Up in BC (Canada), they have signs before the light - they've got yellow lights that flash to tell you that the intersection ahead is red or is going to turn red. They're fantastic, and they mean that people have a much longer time frame to figure out whether they need to slow down.
The problem is that they alone will not be suffering the consequences of their ignorance. If scientists do not get the word out, their ability to perform their duties will be severely curtailed. This isn't the time to say "not my job!"
I'm a US citizen living in Canada, and I cross the border daily to work. Those are all standard questions for people coming into the country to work whether you are a citizen or not. I can't imagine any country that wouldn't ask when you will be going back - Canada requires you to be able to show how and when you will be going back if you're visiting/working/etc. I've been crossing for about five years, and the questions haven't changed - although at this point they're just confirming what the computer tells them.
As for the credit card issue, I'm right with you there. Raise hell.
Likely the number of accidents simply involving drunk drivers is high enough: we don't need to include ones where only passengers or pedestrians are drunk. Also, let's leave out cases with open containers but no blood alcohol in anyone in the car; open containers in cars may be illegal these days, but we have no way of knowing who emptied the can. If there are in fact "alcohol-related accidents" that involve a driver impaired on something that isn't alcohol, each other substance should fall under its own category. What if there turns out to be a need to stop people from driving under the influence of Valium? How can we fight that problem if we lump Valium in with alcohol?
So what we really need is drunk driving statistics, which should probably be paired with the alcohol-related stats. The numbers seem to be available, but since they haven't had the correction for missing data done, the larger numbers are the ones focused on.
One option would be adding a category of impaired (on something) drivers - since it's unlikely that someone on illegal drugs is going to tell a cop exactly what they've been ingesting. That's a good way to get the interior torn out of the car. =)
Anyone turning a curve after all the snow has melted, leaving loose sand on the road? It's a common practice to sand roads when it's snowy/icy. The sand takes a while to get worked off the road.
The link that you have here is simply listing the NHTSA's numbers, showing that they've done a statistical analysis on them to account for missing information, and a whole bunch of big red text saying that people misinterpret the numbers because they read "alcohol-related" as "drunk driver related". Even on the getMADD page, they admit that the NHTSA actually says that the fact that alcohol was involved does not mean that the alcohol was in any way responsible.
That really doesn't change the numbers, does it? It just means that people don't think. Not exactly a surprise. That Rehnquist made a factually incorrect statement relating to a topic he's not an expert on isn't really a "headline". It's a "common misconception".
The article you're pulling all of this from has no attribution whatsoever, it's just an editorial-style piece. Can you back any of this up with references?
Some information on the multiple imputation method they are using can be found through a FAQ at Penn State's statistics department. To summarize, it's a standard statistical method for dealing with missing information. If there are 20 drivers and 5 of them refuse BAC testing - you can either completely remove those people from the data set and skew the numbers, or you can calculate the numbers from what is known.
You can find some more info on what the numbers are and why things are calculated the way they are in the NIAAA/NIH document: Trends in Alcohol-Related Fatal Traffic Crashes, United States, 1982-2004. They began using the multiple imputation method in 2004, and recalculated the info from 1982 until then. Statistically speaking, I would think that this happens all the time - if you get a better method of dealing with data, then you recalculate your numbers.
By definition all the instances you list as being included in "alcohol-related" are, in fact, alcohol related. You don't have to "wonder what alcohol-related actually means," and saying that things that involve alcohol are "considered alcohol-related" is a bit silly. If it involves alcohol, then it is alcohol-related. I would agree with what seems to be your point that you can't say that the number of drunk drivers is equivalent to the number of alcohol-related incidents. The number of drunk drivers goes into the alcohol-related numbers, but it's only one part. For example, if a drunk person stumbles out into the street and is hit by a sober driver then while it isn't a "drunk driving" incident, you can't argue that the incident isn't alcohol-related.
