Slashdot Mirror

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/world/americas/25mexico.html?_r=1

You're quoting a Wikipedia article about the nutcase Kevin Phillips?

I used Keven Phillips because he is about as Republican as you can get without the white robes and burning crosses. I could have used a litany other sources, but then I'd be accused of lib'rul bias.

To put it another way, your numbers are wrong just like Phillips is.

Did you want to contribute any actual evidence to counter the original point, or just try re-frame the topic with a smear? You wingnuts are so pathetically predictable. (See? Smear! Let's not talk about the actual problem!)

There is *no* shortage of general practitioners in actual fact, on a broad basis. Every time I look for a doctor in a new area, I find hundreds of family and general practices that are accepting new patients. (These are listed in the insurance provider directory.)

So, as seems to be usual case here on slashdot, you are saying that your personally limited anecdotal evidence trumps the information provided by administration officials who presumably have country-wide statistics on rural and urban demographics and trends at their disposal. Sure.

"Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, pressed an amendment that would strike a provision from the bill that prohibits terror suspects from challenging their detention in the courts. ''What the bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years,'' said Mr. Specter, who traced the ability to challenge one's detention to the Magna Carta"

Try a little foresight :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/global/28drug.html?_r=1

Btw, a few percents for the big medicinals -is- skyrocketing. They'll come back down, but the people playing these markets will already have their gains. /nokarmabonus

I've also worked at a national lab (Argonne, near Chicago), where I did nuclear physics research, and although the other scientists I worked with there were nice people, and very honest and competent, I have to agree with AC's general assessment of the inefficiency of government-funded research. The big problem with government-funded research (which, in dollar terms, is almost all science and engineering research) is the same as the big problem with all research: the problem is that the vast majority of articles published of journals are of absolutely no interest to anyone, even people in the relevant sub-subfield. There are simply too many smart, highly motivated people chasing after too few possibilities for research. The publish-or-perish mentality encourages everyone to pad their c.v. with a gazillion publications, each of which is basically not important. The AC's remarks about the political momentum that keeps research programs going, regardless of results, is also spot-on. I think the US government could cut funding for basic research to 1/3 of its current level with essentially no negative effect on the amount of valuable science produced. All that would happen would be that fewer people would participating in the easter egg hunt, but all the really good easter eggs would end up getting found anyway.

A particularly egregious example of government waste was the Nixon administration's war on cancer. Sounded great, right? We all want to cure cancer, right? Well, the problem is that cancer researchers spent the last 40 years trying to fulfill Nixon's pledge to find a complete cure for cancer Real Soon Now, rather than working on the fundamental biology of cancer. The results? Since 1976, the death rate from cancer has only dropped by 5%, when you control for all the other variables.

Another example is the crewed space program. The shuttle's only purpose is to get people to the ISS, and the only purpose of the ISS is to give the shuttle somewhere to go. If you compare the bang for the buck that we get from uncrewed space probes to what we get from the crewed space program, it's like night and day -- and yet scientific research keeps being offered as a justification for a government-funded crewed space program.

I similar set of events occurred during the big tobacco lawsuits. Some testimony was sealed and later opened, some remains sealed. Some of the former was from the tobacco comany researcher Dr. Jeffery Wigand. His story is the basis for the movie "The Insider". NYT has an archive of articles from throughout the course of the suits at: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/jeffrey_wigand/index.html

Some of the latter was from another tobacco company researcher named Pele, who worked out the biochemical mechanism of nicotine addiction. After his employer quashed news of the results, he leaked the details to a news magazine (either Time or Newsweek, I forget which), Subsequently all his testimony and work was sealed, he was fired and prevented from working in that field any more.

After these and similar testimonies that were greatly damaging to the companies' claims, the lawsuits suddenly sped up and concluded with the companies paying out US$280Bn. It was speculated that had the testimony been public and the suits based on the claims therein (ie. they themselves had the proof of nicotine addiction, something they'd denied existed), the companies would have been fined a great deal more, or possibly forced to sell out.

We can only hope that what's been sealed and discussed is so damaging to the RIAA that the judge is telling them to defend against it would require perjury, and he's giving them a chance to back off, settle before it gets a lot worse for them, and go lick their wounds.

