Slashdot Mirror

Please explain Standard Oil and AT&T.

Ok. Here's Standard Oil. AT&T was granted a monopoly by the government, so no need to explain that to everyone, is there?

Oh? Then cite 5 comprehensive studies saying so.

Here you go:
1. Lowering recidivism through family communication
2. The family and recidivism
3. Family ties during imprisonment
4. The effect of family visits on inmates
5. Rethinking recidivism: A communication approach

Oh? Then cite 5 comprehensive studies saying so.

Here you go:
1. Lowering recidivism through family communication
2. The family and recidivism
3. Family ties during imprisonment
4. The effect of family visits on inmates
5. Rethinking recidivism: A communication approach

Various estimates are that 20% of the US economy is "underground". They care about this, because their job is to collect taxes on it. The underground economy can be divided into two parts. The first is the "black market", which is illegal activity (drugs, prostitution, etc.) and unreported. The second is the "off the books" sector. This is otherwise legal activity, but unreported to the government. That includes everything from hair salon tips to the guys who mow your grass and are paid in cash.

Since this activity is unreported, it is hard to get data about it. What economists generally do is look at things like total business sales (i.e. people need food and other necessities no matter how they get money for it), and compare that to reported income on returns.

http://businessresearcher.sage...

There is supporting evidence for your hypothesis:

http://journals.sagepub.com/do...

I think the explanation that high-achieving women tend to be proficient in both verbal and math abilities while men are more likely to be proficient primarily in math abilities is pretty compelling. It's possible that preference is the primary driver, but I'm not sure you can really separate preference and ability so cleanly.

Look at the gender breakdown of medical specialties here:

https://wire.ama-assn.org/educ...

Notice how men tend to gravitate toward roles that involve less human interaction? Surgery, Anesthesiology, Radiology. There's no shame in admitting that women might be simultaneously as good as men at Math, but better, or at least more likely to enjoy, roles that require high levels of verbal aptitude as well.

1) First paragraph continues to be a straw-man, as the post you responded to indicates that states were not the primary target, low information R's were

2) You underestimate how much low thought people are associated with republicanism http://journals.sagepub.com/do...

3) relative and you are wrong. http://www.electproject.org/ho...

As an easy example/proxy from 2012-2016 voter turnout increased by roughly 2% or total electorate, and 4% in actual voters, in Alabama, Alaska Arkansas, and Arizona.

4) Scaremongering? The CIA, FBI,NSA reporting meddling within the US. With the governments of the UK, Spain, Italy Georgia, Poland, France ALL reporting and documenting a concerted effort to influence their elections. Yeah sure lol. "scaremongering lol"

I guess I should have said "people of one race are consistently superior to people of another race in some important area of cognitive ability", to make the point clearer.

There would be a certain amount of resistance to that, but only because we have been there before and found that such claims tend to be unfounded.

Okay, I'm done with this conversation, because you're clearly blind. I don't know whether it's willful, but there is a long history of huge resistance to that exact concept. Career-destroying resistance that takes no note of the strength or weakness of the actual research and occasionally edges into violence.

Note that I agree that the apparently race-related variance in cognitive ability is proven to be cultural, not racial, in origin. Further, I don't believe races are actually a biological thing; they're primarily a social construct. My favorite evidence of that is the research showing that going to prison may turn you black. But it's critical that researchers not be attacked professionally and personally for uncomfortable ideas.

You really don't want to believe that happens. But you're flat wrong.

The NSA and other gov agencies just don't pay enough for your laundry list. Working for "God and country" doesn't fit with the US capitalism idea very well. They are on the low end of almost all salary ranges; and that is BEFORE you eliminate about 95% of the potential people with your list.

What does "politics" or "faith group" even mean in your post? Many would point to a good chunk of our currently elected lawmakers in the Federal government who are associated with Dominion theology, "end timers", and other now-deeply ingrained ideals. Are you wanting non-political persons only? According to the Eastern Orthodox church, every Christian religious group that is associated with the Baptists is considered a "heretical cult". One third of the current US population doesn't believe anything the US intelligence agencies say about foreign politics and blindly believes anything Trump says, another third think his actions are nearly treasonous, so the idea of a "political litmus test" is a very tricky barrier; and is probably illegal anyway (there are Supreme Court cases around this). We currently have POTUS staff who are potentially (I say this because there has yet to be hearings, trials, or such) in violation the Hatch Act, so even the very top of this food chain is contaminated.