The NIAAA's definition of alcohol-related as of 2004 is "...a crash is considered as alcohol-related if either a driver or a nonoccupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) had a BAC of 0.01 g/dl or greater." You can feel free to argue about whether this is reasonable, but again by definition - a measurable amount of alcohol is a level that is able to be measured, ie above.00.
If you really want to "fight MADD," then you should be able to back up your information with references, with facts, as opposed to just reprinting what comes down to propaganda - which is the same thing they're being accused of. Numbers are meaningless unless you know what they mean... so back them up.
Frankly, while I have had better experience in the past with credit unions, my latest experiences have been horrible. It's the sort of thing where they treat you like people and soak you for slightly less than the banks. I think that the smaller credit unions are generally good places to deal with, and the larger they get the more they become like regular banks.
Well, we don't have a local roastery. We don't even have a good local coffee shop. We've got a fair trade place with great atmosphere and average coffee (_terrible_ frozen drinks, good food though), a couple pseudo-chains with ok coffee, and Starbucks.
When it comes down to it, given the lack of decent choices - I'll go to one shop that has a decent frappe (if you add a couple shots of espresso and some flavour) or I'll hit Starbucks drive-through. When I'm in the city, I'll go to real coffee shops and it's just fantastic... but I can't get that here.
When it comes down to it, in comparing Starbucks with the local shops - their lines move faster, their employees are reasonably perky and on the ball, and the quality is consistent. It's not _great_ quality, but I know what it'll be. I've also never had them make me wait to give my order while they talked on the phone. =) If I had a better option, of course, I'd be all over it, but I doubt there's a market for it where I live.
Okami is my pick for the best game of the year. It's stunning visually, it's got an interesting story line and creative combat possibilities; I thought it was just fantastic. I'm playing through it a second time to catch everything I missed. There are very few games that actually capture my imagination and this was one of them.
Something I found interesting - the character of Ghis was voiced by Mark Wing-Davey, the original Zaphod Beeblebrox from the Hitchhiker's Guide radio show and first television series. I haven't played it yet, but the voice acting sounds quite good from what I've heard across the room.
A pine beetle infestation in one province does not a global warming make. Plus, even if we are experiencing human caused global warming, it doesn't mean its economically bad.
I never claimed that it did. I simply responded to the assertion that global warming could bring positive benefits by saying that those benefits would be offset by negative impacts brought by the same trend.
The nice part about the forests dying from pine beetles is it shuts up the environmentalists about logging them.
It hasn't actually. There are a lot of environmental issues involved, including the question of whether pine should be pre-emptively logged to prevent spread and whether logging companies should be able to log unaffected and more valuable cedars in the same area. The outbreak is having a devastating effect both economically and environmentally, so it's hardly just the environmentalists complaining.
I've never heard the term "overaged" forest used before. Wouldn't this simply mean that outbreaks are worse in mature forest? On the other hand, I'd agree about the shortage of forest fires - fire control has really skewed some much-needed natural processes.
Given that the Northern Hemisphere at least is getting warmer, this is not entirely a bad thing as the food growing season is longer, and the increased productivity is an economic boon. From this government report on climate change: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalasses sment/overviewmidwest.htm [usgcrp.gov] "With an increase in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature limited."
Up in British Columbia, Canada, vast amounts of pine forests are being destroyed due to the mountain pine beetle - an insect that was formerly kept in check during extended freezes in winter. The pine forests here are just devastated - it's really shocking to see places that were green a year or two ago that are now all brown and black. We just haven't had the temperatures to control it and it's not looking like we'll get them any time soon.
While there may be positives to a global warming trend, they would most likely be balanced out by negatives - new pests and diseases will be able to make inroads that they weren't able to before.
Funny... I've never seen it written down before - I always thought it was "all intensive purposes" too, but now that I think about it, that would make no sense at all.
As for rain, I use a protective rubber suit, consisting of both a "rain coat" and "rain pants" to keep me from getting wet. I live in Vancouver, and bike through the winter, so don't give me any shit about how that simply wouldn't work where you live (unless you've got an actual monsoon season, in which case you can take the bus:) ).