One thing you can be sure of, and happened in the tobacco suits, if the companies lose and are fined, the amount they pay out will be made up by price increases. All buyers will end up paying the fine. And once they've covered the cost of the fines, they'll leave the price where it was moved up to, and rake in even more.

"When President Obama learned of the episode on Monday afternoon, aides said, he, too, was furious. Senior administration officials conveyed the presidentâ(TM)s anger in a meeting with Mr. Caldera on Monday afternoon." Source: NYTimes http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/air-force-one-backup-rattles-new-york-nerve/

If a man with free healthcare breaks his leg in the forest and there's no doctor to treat it, does he still have free healthcare?

The New York Times recently reported:

The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.

Some of the newly insured patients still rely on hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care,. said Erica L. Drazen, a health policy analyst at Computer Sciences Corporation.

Also, Taxation isn't the only way to pay. There is also inflation.

Interesting & thoughtful response. I wonder if/how having two flues going around will interfere with each other?

Question-- did you post the same note #7 as "BR" on the NYTimes or was someone ehem, engaging in fair use?

W

This isn't genetically engineered, it's a side effect of bad farming practices.

In the same way we've managed to infect our pigs with MRSA http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15kristof.html I think we've managed to kick up yet another variant..

Signs are pointing to a Smithfields Farms hog-farm in Veracruz where the outbreak originated. http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-25-swine-flu-smithfield/

I'm not arguing for us to go back to sticks and weeds for our food supply, but if you set up a farming environment where the only way to guarantee survival of your animals is continual, therapeutic antibiotics, you're doing it wrong.

I am an industrial mathematician in Finance and this is not a rant. Mathematical finance pays well. Not as well as people say (ususally) and those jobs that do pay are generally hellish in terms of hours and stress. That said there is no comparing pay in finance and, say, topology. That is part of why I entered the field in 1998. Now the landscape is different. There are thousands of new quants entering the field every year, and the university departments make money on the tuition of almost every one, especially the math departments. The best people will be paid very well. However the long term outlook for the quant labor market has negative pressure on wages becuase of increasing supply and diminishing demand. Alphas are going down for quant strategies. There is lots of data available to support this. That means less money coming in. The game is getting harder. I would look at areas to look at large data sets such as Bayesian methods or times series or other computational mathematics. The revolution in biology is going to make some very hard math problems, as will the enormous databases that are popping up all over. Check out Hal Varian for a taste of what I mean. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/hal-varian-answers-your-questions/ By the way, take numerical analysis. The course sucked for me, but it has proved so helpful in so many situations it is not even funny. Best of luck, Edwastaken

You'll have to forgive my mild sarcasm, but isn't the singularity something that only exists in the context of New York Times editorials?

If we want to consider Google as part of the so-called singularity, bits such as this insight are worrying:

One candidate got a C in macroeconomics. "That's troubling to me," Ms. Mayer says. "Good students are good at all things."

Where's the space for normal folks? I pride myself upon having a broad range of interests, but quake in terror at the idea that a candidate who received a C in a subject distantly related to his field isn't even considered.

The flu has (very likely) already hit Queens, NY. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/nyregion/25sick.html?_r=1&hp

i describe an intellectually dishonest point of view, and you come in with a comment which is exactly that point of view i am trying to describe

if you are trying to be slyly humorous: haha

if you are actually so dense as to miss the irony: it is perfectly appropriate to criticize china from a point of view of principles, having nothing whatsoever to do with western nationalistic agendas

lookie here:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/controlling-the-chinese-people/

so when taiwan and hong kong go apeshit over jackie chan's remarks, which are clearly pandering to the regime in beijing, are the hong kong and the taiwanese merely puppets of western nationalism in your point of view? or are they angry at jackie chan out of their own independent principles?

actually, its funny, because your words are exactly what the propaganda mouthpieces in beijing say all the time when someone tries to criticize beijing from inside china: they are stool pigeons of the west and they are serving china's enemies. as if you can't criticize china, even if you are fucking chinese, without being some sort of secret agent. that any criticism of beijing only weakens china: as if internal debate within china can't actually STRENGTHEN china. no, there's only one point of view from beijing, and it can never be wrong and it can never be questioned. pfffffft

why is it impossible for you to perceive that you can criticize china on the grounds of purely principles, having nothing whatsoever to do with western nationalism? maybe even what motivates you is love of china when you criticize beijing? imagine fucking that!