If you define a "criminal past" as the FBI does, that only eliminates around 29% of the US population. If you take it further, and cull out anyone with any negative relations with law enforcement, including non-felonies, then it's more like half of black males and almost 40 percent of white males. Combined with the low pay, and one ends up in the position we are currently in: not enough people to do the job.

While I understand what your getting at, your idea would require a huge, non-partisan overhaul of the underlying "security form" system. We can't even manage to approve money to have a plan to secure our elections in any meaningful way, and your idea goes directly against the ideals of the current administration and many elected officials. They want people who believe in the scourge of the "Deep State", not people who are willing to go work for the Deep State...by which I define "deep state" as the unelected bureaucratic apparatus that keeps the government functional in it's day-to-day workings. Many of the appointed Cabinet heads have publicly said they want to dismantle the bulk of the Federal government, so good luck finding anyone that fits your list who is willing to take home 80% of the average wage for their position.

I think that this is the least likely to be related to a drive by wire and will probably come down to driver error. For whatever reason people make this mistake all the time - they jam the wrong pedal, make the wrong drive mode selection, etc.

Pedal errors do happen, but this particular kind is a rare bird indeed according to this study:

Before leaving the serious error category, it should be mentioned that there were only two instances in which the subject depressed the accelerator instead of the brake. In both cases the subject recognized the error immediately and made a correction. There were no instances, in other words, in which the subject persisted in mistaking the accelerator for the brake.

And in this particular situation, the driver would have had to keep that pedal jammed for a long time and through lots of chaos. Look at the setup where the accident happened. The car had to first jump the curb, which takes a lot of force and gives the driver plenty of feedback that something is very wrong, and then still managed to run across the entire sidewalk area and hit the building with enough force to embed itself almost fully through the wall.

Given all that and the fact that we're talking about a car that has full control of its faculties and regularly makes bad "decisions" about how to use them, Occam says it most likely wasn't the driver.

It is very likely that the decline in murder rate in the US is due to better emergency care;. See http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/108876790200600203. Overall, violence levels have gone down by many metrics worldwide, not just in the US, so this is something likely independent of guns, most likely reduction in lead levels https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis. As observed by one of the other commentators, per a capita gun rate isn't very useful for predicting or influencing much if the same people who would otherwise own one gun or two guns now own 5 guns.

If I had to define "tolerance" it would be something like "respect and kindness toward members of an outgroup".

The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: "Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews. How many Virtue Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?"

Bodhidharma answers: "None at all".

The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why.

Bodhidharma asks: "Well, what do you think of gay people?"

The Emperor answers: "What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people!"

And Bodhidharma answers: "Thus do you gain no merit by tolerating them!"

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/

Who's ass did you pull those numbers from? Almost every flavor of ejuice is available with different amounts of nicotine.

Availability does not ensure popularity. This study's survey showed only 1% of users using nicotine free e-liquid.

I'm looking at the full-text of that document. I think I see where you went wrong: What the paper says is "a 2015 review suggests that 1% of ejuice is nicotine-free", with the previous statement "Although some e juice is nicotine-free, surveys demonstrate that 97% of e cigarette users use products that contain nicotine."

Both those surveys were (ref3 and ref18) are available as full-text using a google search. Both surveys exclude non-smokers from the pool of ejuice users.

IOW, the 1%-3% figure you give is accurate for those who both smoke and vape. No surprise that smokers who also vape almost exclusivley use nicotine when vaping. Those who vape only (don't smke at all) comprise around 2/3 of all vapers (same article), and they did not present any figures for the nicotine content of the non-smokers vaping.

This is why your information is inconsistent with what the vapers are saying - your data covers those who smoke and vape while most of the vapers don't smoke.

Who's ass did you pull those numbers from? Almost every flavor of ejuice is available with different amounts of nicotine.

Availability does not ensure popularity.
This study's survey showed only 1% of users using nicotine free e-liquid.

Newspaper Tort Liability for Harmful Advertising
Sounds to me like advertisers are not typically liable for the content of ads, except in the court of public opinion. Here's another one:
The Scope Of Liability For False Advertising Claims

That one talks about stores that have been held liable for claim in an their catalogues, for products they sell. It says "the court found that once the retailer actively involved itself in the promotion of the product" which is probably why newspapers have advertising disclaimers. Ad of course, the newspaper is clearly not selling the product in the case of job ads. I'm not sure this applies.