I live near Vancouver... all we get here is rain. There's barely even snow, it's so bloody un-Canadian. We had 10x more snow in Indiana than here. While I agree that people can bike through the rain, I'd question the sanity of people riding 20 miles back and forth around, say, Toronto in January. Or in Iqaluit.
Except for weather quibbles, I'd have to agree with you though.;)
This is the issue I have. I would really like to be able to explain some of these things to people who have been through the Christian schools in the area where I work. They're intelligent people. They're nice people. They're just people who were taught in school that fossils got up on mountains when the earth flooded. I've tried, but I can't explain this without sounding horrifically patronizing. "You know that the whole fossil-flood idea was debunked around 1500 years ago, right?"
Is there any good information for the layperson on how to communicate science to people who don't have the background?
To some extent, the body part affected doesn't help things. Breasts do seem to be almost universally appealing. It's not like you can really stick a picture of a prostate up on a billboard and have people think "Oh, the prostates are being affected! We must mobilize!" If, instead of prostate cancer, men got penis cancer, I think there'd be a lot more interest. Part of it is because it's an internal part, as opposed to one we see every day. Part of it is societal hangups about that region of the body.
Women don't _like_ getting their breasts squished for a scan. However, a rather large proportion of men feel horrifically violated at having someone poke up their ass. (As far as I can tell, as a woman I'm just going on my perceptions here.) Sure, some men see it as necessary, but a lot just refuse to even think about it.
As a result of getting some pretty awful health information, women mobilized to make sure that there was accurate info out there - perhaps as a result of this, more women are aware of their health. Still, it seems like a lot of the medical studies are done on men only - which, as someone mentioned, is why the whole issue of women and heart attacks became a huge problem. Ten, twenty years ago, women didn't have heart attacks... because the symptoms they had didn't match the symptoms men had.
Overall, my impression is that the efforts women have put into trying to get some balance in health care have helped - but I honestly don't think that they've tipped the scales over in favor of women.
This is actually pretty accurate, from what I understand. Personally, I'm only really concerned about this at small movie theaters, or at the local drive-in - places that actually give good value for the money. The smaller places can make or break on whether people are hitting the concessions.
Personally, I've got no problem paying the prices for the soda and popcorn, but I've got to draw the line at the candy. 5x retail is just a wee bit too much.
My favorite theater so far was one in Portland that makes its own pizzas and has tables in the theater. Mmmm. Pizza, beer and a movie just is so much more interesting than the usual popcorn/nibs mix and a soda.
Slashdot Mirror
Up in BC (Canada), they have signs before the light - they've got yellow lights that flash to tell you that the intersection ahead is red or is going to turn red. They're fantastic, and they mean that people have a much longer time frame to figure out whether they need to slow down.
The problem is that they alone will not be suffering the consequences of their ignorance. If scientists do not get the word out, their ability to perform their duties will be severely curtailed. This isn't the time to say "not my job!"
The word is "pantywaists". It referred originally to a child's undergarment.
I'm a US citizen living in Canada, and I cross the border daily to work. Those are all standard questions for people coming into the country to work whether you are a citizen or not. I can't imagine any country that wouldn't ask when you will be going back - Canada requires you to be able to show how and when you will be going back if you're visiting/working/etc. I've been crossing for about five years, and the questions haven't changed - although at this point they're just confirming what the computer tells them.
As for the credit card issue, I'm right with you there. Raise hell.
So what we really need is drunk driving statistics, which should probably be paired with the alcohol-related stats. The numbers seem to be available, but since they haven't had the correction for missing data done, the larger numbers are the ones focused on.
One option would be adding a category of impaired (on something) drivers - since it's unlikely that someone on illegal drugs is going to tell a cop exactly what they've been ingesting. That's a good way to get the interior torn out of the car. =)
Anyone turning a curve after all the snow has melted, leaving loose sand on the road? It's a common practice to sand roads when it's snowy/icy. The sand takes a while to get worked off the road.
