to very common (the commonest?) word in english: “the”. This gives a very strong reason not to change anything here, or at least choose a more economic solution. The authors note when they note that this is the linguistically most optimal solution (page 29), but it is so staggering uneconomic that it has to be chosen as the last alternative. There are two other options worth considering: 1) Keep the current system. Yes, the spelling -TH- will be ambiguous. But is this really a problem? I seldom if ever come across someone who has chosen the wrong sound here. 2) Adopt the reverse change, i.e., use -DH- for /θ/, and keep -TH- for /ð/. This does not make much sense linguistically (especially not inre. to IPA), but it very economical and still results in a very phonetic system. In light of the above, I think it is best to keep the current system.

-S and -Z in plurals

The authors propose to use add different letters to words in their inflexion so that they fit with the distinction between /s/ and /z/. This seems to me to be completely unnecessary. I rather keep the current -S system no matter if the sound is /s/ or /z/. The preceding consonant will indicate whether the sound is voiced or not anyway.

Theoretical thoughts

Perhaps the best part of the proposal are the remarks made in the introduction (page 11-17) about how to reform a language. It almost exactly mirrors those remarks I laid out when I wrote my proposal about how to reform the Danish orthography.

Final remarks

There is much interesting material to be found in this reform proposal and that, and along with its useful theoretical remarks, and its short length, makes it a must read for any language reformer. It is especially useful to compare it with the Cut Spelling proposal.

I hav torked about raeses and intelijens/IQ/g befor and refered to Rushton and Jensen’s 2005 paeper about it. However, i reesently found a dokumentary on raes and intelijens. It is not partikularly gud but it prompted me to look a bit mor at the evidens. I diskovered that the Rushton and Jensen (2005) is aktualy the target artikl of an isue of that jurnal. I then downloeded orl the other relevant paepers in that isue of the jurnal and red them. Rather than maeking me dout their konklushons, the paepers bie the kritiks maed me mor konfident about the hereditarian theory. Their arguments ar soe bad that it maeks me wonder if thoes ar the best arguments agaenst the hereditarian theory around. I wil poest the paepers heer so the interested reeder kan see for himself.


Robert J. Sternberg – THERE ARE NO PUBLIC-POLICY IMPLICATIONS A Reply to Rushton and Jensen (2005)

Richard E. Nisbett – HEREDITY, ENVIRONMENT, AND RACE DIFFERENCES IN IQ A Commentary on Rushton and Jensen (2005)




So, i aktualy roet sum filosofy for a chanj and the analytik kiend. Heer is the paeper i handed in for mie eksam in Filosofikal Lojik. I plan on ekspanding the paeper to a book-ish length projekt. I had to eksklood multipl things in moe paeper bekus i ran out of spaes (limited to 15 pajes, = 15·2400 symbols).

Towards a logic of questions and answers

Liek TorrentFreak, i think it is a gud idea to poest TPB’s publik staetment in ful bekus it is very gud. Enjoi.


Over a century ago Thomas Edison got the patent for a device which would “do for the eye what the phonograph does for the ear”. He called it the Kinetoscope. He was not only amongst the first to record video, he was also the first person to own the copyright to a motion picture.

Because of Edison’s patents it was close to financially impossible to create motion pictures in the North American East Coast. The movie studios therefore relocated to California, and founded what we today call Hollywood. The reason was mostly because there were no patents. There was also no copyright to speak of, so the studios could copy old stories and make movies out of them – like Fantasia, one of Disney’s biggest hits ever.

So, the whole basis of this industry, that today is screaming about losing control over immaterial rights, is that they circumvented immaterial rights. They copied (or put in their terminology: “stole”) other people’s creative works, without paying for them. They did it in order to make a huge profit. Today, they’re all successful and most of the studios are on the Fortune 500 list of the richest companies in the world. Congratulations – it’s all based on being able to re-use other people’s creative works. And today they hold the rights to what other people create. If you want to get something released, you have to abide by their rules. The ones they created after circumventing other people’s rules.

The reason they are always complaining about “pirates” today is simple. We’ve done what they did. We circumvented the rules they created and created our own. We crushed their monopoly by giving people something more efficient. We allow people to have direct communication between each other, circumventing the profitable middle man, that in some cases take over 107% of the profits (yes, you pay to work for them). It’s all based on the fact that we’re competition. We’ve proven that their existence in their current form is no longer needed. We’re just better than they are.

And the funny part is that our rules are very similar to the founding ideas of the USA. We fight for Freedom of Speech. We see all people as equal. We believe that the public, not the elite, should rule the nation. We believe that laws should be created to serve the public, not the rich corporations.

The Pirate Bay is truly an international community. The team is spread all over the globe – but we’ve stayed out of the USA. We have Swedish roots and a Swedish friend said this: The word SOPA means “trash” in Swedish. The word PIPA means “a pipe” in Swedish. This is of course not a coincidence. They want to make the internet into a one way pipe, with them at the top, shoving trash through the pipe down to the rest of us obedient consumers. The public opinion on this matter is clear. Ask anyone on the street and you’ll learn that noone wants to be fed with trash. Why the US government want the American people to be fed with trash is beyond our imagination but we hope that you will stop them, before we all drown.

SOPA can’t do anything to stop TPB. Worst case we’ll change top level domain from our current .org to one of the hundreds of other names that we already also use. In countries where TPB is blocked, China and Saudi Arabia springs to mind, they block hundreds of our domain names. And did it work? Not really. To fix the “problem of piracy” one should go to the source of the problem. The entertainment industry say they’re creating “culture” but what they really do is stuff like selling overpriced plushy dolls and making 11 year old girls become anorexic. Either from working in the factories that creates the dolls for basically no salary or by watching movies and TV shows that make them think that they’re fat.

In the great Sid Meiers computer game Civilization you can build Wonders of the World. One of the most powerful ones is Hollywood. With that you control all culture and media in the world. Rupert Murdoch was happy with MySpace and had no problems with their own piracy until it failed. Now he’s complaining that Google is the biggest source of piracy in the world – because he’s jealous. He wants to retain his mind control over people and clearly you’d get a more honest view of things on Wikipedia and Google than on Fox News.

Some facts (years, dates) are probably wrong in this press release. The reason is that we can’t access this information when Wikipedia is blacked out. Because of pressure from our failing competitors. We’re sorry for that.”

This is among the stranjest peeses of porn/seksualy eksplisit material that i hav seen. But it is rather funy and interesting.

The creatures are licking Alice’s body for water to dry her up. One green creature procedes up her leg and gets to her thigh…
Alice: I think that’s enough
Green creature: Why?
Alice: It makes me feel funny
Green creature: Does it feel bad?
Alice: Not exactly, just funny.
Green creature: Not good?
Alice: Well, maybe. Yea, I guess you could say that it feels good.
Green creature: Well then…
Alice: Well if it feels good there is a good chance that it must be bad.
The creatures: *laughter*
Brown creature: Alice, if it feels good it is good. Learn to trust yourself.


The quote is from around 16:30.

Alice in Wonderland: An X-Rated Musical Comedy brought to you by PornHub