Do you have any examples to show that the newspaper industry is liable here?

Look at your own stats and learn about statistics, you picked the outlier, Finland and Sweden who have very similar systems as Norway (they're neighbors after all) have equal and higher recidivism rates than the US. The UK is another outlier but on the other end of the spectrum.

Analyze the statistic, the rest of the world has an average recidivism rate of ~37% and I know the prisons in European countries, even UK and the Netherlands are a lot cushier than the US. Within the US, the Federal prisons have a lower recidivism rate than State prisons.

Then there is also analysis that says most of those statistics in the US are overblown because of faulty methods: http://journals.sagepub.com/do...

The tittle had me excited because I thought they'd been studying the suicide risk of depressed people on anti-depressants vs. depressed people not on anti-depressants. There have been studies done, such as this one (open access, published in the journal of the Royal Society of Medicine) found that when selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors are given to adult healthy volunteers with no signs of a mental disorder, the suicide risk is doubled. Whether this doubling also occurs in depressed individuals is the real question, but this is hard to study ethically.

Anti-depressants are far more controversial than most people seem to think, and the medical field has slowly begun to admit it. Note that I'm not saying the study I mentioned or this study prove that their usage should be stopped, but at the very least they're clear indicators that more research is needed into their efficacy and potential alternatives.

Indeed you are right! Antidepressants are far more controversial than most people seem to think. The reasons some doctors in the medical community are beginning to admit it (embarrassingly after 20+ years) is that the data for their effectiveness is really thin. Essentially, they don't work outside of patients with (maybe) really severe depression, and even in those cases the effect is largely minimal.

What's worse, like all good/new things once the first bits of data started to show they "helped" (mood in many people is a fluctuating thing, you could argue they would have felt better in a few weeks anyway), the prescriptions started flowing, and it is now hard to reverse the expectations that one of the prior commenters note - pill to cure or treat depression. According to a 2015 study, more than two-thirds (69%) of those prescribed an antidepressant do not actually meet the criteria for the diagnosis of major depressive disorder.

It also shows the business of medicine - showing "statistically significant" results that may or may not contribute to clinical significance. Here's what I mean. For trials that examined depression that was mild to moderate in severity, the benefit was just 1.29 points on the 53-point Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). The difference for trials that studied severe depression was 2.69 points on the HDRS. Previous researchers suggested/used a 3-point difference which corresponded to “no clinical change”—that is, neither a doctor nor a patient would notice that change. Other researchers showed that at least a 7-point difference was necessary for “minimal improvement.” As you see, many studies don't come close.Then there is publication bias. If you look closely you find that 49% of the total studies had negative results,

It is a mess. It is a problem. People who are clinically depressed and suffer depression need treatment, and they need effective medications that afford them a clinically significant improvement in their condition, not just statistically. This is true for all branches of medicine - I'm looking at you cardiology and oncology.

The tittle had me excited because I thought they'd been studying the suicide risk of depressed people on anti-depressants vs. depressed people not on anti-depressants. There have been studies done, such as this one (open access, published in the journal of the Royal Society of Medicine) found that when selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors are given to adult healthy volunteers with no signs of a mental disorder, the suicide risk is doubled. Whether this doubling also occurs in depressed individuals is the real question, but this is hard to study ethically.

Anti-depressants are far more controversial than most people seem to think, and the medical field has slowly begun to admit it. Note that I'm not saying the study I mentioned or this study prove that their usage should be stopped, but at the very least they're clear indicators that more research is needed into their efficacy and potential alternatives.

Studies seem to show that attentive listening and HAND-WRITTEN notes have the highest retention

Here is a study that supports this: The Pen is Mightier than the Keyboard ... and an article about the study in SciAm: Don't take notes with a laptop

I wonder why.

It isn't clear, but the researchers hypothesize that laptop users tend to transcribe the lecture verbatim, while pen & paper users rephrase into their own words, which requires thinking about what is being said.

Hi,

I'm a white male software engineer. I'm having a really hard time trying to separate out my own biases and the biases of others in reaction to the memo with actual factual discourse about the science. In almost all of the reaction commentary, even some of the better discourse, people keep wielding any ammunition they can find to defend their point of view on both sides. I worry that I am inclined to do the same thing.