The link that you have here is simply listing the NHTSA's numbers, showing that they've done a statistical analysis on them to account for missing information, and a whole bunch of big red text saying that people misinterpret the numbers because they read "alcohol-related" as "drunk driver related". Even on the getMADD page, they admit that the NHTSA actually says that the fact that alcohol was involved does not mean that the alcohol was in any way responsible.
That really doesn't change the numbers, does it? It just means that people don't think. Not exactly a surprise. That Rehnquist made a factually incorrect statement relating to a topic he's not an expert on isn't really a "headline". It's a "common misconception".
The article you're pulling all of this from has no attribution whatsoever, it's just an editorial-style piece. Can you back any of this up with references?
.00.
Some information on the multiple imputation method they are using can be found through a FAQ at Penn State's statistics department. To summarize, it's a standard statistical method for dealing with missing information. If there are 20 drivers and 5 of them refuse BAC testing - you can either completely remove those people from the data set and skew the numbers, or you can calculate the numbers from what is known.
You can find some more info on what the numbers are and why things are calculated the way they are in the NIAAA/NIH document: Trends in Alcohol-Related Fatal Traffic Crashes, United States, 1982-2004. They began using the multiple imputation method in 2004, and recalculated the info from 1982 until then. Statistically speaking, I would think that this happens all the time - if you get a better method of dealing with data, then you recalculate your numbers.
By definition all the instances you list as being included in "alcohol-related" are, in fact, alcohol related. You don't have to "wonder what alcohol-related actually means," and saying that things that involve alcohol are "considered alcohol-related" is a bit silly. If it involves alcohol, then it is alcohol-related. I would agree with what seems to be your point that you can't say that the number of drunk drivers is equivalent to the number of alcohol-related incidents. The number of drunk drivers goes into the alcohol-related numbers, but it's only one part. For example, if a drunk person stumbles out into the street and is hit by a sober driver then while it isn't a "drunk driving" incident, you can't argue that the incident isn't alcohol-related.
The NIAAA's definition of alcohol-related as of 2004 is "...a crash is considered as alcohol-related if either a driver or a nonoccupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) had a BAC of 0.01 g/dl or greater." You can feel free to argue about whether this is reasonable, but again by definition - a measurable amount of alcohol is a level that is able to be measured, ie above
If you really want to "fight MADD," then you should be able to back up your information with references, with facts, as opposed to just reprinting what comes down to propaganda - which is the same thing they're being accused of. Numbers are meaningless unless you know what they mean... so back them up.
Frankly, while I have had better experience in the past with credit unions, my latest experiences have been horrible. It's the sort of thing where they treat you like people and soak you for slightly less than the banks. I think that the smaller credit unions are generally good places to deal with, and the larger they get the more they become like regular banks.
Well, we don't have a local roastery. We don't even have a good local coffee shop. We've got a fair trade place with great atmosphere and average coffee (_terrible_ frozen drinks, good food though), a couple pseudo-chains with ok coffee, and Starbucks.
When it comes down to it, given the lack of decent choices - I'll go to one shop that has a decent frappe (if you add a couple shots of espresso and some flavour) or I'll hit Starbucks drive-through. When I'm in the city, I'll go to real coffee shops and it's just fantastic... but I can't get that here.
When it comes down to it, in comparing Starbucks with the local shops - their lines move faster, their employees are reasonably perky and on the ball, and the quality is consistent. It's not _great_ quality, but I know what it'll be. I've also never had them make me wait to give my order while they talked on the phone. =) If I had a better option, of course, I'd be all over it, but I doubt there's a market for it where I live.
Okami is my pick for the best game of the year. It's stunning visually, it's got an interesting story line and creative combat possibilities; I thought it was just fantastic. I'm playing through it a second time to catch everything I missed. There are very few games that actually capture my imagination and this was one of them.
Something I found interesting - the character of Ghis was voiced by Mark Wing-Davey, the original Zaphod Beeblebrox from the Hitchhiker's Guide radio show and first television series. I haven't played it yet, but the voice acting sounds quite good from what I've heard across the room.