do you believe the slashdot editors are serving secret masters at the cia? or perhaps the slashdot editors are neocon dick cheney sympathisers? gee, maybe the editors see a genuine issue, and report it, out of purely principled reasons? naah.. impossible! secret nationalist agendas EVERYWHERE!!! ;-P

in your worldview, everyone is just acting on a nationalistic agenda. no one can be motivated on principles. you're fucking retarded

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html

Maybe he's friends with Anton Scalia:

Besides Thomas, Scalia also took part in the decision while a close relative had a substantial interest in the outcome. Scalia's son Eugene is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, where one of the senior partners is Theodore B. Olson, who argued Bush's case before the Supreme Court.

Scalia refused to recuse himself from Bush v. Gore, although the lead lawyer for the plaintiff was, in effect, his son's boss. He took the same position in the various legal proceedings that accompanied the impeachment of Bill Clinton, beginning with the Supreme Court's decision to permit Paula Jones to proceed with her lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment, in which Olson provided legal assistance.

and

WASHINGTON - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused on Thursday to remove himself from a case about Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, even though their recent duck-hunting trip raised questions about his impartiality.

But then, hackery has never been much of a problem

But Scalia's liberal critics have a point: His moral views have a habit of grafting themselves onto his constitutional philosophy. No one expects him to be a libertarian; he has stressed that his opposition to expanded federal power applies only to instances in which it is explicitly limited by the Constitution. But you might at least expect him to be oppose federal intervention within the parameters of his originalist vision. Or rather, you might have expected that until Gonzales v. Raich, this year's medical marijuana case.

Scalia voted to uphold the federal government's prerogative to go after medical consumers of homegrown pot, on the grounds that this activity supposedly affects interstate commerce. This ruling prompted Thomas to note in a caustic dissent, "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

...for Scalia

The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms." If another judge used that rationale to find rights in the Constitution, Justice Scalia's reaction would be withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska.

Yeah, but what kind of punishments are said judges now looking at for abusing their power? Those motherfuckers are in *deep* shit & the civil cases haven't even started yet.

Do you know what they do to judges in prison? At the very best these guys are looking at 5 years in solitary since they won't be able to go into general population without getting shivved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?_r=1

Take the public university I went to as an example:

21% of applicants accepted
75% graduate within 5 years

The bottleneck is getting in, not getting out.

Graduates live up to expectation mostly because the school filtered them on the way in, NOT because the school "added value" to the students.

Price is, sadly, a fantastic way to filter. Raise tuition, raise prestige.

There has been some research (reg.req.) on the benefits of barefoot running. BUt, the article also mentions having to pull glass from your foot...

I've tried running barefoot once, on the beach, but wouldn't dare doing it on my standard run through the city. Does anyone here have any experience with the ultra thin Five Fingers running shoes (basically protective gloves around your feet)? Sure, you look like a dick -- almost as bad as Crocs -- but they appear a great alternative.

I would never run on sand or grass. You can't see what is lurking underneath. I run on gravel track in the Bronx's Van Cortlandt park three times a week. One benefit of staying on the gravel is that the glass that is there shimmers in the light (even at night when wearing a 3 watt LED headlamp). The other benefit is that the shod runners have usually ground the glass up into less threatening glass pebbles that end up pounded deeper into the gravel.