I've been trying to read as much research as possible in the last couple of days as science feels like the only bastion where I can try to come to a reasoned conclusion about all of this. That path has lead me to some unusual places, like wondering if there is a biological explanation for higher average verbal intelligence in women that allows them to have greater selection in careers (Ref 1) and differences in brain anatomy where men have thinner average cortical thickness than women but higher variability. (Ref 2)

Given that you are a female engineer directly affected by all of this, do you think it's reasonable to explore these kinds of questions? Does it diminish the effects of the real sexism and bias that face women in tech to examine other potential explanations for the gender gap?

Ref 1: http://journals.sagepub.com/do...

Ref 2: http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

1. Bainbridge, the ironies of automation
2. Slashdot today on AIs that invent internal languages to communicate
3. Non-explanatory nature of sub-symbolic AI (pdf!)
4. Algorithmic states of exception, erosion of liberties

All these ideas have a frog-in-hot-water side, they are incremental, rather than being spectacular, like 'killer robots', but some of the consequences are just as dangerous. They are in two categories a) loss of control b) social cooling and non-democratic loss of liberty.

Because pretending that critical thinking skills and information are the same as socialist indoctrination is not just sad, it's going to grow the portion of the population that is ignorant and easily mislead by GOP propaganda.

You aren't aware (or maybe you are) of the extent that postmodernism and cultural marxism has infected the humanities, which in turn have infected the administration, which in turn have infected the faculty and other departments and classes. But then maybe you think critical thinking and information leads to "A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research".

• Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
• Branch Davidians

Both practice(d) intense communal living and intra-tribal style marriages. In fact, most tribal communities practice this lifestyle, which means that for eons humans have lived more like this than not.

And then there's the work of people like Greg Leavitt (and your referenced Eran Shor btw) who directly counter that the behavior is likely only environmental, not innate:

In this article, I not only challenge the commonly held notion that inbreeding is injurious, but also argue that inbreeding is often harmless and even fitness-enhancing. If so, Westermarck's hypothesis that children raised together naturally trigger selection mechanisms for sexual avoidance is highly questionable.

You mean like A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research?

Sociology these days are unfortunately often just a word to make your opinions sound better. Why else would we have sociology branches in feminist theory or gender theory with insane studies like this? ( http://journals.sagepub.com/do... )

In the actual paper, they report precision = 0.79 and recall= 0.95, which means that they predicted nearly all of the attempts (very few false negatives) and most of what they predicted were actual suicide attempts (few false positives). They report the actual numbers, too, but that table is pain to copy and paste.

http://journals.sagepub.com/do...

All this work and data sounds impressive until you realise that FACS ("Facial Action Coding System") is bollocks.

I really do wish this technology worked, though. Simply because if it did, it would detect that I detest Ads and I would never see another Ad in my life....

All this work and data sounds impressive until you realise that FACS ("Facial Action Coding System") is bollocks.

Did Kennedy have the same size federal government and deficit/debt with overlap between different bureaucracies? I don't like Trumps cuts to science but I at least understand a few of them; NASA and NOAA potential overlap for climate science (not to mention the potential conflict of NASA goals if budget taken by such overlapping missions). As for the others, are those tax dollars being used to fund studies like this??? When "science" becomes as political as that paper, it is no longer science and I question the validity of those institutions that fund those papers under the guise of science.

I had always heard that rule and style of play differences allowed American football players to hit harder, thus resulting in a more violent sport.

A little google searching found a 2016 study from the The American Journal of Sports Medicine on injuries in collegiate football and rugby in the US. The authors found, "Overall injury rates were substantially higher in collegiate rugby compared with football. Similarities between sports were observed in the most common injury types (sprains and concussions), locations (lower extremity and head), and mechanisms (direct player contact). Upper extremity injuries were more common in rugby, and the rate of season-ending injuries
was similar between sports." (emphasis mine) So it looks like I was wrong, at least at the university level.

Although rates were similar for concussions despite that American football players wear helmets to protect their head. So perhaps they do hit harder and/or at different angles? Either that or the helmets don't actually protect their heads.

The authors note some studies in the introduction which indicate injury rates in professional football may be substantially higher.

No the line was that there would be no snow by 2010

The most often quoted line I've seen would be from David Viner, of the University of East Anglia, quoted in the U.K. newspaper The Independent on 20 March 2000 with the headline 'Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past', and as far as I know he was referring to the south of England only. No peer reviewed source has ever made any such claims, about either England or anywhere else, but here's a nice recent review article of snowfall patterns in England. It does show a reduction in the frequency and extent of snow-lying days.