I never claimed that it did. I simply responded to the assertion that global warming could bring positive benefits by saying that those benefits would be offset by negative impacts brought by the same trend.
It hasn't actually. There are a lot of environmental issues involved, including the question of whether pine should be pre-emptively logged to prevent spread and whether logging companies should be able to log unaffected and more valuable cedars in the same area. The outbreak is having a devastating effect both economically and environmentally, so it's hardly just the environmentalists complaining.
I've never heard the term "overaged" forest used before. Wouldn't this simply mean that outbreaks are worse in mature forest? On the other hand, I'd agree about the shortage of forest fires - fire control has really skewed some much-needed natural processes.
Up in British Columbia, Canada, vast amounts of pine forests are being destroyed due to the mountain pine beetle - an insect that was formerly kept in check during extended freezes in winter. The pine forests here are just devastated - it's really shocking to see places that were green a year or two ago that are now all brown and black. We just haven't had the temperatures to control it and it's not looking like we'll get them any time soon.
While there may be positives to a global warming trend, they would most likely be balanced out by negatives - new pests and diseases will be able to make inroads that they weren't able to before.
Mute = myoot. As in unable to speak.
Moot = moot. Little practical value or meaning.
It's one of those things like "another words" / "in other words".
Funny... I've never seen it written down before - I always thought it was "all intensive purposes" too, but now that I think about it, that would make no sense at all.
The news shows high profile breeches? Wow... I must be watching the wrong news. I thought people stopped wearing those ages ago.
Except for weather quibbles, I'd have to agree with you though. ;)
This is the issue I have. I would really like to be able to explain some of these things to people who have been through the Christian schools in the area where I work. They're intelligent people. They're nice people. They're just people who were taught in school that fossils got up on mountains when the earth flooded. I've tried, but I can't explain this without sounding horrifically patronizing. "You know that the whole fossil-flood idea was debunked around 1500 years ago, right?"
Is there any good information for the layperson on how to communicate science to people who don't have the background?
They've mentioned on the show before that CNN International carries it. Jon Stewart seemed pretty surprised. =)
To some extent, the body part affected doesn't help things. Breasts do seem to be almost universally appealing. It's not like you can really stick a picture of a prostate up on a billboard and have people think "Oh, the prostates are being affected! We must mobilize!" If, instead of prostate cancer, men got penis cancer, I think there'd be a lot more interest. Part of it is because it's an internal part, as opposed to one we see every day. Part of it is societal hangups about that region of the body.
Women don't _like_ getting their breasts squished for a scan. However, a rather large proportion of men feel horrifically violated at having someone poke up their ass. (As far as I can tell, as a woman I'm just going on my perceptions here.) Sure, some men see it as necessary, but a lot just refuse to even think about it.
As a result of getting some pretty awful health information, women mobilized to make sure that there was accurate info out there - perhaps as a result of this, more women are aware of their health. Still, it seems like a lot of the medical studies are done on men only - which, as someone mentioned, is why the whole issue of women and heart attacks became a huge problem. Ten, twenty years ago, women didn't have heart attacks... because the symptoms they had didn't match the symptoms men had.
Overall, my impression is that the efforts women have put into trying to get some balance in health care have helped - but I honestly don't think that they've tipped the scales over in favor of women.
This is actually pretty accurate, from what I understand. Personally, I'm only really concerned about this at small movie theaters, or at the local drive-in - places that actually give good value for the money. The smaller places can make or break on whether people are hitting the concessions.
Personally, I've got no problem paying the prices for the soda and popcorn, but I've got to draw the line at the candy. 5x retail is just a wee bit too much.
My favorite theater so far was one in Portland that makes its own pizzas and has tables in the theater. Mmmm. Pizza, beer and a movie just is so much more interesting than the usual popcorn/nibs mix and a soda.
A supervisor I know uses a password of, I swear, "1234". Unfortunately, he doesn't think that's a problem.
I'd agree, but I think the emphatic news coverage does exacerbate the problem.