I used the five fingers for one run. Great for walking around the city. Running? Still too heavy and restrictive for my tastes.

there is an editorial in the new york times today saying that entire branch of the military should be shut down, since the marines, the army, the navy: they all have their own fighter wings

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/opinion/21kane.html

the airforce is redundant. of course it won't actually be shut down, but its usefulness is certainly doubtful. i think it should be decimated, and become nothing but a shell to contain the icbms and other missiles, a few other esoteric military projects, and nasa should be moved into its domain. all the other large countries have their space wings under the military, i think the usa should to, if for no other reason than increasing funding for nasa

and then, at some distant future date when spacefaring is more common, we can talk about how the space marines are nothing more than a wing of the air force, the navy is a quaint historical oddity whose functions are now served by the coast guard, and the army should be folded into the world government police force

There has been some research (reg.req.) on the benefits of barefoot running. BUt, the article also mentions having to pull glass from your foot... I've tried running barefoot once, on the beach, but wouldn't dare doing it on my standard run through the city. Does anyone here have any experience with the ultra thin Five Fingers running shoes (basically protective gloves around your feet)? Sure, you look like a dick -- almost as bad as Crocs -- but they appear a great alternative.

From the New York Times, Prof. Stephen Hawking has been pronounced dead at the hospital in the UK. More details coming shortly

My bank has a record of every purchase I make, my doctor has my medical history, and my ISP knows what web sites I visit, but I'm not worried. So why do I care if the federal government has that information? Because I don't trust them, and for good reason. The Patriot Act was supposed to protect us from terrorists, but as soon as it was enacted the government used it to enforce copyright violations, kick homeless people out of a train station, and investigate drug dealers. Demonstrate some integrity and you'll earn people's trust.

Wow, that article is so convincing (not). It asserts over and over again that Americans tolerated piracy early on with roughly zero references to back up that assertion.

However, I do have some references that I can cite that refute that assertion:

First, let's start with the US Constitution:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"

If the people were so enamored by pirates why did they write a clause to explicitly give Congress the power to punish pirates?

Also, back in that period of time one source of great animosity was towards the British practice of commandeering American merchant vessels at sea and forcing their sailors to join their navy.

Kidnapping and ransoms for sailors was never tolerated in the US.

If these pirates are 'nation builders' then why do you see comments like this by other Somalies:

"It is a good start," said Yasin Mohamoud, a technician in Mogadishu. "Since the pirates arose in our seas, skyrocketing inflation has hit our country."

"It would be good if the American navy would destroy the rest of them," he added.

From this article.

And when the 'nation builders' are boarding any ship regardless of how far away they are from their coast and regardless of their cargo (like the recent attempt of hijacking the US shipment of food aid to impoverished Kenya hundreds of miles from the Somali coastline) then there's really no moral leg left to stand on. They are now no more than a band of organized criminals at this point solely interested in making money (and have said that they are only interested in making money).

Also blogged in the NY times greenblog

We've got tons of coal that's (relatively) easy to mine and (if not clean) not nearly as bad as it used to be and its environmental impact isn't all that much worse than a lot of the "green" sources.

Oh, is that really true?

Coal mining is a major environmental catastrophe, always has been, always will be. Blowing the tops off mountains to get at it, and parking the burn waste right on the edge of rivers, it's hard for it not to be.

Now, if Mr. Chu can turn around those practices, I'll applaud him. But nothing I've heard so far leads me to believe they'll address things beyond cap-and-trade.

We've got tons of coal that's (relatively) easy to mine and (if not clean) not nearly as bad as it used to be and its environmental impact isn't all that much worse than a lot of the "green" sources.

Oh, is that really true?

Coal mining is a major environmental catastrophe, always has been, always will be. Blowing the tops off mountains to get at it, and parking the burn waste right on the edge of rivers, it's hard for it not to be.

Now, if Mr. Chu can turn around those practices, I'll applaud him. But nothing I've heard so far leads me to believe they'll address things beyond cap-and-trade.

"As president, as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America."

--Barak Obama, Acceptance Speech, Democratic National Convention. August 28, 2008.

Seriously man. Seriously. You cite the Drudge version of the Chronicle piece just like a conservative tool. Here's the whole quote:

"So, if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It's just that, it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches. The only thing that I've said, with a respect to coal -- I haven't been some coal booster -- what I have said is, that, for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter, as opposed to saying, if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it. You know, that I think is the right approach." Barak Obama, SF Chronicle Interview, Jan 17, 2008 (emphasis mine)

How about you think for yourself just a tiny little bit, eh?