These same theories were the same ones used in the 1920's, the only real difference is that they're using computer modeling instead of doing it by long hand.

This is categorically untrue. In the 1920s the closest thing to a GCM would be Arrhenius, but he was discredited, and the early computer modeling used very different strategies. But whether they're old or new models is irrelevant. Again, models are not empirical evidence and do not either support or refute AGW.

I must note that you did not reply to any of the questions I asked. What specifically about our knowledge of CO2 do you feel is incomplete or incorrect? Do you know why the consensus against AGW was overturned, and if so do you feel that was insufficently well supported by observation? Do answer as rigorously as you can.

Apologies for the repeated post, but I accidentally did an incorrect "cut-and-paste" right before hitting "submit," which resulted in repeating the words of much of the post several times.

Consider people who say 'darn, frick', etc.. We all know what they're saying, and they're really lying to themselves by 'editing' how they're expressing themselves.

There are various reasons people avoid profanity, but one of the primary reasons is out of politeness or concern for not offending those around them. Some might consider failure to adhere to politeness conventions to be "honesty in expression," but it could also simply be a social convention. I reflexively say "Thank you" to the toll-booth person who accepts my toll, but I'm not actually grateful to them. It's just a social convention and reflex to thank people who provide a service to you. Similarly, I walk around saying "How are you?" to people as I pass them in the hallway or whatever, but it's well-known that most people aren't seriously asking that question in more than a cursory "standard greeting" sense.

Are all of these people "lying" or not being "honest"? Or are they simply falling social convention, which also dictates that profanity is inappropriate in various social situations?

My distinction here is not a minor one, because desirability to adhere to social convention is actually arguably what this study measured, rather than "honesty" or whatever. There were three different components to this study. All have some problems.

(1) The first used Amazon Mechanical Turk to get people to answer a bunch of personality questions. There was no actual assessment of whether people were ACTUALLY lying. instead, they were given a series of questions "using the Lie subscale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised short scale," However, despite its name, this test isn't actually used to determine whether people are prone to lie in general! This subscale is used, as the study notes, for social desirability responding.

That is, in the context of a personality test, this set of questions is used to fish out the people who are likely choosing answers based a little more on their "idealized" personality traits or what they might think would be "likeable," rather than being more realistic in their responses. Rather than a sort of "lie detector" test, it's more a test of how much a person wants to represent themselves as socially desirable. It has questions like, "If you say you will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter how inconvenient it might be?" If you answer "yes," the test assumes you to be a LIAR. But of course it has no way of knowing whether you are lying -- it rather assumes if you have more idealistic norms about social behavior that you're more likely to less realistic in your own self-reporting for personality questions.

Anyhow, this is a TERRIBLE proxy for "dishonesty" generally. It basically is measuring how close people want to try to adhere to social norms. And avoiding profanity in many situations is also trying to adhere to social norms. So it's basically a tautology that they found a correlation in the first study.

(2) Okay, on to the next one. Here, again, they didn't actually determine whether people were telling falsehoods. Rather, they looked at a bunch of Facebook messages and statistically analyzed how many times people used 1st and 3rd person pronouns, motion verbs, and anxiety words. They claim that this is a good way to tell how "honest" people are. Except the study they use as a benchmark to calibrate the frequency of these linguistic categories (this study) involved people giving detailed responses to prompts, both telling the truth and lying. The average words for the samples varied from 124 words for one category (people expressing a position on abortion while videotaped) up to 529 words (were people expressed an opinio

Here's an example of more cutting edge research in the peer-reviewed SPPS journal.

The latest analysis among actually publishing scientists [sagepub.com] (by James Powell [wikipedia.org]) finds "above 99.99%", or what he calls "virtual unanimity".

In other words, a crap study. There aren't that many climate researchers in the world to maintain a 10,000 to 1 ratio over the publishing skeptics by probably two orders of magnitude.

Powell counted 69406 to 4, and apparently the referees and editors at the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society agreed. The full paper including the methodology is online, as are the data sets.

But disproving an establish theory is real science, and real science has no place in this debate! All we need is Al Gore.

97%? You must mean 97% of a cherry picked group of 74 people, quite a few of whom lack actual backgrounds in climate or meteorological science.

Well, there are several sources for the ca. 97%, but they seem to have been too conservative (in the non-political sense of the term). The latest analysis among actually publishing scientists (by James Powell) finds "above 99.99%", or what he calls "virtual unanimity". The fact that several studies with different methodologies all find support in the high 95+% is a nice example of consilience, and that usually is takes as very strong evidence for a fact.

Of course an alternative explanation is that all the scientists, all the editors, and all the scientific organisations are conspiring to keep THE TRUTH from us, with only a small number of heroic conservative think tanks and fossil fuel companies desperately trying to defend it. You take your pick...

I think you mean "Oh, Science..."

The majority of studies show that accident rates go up, not down, when red-light cameras are put in place. Eliminating red-light cameras is the logical response.

This study shows that complaints go down, not up, when police use body cameras. The logical response would be to continue using body cameras and continue studying the results to verify that the effect isn't temporary or isolated.

True, and those same studies show that the kind of accidents change when red-light cameras are introduced. We've gone over this many times.
When red-light cameras are emplaced the number of rear-end accidents go up and T-bone accidents go down. The net effect is that the number of crashes with injuries goes down and especially down is the number of deaths. So it matters what number you pick from the study to look at. I happen to think the number of serious injuries and deaths is more important than the number of broken tail-lights.
http://www.iihs.org/frontend/i...

As for the complaints against police, the actual study is at http://cjb.sagepub.com/content... and it contains many self-criticisms. It should be mentioned that the police are required (in these studies) to tell the person they are confronting that they are being recorded.
There is clearly a Hawthorne effect going on here.
One of the things the study's authors want to know, but there is no data, is whether the kinds of interactions change. That is, are the police doing fewer stop-n-frisk type interactions, that is, are they avoiding interactions where there is a greater likelihood of civilian resistance?
This is a study that is well worth reading.
http://cjb.sagepub.com/content...

I think you mean "Oh, Science..."

The majority of studies show that accident rates go up, not down, when red-light cameras are put in place. Eliminating red-light cameras is the logical response.

This study shows that complaints go down, not up, when police use body cameras. The logical response would be to continue using body cameras and continue studying the results to verify that the effect isn't temporary or isolated.

True, and those same studies show that the kind of accidents change when red-light cameras are introduced. We've gone over this many times.
When red-light cameras are emplaced the number of rear-end accidents go up and T-bone accidents go down. The net effect is that the number of crashes with injuries goes down and especially down is the number of deaths. So it matters what number you pick from the study to look at. I happen to think the number of serious injuries and deaths is more important than the number of broken tail-lights.
http://www.iihs.org/frontend/i...

As for the complaints against police, the actual study is at http://cjb.sagepub.com/content... and it contains many self-criticisms. It should be mentioned that the police are required (in these studies) to tell the person they are confronting that they are being recorded.
There is clearly a Hawthorne effect going on here.
One of the things the study's authors want to know, but there is no data, is whether the kinds of interactions change. That is, are the police doing fewer stop-n-frisk type interactions, that is, are they avoiding interactions where there is a greater likelihood of civilian resistance?
This is a study that is well worth reading.
http://cjb.sagepub.com/content...

Sorry - you've worked on how many gas production and process plants? I've only been on about a dozen, totalling several years aboard and having to understand each section of the plant to be able to choose routing for cables - which have real implications for explosion risk management. So what the fuck would I know about how gas process plants are built?

Yes, but are you a woman? What can you tell us about a feminist gas extraction framework? It's $CURRENT_YEAR, get with the times.

Quite sad how pensioners get to decide the future of the next generation against their wishes.

Because while retired, they still have a better work ethic than millennials http://psp.sagepub.com/content...

Which shows that millennials in large numbers are extremely materialistic, but don't want to work.

Bizzare that a link to a real study is marked as a troll? For the abstract:

We examined whether culture-level indices of threat, instability, and materialistic modeling were linked to the materialistic values of American 12th graders between 1976 and 2007 (N = 355,296). Youth materialism (such as the importance of money and of owning expensive material items) increased over the generations, peaking in the late 1980s to early 1990s with Generation X and then staying at historically high levels for Millennials (GenMe). Societal instability and disconnection (e.g., unemployment, divorce) and social modeling (e.g., advertising spending) had both contemporaneous and lagged associations with higher levels of materialism, with advertising most influential during adolescence and instability during childhood. Societal-level living standards during childhood predicted materialism 10 years later. When materialistic values increased, work centrality steadily declined, suggesting a growing discrepancy between the desire for material rewards and the willingness to do the work usually required to earn them.

Troll or not - deal with it. Perhaps a new mod point is needed - I don't like the truth -5

Quite sad how pensioners get to decide the future of the next generation against their wishes.