All the evidence I've seen shows that d.) is entirely possible. Time Warner Cable has been making large profits already with the current system and their is no evidence that there is a bandwidth crunch. In fact all the evidence points to bandwidth caps having little or nothing to do with network management and everything to do with a cash grab. Best of all the COO of Time Warner Cable Lendell Hobbs agrees with me. "Mr. Hobbs tried to strike a balance, saying that while the company is concerned about the cost to maintain its broadband network, investors should not be worried. He said it was "absolutely not" true that Time Warner's profits were being squeezed by the cost of heavy broadband users. "If you are getting feedback that there is an immediate problem, nothing could be further from the truth," he said." http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/time-warner-cable-profits-on-broadband-are-great-and-will-grow-because-of-caps/

If it's bullshit, what do you make of this article?

From the linked article: "Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected."

Granted this is evidence from one police department; but I wouldn't be surprised if this were not limited to New London, CT.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html
METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS311US311&q=police+high+iq+discrimination&btnG=Search
15,900 results

so wonderful. Don't forget this little article. It is from back in 1999.

The new Chevy Malibu is almost universally regarded as the best car in it's class.

By who? The mainstream press?

Their sales are up 50% from last year (and it's not all just rental companies), so plenty of folks are deciding that GM is doing something right.

Actually, all it takes is a shift in advertising. Err... Seriously though, people buy what they're told to buy, if you tell them correctly. And if you convince people that they should help GM, that's another incentive. Make of it all what you will, but it's too soon to tell if the new Malibu is anything other than a lemon; it's also too soon to tell if it will actually help save GM. If the car doesn't drive service revenues it's going to hurt dealers.

2008-10-31 - http://valleywag.gawker.com/5072392/tesla-ceo-admits-the-companys-running-out-of-cash

2009-01-30 - http://valleywag.gawker.com/5143089/why-teslas-elon-musk-could-be-the-new-preston-tucker

2009-02-26 - http://gawker.com/5160624/teslas-motormouth-marketer-dodged-deposit-dilemma

2009-03-26 - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/technology/start-ups/27tesla.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=tesla&st=cse

You're forgetting that Landell Hobbs admitted that heavy users had no effect on TWC's network and profits.

Don't drink the kool-aid.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/time-warner-cable-profits-on-broadband-are-great-and-will-grow-because-of-caps/

You're never going to convince the private sector that investing in more capacity is a good business move. Business can't look that far into the future. They see an easy way to make more money and that's what they will go for despite the fact that it's completely irresponsible and shortsighted.

Yup. For instance, no one convinced Verizon to wire my neighborhood with fiber-optic service at a whopping cost of $800/house [1]. Then they didn't convince them to install it into my house for another whopping $700 [1] in labor and equipment. Nope, private sector would never do that. Considering I pay them $85/month, it will likely take 10-20 years to recoup their investment, I think they understand the long-term need for last-mile investment.

Of course, there are a lot of things standing in their way -- mostly in the form of localities that each have different rules and procedures from franchises and asinine requirements burying their lines and whatnot. I'm fortunate to live on a hill that's bedrock and pretty much can't be drilled (aside form the sewer, which I hear was quite difficult). Sucks not to have natural gas and it's not pretty to have utility poles with 4 wires (power, copper, coax, fiber) strung along, but we were the first to get FIOS. I talked to the installing techs (not the house install tech, the guys stringing the fiber on the poles) and they said that our town cost them significantly less time and hassle than most of the other ones he'd done.

[1]: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/the-cost-to-offer-the-worlds-fastest-broadband-20-per-home/

Mormons make up only about 2% of the population of CA (750K out of 34M) yet it would be foolish to underestimate their political power of the organization.

I'll give you two good reasons we're not ever going to see this.

There's a bigger reason Lake Erie water won't be pumped to the Southwest, there's a compact or agreement between the US and Canada.

NOTHING in the southwest is an important center for commerce. Los Angeles is a major port city, a major tourism destination, and a home for many large businesses. Phoenix?

Intel is in Phoenix, including fabs. From 2005, "Intel To Build New 300 mm Wafer Factory In Arizona".

Can dry-up and wither in the desert heat, for all the world cares.

Yea, for all I care. I oppose any more building and growth there. That applies to LA and Imperial Valley too though. If not for the water pumped from the Colorado River the farms in Imperial Valley would not even exist.