Because while retired, they still have a better work ethic than millennials http://psp.sagepub.com/content...

Which shows that millennials in large numbers are extremely materialistic, but don't want to work.

I note now that you have a fixed idea, to which you do not seem to consider worthy of discussing alternatives, that people who grow up without the arts are less well-rounded, less happy, worse coders and probably less smart.

Correct.

I'm going to note that you have provided absolutely no evidence for your assertions

http://pss.sagepub.com/content...

http://www.health.harvard.edu/...

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/comput...

Is this really AI? I worked on self driving cars and trucks (backing up a three trailer truck) and used control theory and a lot of math, but no AI.

There are in fact laws about this [wikipedia.org]: you can't generally serve on the board of companies in the same market.

No, you have that wrong. You can't serve on the boards of two competing corporations. When you say "in the same market" it does not mean the same thing.

The CEO reports to the board, and is chosen by the board, not the other way around.

Here's the article again. You should read it:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ce...

And here's the study behind the article:

http://jom.sagepub.com/content...

1. Glaciers, Gender, and Science--A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental climate change is published, after a review process that is itself currently under review.

2. The paper generates a backlash among those who are fed up with social issues (such as feminism) intruding into the sciences; also those who strive for pure social discourse on gender issues unsoiled by what they see as a gateway to a name-calling tabloid fixation on some group. It generates a frontlash among those who think it sounds cool, and 'like' it on Facebook. No one else bats an eyelash.

3. It is suggested that it is in fact complete gibberish. Everyone is embarrassed as they gaze back in horror at the tomes of intricately crafted backlash they have written about it. They respond with indignation towards the process that permitted it to be published.

4. It is suggested that the paper seems like gibberish to the un-initiate but is actually a philosophical 'Chautauqua' of stream-of-consciousness ideas, a process that was described in Robert M. Pirsig's 1974 work Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Those who accepted that it was gibberish are embarrassed anew (after looking up Pirsig) but now, in horror, they realize their vengeance on the publisher merely exposed their ignorance of an accepted art form.

5. It is suggested that the paper is merely before its time. Someone suggests that it is a seminal work Everyone who is ready to let the whole affair go away, and others who (merely) cannot find anything else like it, just agree.

6. A new wave of readers encounters the paper after seeing this broadly stated but vague praise, and when they research back to the initial reactions they become suspicious, as it looks like an attempt to deliberately suppress the paper. The claim this, and in order to refute any such allegations, the publisher cleverly avoids controversy by simply 'calling for additional papers' on the topic. They expect that this will reveal them as unbiased and it pays off... and everyone thinks this is finally the end.

7. Unexpectedly --- other papers are submitted. Some that are obviously mere re-arrangements of words in the first paper, some are on completely different topics but written in the same dreamy style. The publisher has indemnified itself from a position of judgement so they all make it. Oddly enough a group has formed that studies and discusses each in turn, a liberal arts college offers a 'workshop' on the collective works.

8. But now everyone who ever held a firm opinion of the original paper, in light of all this, is starting to doubt their own mind.

9. It is suggested that certain kinds of scented candles assist in the appreciation and understanding of these works. A stream-of-consciousness rationale for this is given, and since the style of the suggestion is so similar to that of the original paper, it is taken as a natural extension of the process. Soon chants and other (comfortably traditional therefore non-threatening) rituals are meshed as well. Rolling Stone presents it as a 'movement'.

AVG Antivirus identifies the original paper as an Ancient Sumerian Nam-Shub Virus . But it is too late.

Millions of people are now gathering around the world in groups to sit nude in large circles, chanting each syllable of the works and improvising new ones while making elaborate hand gestures.

"A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research ref

Good Grief!

Could be worth laying down piezoelectric energy harvesting material instead of, or in addition to, the solar cells.

A recent study shows that up to 80% of the compressive energy can be transformed into electrical energy.
An efficient self-powered synchronous electric charge extraction interface circuit for piezoelectric energy. [Closed-access journal]

What this translates to in absolute numbers from the weight of cars/trucks and frequency of passage, is an exercise left to the reader ;)

I am moderating. Your comment is in line with facts and the reply to your argument is based in propaganda. There is a reply to the study cited and Jargin SV is essentially a mouthpiece for the IAEA who has interdiction orders over WHO publications.

There was 235 MILLION registered voters in the 2012 election. Hundreds of thousands is a statistical fluke. A difference of a few degrees outside is also likely to affect turnout by 0.05%. New Hampshire typically schedules their elections on a Tuesday in March, sun or snow. Heck, a few years ago turnout was so low our vote on a town policy didn't reach quorum. A strong effort to boycott the election may also have helped. Yes, you read that right. (The difference between a "No" vote and a failed vote had something to do with how the measure could be re-introduced later.)

Check your claim that it "overwhelming tends to be poor/minority/democratic" voters, too: Much Ado About Nothing? An Empirical Assessment of the Georgia Voter Identification Statute

Substantively, the law lowered turnout by about four-tenths of a percentage point in 2008. However, we find no empirical evidence to suggest that there is a racial or ethnic component to this suppression effect.

Voter ID laws don't suppress democrats, either. Well, not living ones, anyways.

I don't like encouraging the spread of ID requirements by the government either... you know, having to get permission from the federal government to TAKE A JOB comes to mind. But voting? Seriously? It's a state ID for a state purpose.

In any event, there is plenty of evidence of biological differences in the brains of men and women...

Vaague handwaving over common-sense notions isn't systematic evidence.

It took me about 3 minutes to find the following studies showing that brain structure/chemistry is indeed different for men and women:

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://nro.sagepub.com/content...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://www.brain-mind-institut...
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org...

The last two of the studies listed above don't just show gender specific biological differences in the brain, they link the differences to skills/behavior.

Honestly, a trained chimp could find this stuff. Why is it you can't?

As to the link, I think I cited the wrong link...

The new link does show corrections to a single satellite dataset - but there's nothing there even faintly close to the 0.6 degrees/year you were claiming. There are both positive and negative corrections that are a fraction of that, as they discover and account for factors like orbital decay.

There is your citation. Don't be stubborn or proud. It will undermine your intellectual credibility. Admit that and move on ;-)

As to zeta joules, I can't process that information... That means I can't audit it. And I don't like evidence that can't be audited.

Perhaps you should engage in further study, then - and until then, you'll have to accept that this evidence has been audited by expert reviewers, both before and after publication; by people who have enough experience in the field to understand what heat content is. This is how science works in every field.

That said, I don't understand your confusion. How would a temperature figure help here? Do you just want to see an overall degrees/year amount so you can decide subjectively if it's "significant" or not? It's rather more complicated than that.

18810.48 cubic km of water

Did I make another error here? Because these numbers are still no where near what they're talking about. That shows nearly five times the melting of that estimate. That's not even close.

That's because you're calculating from incomplete data. The 200 Gt/year ice loss figure I quoted was an estimate from a single paper that dealt only with the major ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. To get a more accurate figure for all the sea level rise inputs, you also have to factor in the melting glaciers everywhere else in the world. This is further complicated by the fact that ice melt in different areas can contribute quite differently to sea level rise (e.g. if it's floating, or if shrinking ice extent decreases albedo, resulting in warmer water and thus more moisture uptake in the atmosphere, to name a couple of factors). Then on top of this you have to include the effects of thermal expansion, which is around 25% of the total rise.

For a more detailed discussion, you could start with Meier et al 2007, which for example estimates that 60% of sea level rise actually comes from glacier melting, not including the two ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic.

you're going to have to show a graph that predates the heavy emission of fossil fuels.

Take a look at Figures 5 through 7 in Church et al 2011, that I already linked to earlier.

Obviously satellite data doesn't go back that far, which is what Shepherd was looking at, but we have fairly good logs of tidal data going back hundreds of years. These are confirmed by sedimentary cores going back to 1300.

That shows a much lower rate of rise... I think they're saying inches per century

This is only looking at ice melt in some specific areas. A direct quote:

we quantify mass-change trends in 19 continental areas that exhibit a dominant signal... the net effect was + (1.1 ± 0.6) mm/year.

This is consistent with our calculations above, as it includes areas beyond Greenland and the Antarctic. But it does not include all global sources of sea level rise; besides, we can measure that directly.

What's more, the rate of sea level rise has itself been increasing. Prior to 1900 it was close to 1mm/year, but in the las

without the benefit of actual scientific inquiry

http://pss.sagepub.com/content...

I am also unaware of any study that establishes a propensity in gay men to become hairdressers and fashion designers.

Do you really need a formal study for that ? Just walk into a couple of hair salons. It's quite obvious. Also, having been on dozens of plane trips, I yet have to meet a straight male flight attendant.