Falcon

Comcast recently announced a cap, but it's a relatively reasonable quarter terabyte. If you're burning through more than that a month, there's something non-consumer going on, or you need to get your ass out of the house and stop downloading and watching so many damn movies.

even the NYTs and the WaPo plus others say he won no matter how you counted.

Gee, that's not true. In fact it is FAR from true.

In November 2001 a larger consortium, which included The New York Times, produced more definitive results that allowed assessment of nine hypothetical recounts. (You can see the results at www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl - under articles.) The three recounts that had been most widely discussed during the battle of Florida, including the partial recount requested by the Gore campaign and two interpretations of the Florida Supreme Court order, would have given the vote to Mr. Bush.

But the six hypothetical manual recounts that would have covered the whole state - including both loose and strict standards - would have given the election to Mr. Gore. And other evidence makes it clear that many intended votes for Mr. Gore were frustrated.

Don't Prettify Our History - August 22, 2005

actually there was an article last year about some researchers who taught chimps to use money (plastic "task reward" tokens exchangeable for food). they promptly invented prostitution.

I looked for some reference for this... here it is, on page #2.

actually there was an article last year about some researchers who taught chimps to use money (plastic "task reward" tokens exchangeable for food). they promptly invented prostitution.

I looked for some reference for this... here it is, on page #2.

anyone who has ever tried to debate gun control realizes there are a lot of "facts" out there that are nothing but skewed propaganda, both for and against gun control. come to me with logic and reason, or don't come to me at all. "i have ten bullshit links and you have nine bullshit links! i win!" zzz

allow the battle bullshit propaganda "facts" to commence:

"Live with it, gun owners say, and if our murder rate is three times that of the United Kingdom and Canada, five times that of Germany, that's the deal. The price. For consolation, I guess, there is the fact that the homicide rate has been flat for some time, down from the highs of the 1980s. Still, nearly 17,000 Americans are murdered each year -- about 70 percent by guns -- and 594,276 lost their lives betweens 1976 and 2005."

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/the-guns-of-spring/?ref=opinion

ok, now its your turn

the rules of the game are: you show me a link to some insurmountable "facts", and then i reply with a link to some insurmoutnable "facts", and we regurgitate "facts" until oblivion

or: how about you approach we with some logic and reason?

such as: if there are less force multipliers lying around in easy reach, less senseless deaths occur

your move

i await my "facts"

zzz

Phil lost his show due fully to dismal ratings.

Sorry, that's wrong. Donahue's rating were very poor early on but progressively got better during the war build up. At the time they canceled the show it was MSNBC's number one show. As the NY Times, among many others, documented at the time: "Mr. Donahue's show had been growing slightly over the past few months, and he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC".

I mean...if a liberal talk show guy can't even make it on THAT network....well...

MSNBC was anything but liberal then. At best they were a bunch of corporate lackeys desperately trying to figure out how to create an audience. So they killed their best show at the time because they thought it was politically astute. Idiots. It was only years later that they accidentally tripped into Olbermann and Maddow.

The global temperature hasn't risen in about 8 years (in fact, it has slightly gone down). So what's to fix?

The net warming the planet will experience over the next century or two, that's what. You don't think that the greenhouse effect is going to vanish if we continue to increase greenhouse gas concentrations, do you? You're not confusing weather and climate, are you?

Supposedly pollutants in the air increased the global temperature but now we want to inject more of them into the air to decrease global temperature? How does that make sense?

More sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere causes cooling. Black carbon in the troposphere causes warming. A decrease of sulfate aerosols can also cause warming.

Make sense yet? But hey, don't let scientific facts get in the way of a sarcastic political rant. It's more fun to mock those stupid self-contradicting scientists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html
http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2007/05/monkey_economics.php
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/monkeys-practic.html

These links all point to the story, but not to any sort of brief from the research conducted by Keith Chen
http://www.som.yale.edu/faculty/keith.chen/

Anybody know where that is?

ugh, dude. Here's the link that doesn't require registration

Here's said article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

Yes, but let's not forget that Sarah Palin also thought that Africa was a country.

Wow, still going with this one? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/arts/television/13hoax.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin