Do you have any way to statistically describe these "many people" or are you just basing this on the premise that you could eventually find some individuals if you searched long enough?
Because you have things like infant mortality rate (worse in US), life expectancy (worse in US) but you might be able to find "many people" that died young in Canada! The difference is we can quantitatively describe infant mortality and life expectancy and compare them for different jurisdictions quantitatively, whereas "many people" having "significantly worse results" are specious weasel words with no objective, and therefore any, meaning.
Sure, it will cost a few billion up front, but the long-term savings would be enormous
There would be no long-term savings. If you could convince every illegal immigrant in this country to leave, what you would see is a tremendous contraction of the US economy.
Cheap labor from undocumented immigrants lowers the price of goods and services for countless staple goods that you and I purchase every day, and illegal immigrants have created value in homes and commercial construction probably worth trillions of dollars that otherwise would not have been built. Cost savings from cheaper goods and services are spent on more new goods and services, which create jobs.
The whole thing is based on the deeply stupid idea that there are a fixed number of "jobs" in an economy, and if somebody is employed they will take up one of the "jobs" and that job will be used up now. If we kick out that person we will create a "job" for someone else. It's ridiculous. If someone is employed, their work will create value for their employers that creates jobs, and that persons income will be expended on goods and services that will create more jobs. That is how economies grow. Take that person away, and jobs will be destroyed, not created. Kicking out illegal immigrants would result in a gigantic contraction of the US economy, with fewer jobs for non-immigrants available until the economy can recover, and a general rise in price level for consumer goods across the board.
As an internet shopper, I am pleased by this decision because this will also mean the end of the stupid bargain/rebate/shoparound/missed discount remorse routine.
Breathe easier by having to pay the maximum possible price everywhere you shop!
The current political parties are trying to pigeon-hole everyone and say that if you are "pro-choice," you must also be "pro gay," "favor higher taxes, especially on the wealthy," and "favor gun control."
You're quite wrong, if only in attributing this to some *intentional scheme* by the parties, like this is something they do on purpose.
In reality, this is common human group-based behavior. It's how people tend to think in groups.
People start to think that "everyone on my side is right" and "everything on the other side is wrong" even if the collection of those ideas is arbitrary and often contradictory, and no matter what kind of group we're talking about. Not a big scheme by American political parties.
Even George Washington warned against the formation of political parties.
Ironically, many of the founding fathers shared his feelings on this subject, yet created a first-past-the-post, winner takes all voting system in which powerful political parties would be virtually guaranteed.
Also note this is not a scheme by the political parties either. 2 hegemonic parties is a quite stable feature of our electoral system for 225+ years, surviving many challenges despite many cycles of actual political ideas contained within and many generations of their actual human members. Ask yourself, how could this happen if it were part of a intentional plan by the parties, as their members keep dying and being replaced over generations? It's simply a stable outcome of the game theory of our voting system.
In a world where advertisers/government can track and uniquely identify everyones retinas at range, and people get total eyeball replacement surgery to circumvent such, but the technology to produce mirrored sunglasses has been lost to history...
This "we're going to go down fighting" was obviously some nonsense invented by Digg's public relations team.
Digg is venture capital funded, its management would be replaced by the end of the day if they seriously intended to risk any amount of equity in the company over some symbolic statement like that.
They'll obviously now just wait for the DMCA notices to take the offending material down, at which point we might expect more grandeur from their PR department if anyone notices.
Given that the medical expense is now the leading cause of declaring personal bankruptcy in this country, and of those doing so are mostly middle class, I suggest you have no idea what you're talking about. Of those declaring medical bankruptcy in 2001, a little more than 75% did in fact have insurance coverage at the onset of their illness.
So it's not people choosing to be poor and/or choosing not to have insurance. Thanks for playing.
You spoiled kids and all your bandwidth! In my day... I can't think of anything funny. Well anyway, here's the code in base64, requiring minimal space to transmit it in ascii:
Spence began his 1973 model with a hypothetical. Suppose that there are two types of employees -- good and bad -- and that employers are willing to pay a higher wage to the good type than the bad type. Spence assumes that for employers, there's no real way to tell in advance which employees will be of the good or bad type. Bad employees aren't really upset about this, because they get a free ride off of the hard work of the good employees. But good employees know that they deserve to be paid more for their effort, so they invest in the signal -- in this case, some amount of education. Spence assumes that education doesn't enhance the employee's productivity at all. But he does make one key assumption: good-type employees pay less for one unit of education than bad-type employees. This is not indicative of the cost of tuition and living expenses, as one would expect better employees to get educated at better and more expensive institutions. Rather, it is indicative of the opportunity cost that is paid by the time and effort invested into obtaining the education, which for a more efficient "good" employee, would be less than for a less efficient "bad" employee getting the same degree with the same grades from the same institution.
Spence discovered that even if education didn't contribute anything to an employee's productivity, good employees would still buy more education in order to signal their higher productivity to employers. (Economists sometimes call this the signalling hypothesis in education, often cited as a reason why government should not subsidize higher education for workers: more education allows workers to be paid a higher wage but doesn't make society more productive.) Bad workers, for their part, would accept a lower wage rather than pay the higher price (for them) of getting more education. And employers, seeing that the education signal really is correlated to employee productivity, would condition their wages on the signal, offering better wages to those who had invested more in the signal. This is called a signalling equilibrium.
I've got news for you, Putin's already got Chechnian rebels picked out for this task.
The Russian apartment bombings were a series of bombings in Russia that killed nearly 300 people and led the country into the Second Chechen War. They happened over a span of two weeks in 1999. The Russian authorities, directed by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, blamed the bombings on Chechen separatists, and, in response, ordered the invasion of Chechnya. However, former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, Johns Hopkins University and Hoover Institute scholar David Satter, and Russian lawmaker Sergei Yushenkov asserted that the bombings were in fact a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB in order to legitimate the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin and FSB to power.
Wasn't Litvinenko the guy who was assassinated with that mysterious poisoning a few months ago?... yup, he was
halal food, Korans wrapped in plastic, delivered by glove wearing guards (so the Koran will not be "defiled" by the "infidel") are provided to the "prisoners".
Well, when you put it that way holding people for half a decade without charges *does* sound like a good idea.
Honey, it's true what they're saying... habeus corpus *is* overrated... yes, they get Korans and things... if I had only had known they would be getting halal food!
Limbaugh's theory is the left's "demonization of the rich" is what caused the shooter (and liberal, Limbaugh concludes) to do it:
.. So, yeah, he ranted against women, too, and he ranted against a lot of things, but when he ranted against the rich, guess what? "Ooh, template! Template!" The Drive-By Media hears one thing, "Ooh, rich? Bam! We hate the rich, too!" That's part of liberal Democrat politics, is stirring up resentment against the rich. Demonization! It's a specialty of the left. They demonize entire groups of people. They demonize the rich. They demonize majorities of any kind. They demonize business. They demonize Big Oil. They demonize Wal-Mart. They demonize! You look at their enemies list, and you would have to conclude that they are anti-success and anti-capitalist, which I believe they are.
I believe they are threatened by anybody who makes it without some government involvement in their lives, or some movement involvement in their lives like the civil rights movement or what have you. These are the people that are full of hate, folks. These are the people that continually demonize the rich, and let me tell you how it manifests itself, not just in this case with this shooter. Whenever there is talk of tax cuts -- and how often do we get stories about "the wealth gap is widening! The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The middle class is being wiped out." How do you think that affects people? Well, when Democrats come along like Clinton or now the current crop of Democrats talking about raising taxes, well, guess what? Everybody's taxes are going to end up being raised, but the people who have been victimized by this demonization, the middle class and the poor, you raise somebody else's taxes it isn't going to make one iota's difference in their lives! If somebody's taxes get raised, yippee! It doesn't improve their lives at all. But there's this thing -- I coined the term in the early nineties -- get-even-with-'em-ism
[...]
Now, if this Virginia Tech shooter had an ideology, what do you think it was? This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich, and all these other things? This guy is a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act. Now, the Drive-Bys will read on the website that I'm attacking liberalism by comparing this guy to them. That's exactly what they do every day, ladies and gentlemen! I'm just pointing out a fact. I am making no extrapolation. I'm just pointing it out.
Note that the supreme court dodged a bullet by not basing their decision on the question of the validity of anthopogenic global warming. As the New York Times reported:
In sending the case back for further proceedings, Stevens said the high court did not decide which policy the EPA must follow. "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute," he wrote.
Ok, I agree more with your point of view as articulated here, and sorry if I was a bit snarky. Climate models are not experimental, though many aspects of climate science can be. Basic greenhouse effects can be demonstrated experimentally, for instance.
However, I don't agree that because it has confidence intervals means that it is useless, especially since we're not just talking about one or two studies here, we're talking about a large number of them.
You've just made a common mistake about science and the scientific method--that the best theory science can offer must necessarily be correct until proven otherwise. When no theory carries the weight of sufficient evidence, then we have no real understanding of what is going on at all. You don't have to "reject every conclusion, ever", just reject those that aren't well understood yet. Skepticism is valuable.
I don't think that's what I said. That would be a rather absurd to think. The point I was trying to make was that "might be wrong" is not by itself grounds for rejection or loss of confidence in a theory because every theory might be wrong.
When people appeal to the imaginable future scientists laughing at us they never seem to make the argument that future future scientists might laugh at them, and so on.
And, rejecting a particular reason to reject a theory does not imply acceptance, and nowhere did I say it did.
"You're basically asking everyone to assume that you have some great piece of counter-evidence or theory that hasn't been thought of yet."
Where did he say that? When real scientists test their theories, they neither expect evidence nor counter-evidence. They only expect data that helps them gain a better understanding and improve their theories. Once again you take the assumption that an existing theory is corrent. A real scientist does not do that.
He did that with the analogy here: "We look back mockingly at how ignorant some scientists were 40 years ago [...]. It is silly to think that people forty years from now won't be doing the same about us." Scientists deal with theories and evidence that exists now, not hypothetical future theories that can't be described.
"If that were a good argument then you could "disprove" any piece of knowledge about anything, forever, and to be consistent, you'd have to."...and you've done it again. A theory is not a "piece of knowledge", it may or may not be correct.
I did not intend for "knowledge" to have a specialized meaning as something that must not be wrong.
"If later scientists disprove global warming theory some day, you should also reject that conclusion on the grounds that later scientists might disprove them in turn. And so on."
No you should not! Every theory should be approached with an open mind. We should not blindly assume they are all correct or all incorrect.
I wasn't saying that we should do that, I was saying that someone who accepted the "might be wrong someday" test would have to, which would be absurd, which was my point.
"I have a hypothesis: you've just made all of this up off the top of your head but it sounds plausible to you personally. I invite you to disprove this hypothesis."
Since it's your hypothesis, the burden is on you to prove it.
Obviously I was just being rhetorical here. I obviously have no way of proving or disproving anything about him, which is why I invited him to do so. I did not intend for it to be a scientifically useful hypothesis other than goading him to respond.
Contrary to your post, his was completely reasonable.
Even the "To think that we (as a human race) have a very good understanding of long-term climatic processes is just arrogance" part?
To think that we (as a human race) have a very good understanding of long-term climatic processes is just arrogance.
Did you notice this sounds exactly like the start of an argument for intelligent design?
We have models which we are always refining, but they will always just be speculation. We look back mockingly at how ignorant some scientists were 40 years ago (eg. during the 1960s many/most geologists did not accept tectonic plate theory). It is silly to think that people forty years from now won't be doing the same about us.
The whole point of theory and evidence is so you can be relatively more confident that this is not going to happen. If the criticism of science that it might be overturned one day is sufficient to reject its conclusions, then you should always reject every conclusion, ever.
You're basically asking everyone to assume that you have some great piece of counter-evidence or theory that hasn't been thought of yet. If that were a good argument then you could "disprove" any piece of knowledge about anything, forever, and to be consistent, you'd have to. If later scientists disprove global warming theory some day, you should also reject that conclusion on the grounds that later scientists might disprove them in turn. And so on.
The whole point of science is to come up with knowledge that is less likely to be overturned than other kinds of knowledge (hearsay, religion-based, mere postulation).
That should be particularly true of climatic modelling. There is no robust equation for climate. People essentially just sit down and tweak the models until they get the results they expect, then use them to generate best case and worst case analysis. That folks, is hardly science.
Science is about evidence. Do you have any evidence of any of this happening? Is there any reason to believe you're not making it all up?
I have a hypothesis: you've just made all of this up off the top of your head but it sounds plausible to you personally. I invite you to disprove this hypothesis.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any way to statistically describe these "many people" or are you just basing this on the premise that you could eventually find some individuals if you searched long enough?
Because you have things like infant mortality rate (worse in US), life expectancy (worse in US) but you might be able to find "many people" that died young in Canada! The difference is we can quantitatively describe infant mortality and life expectancy and compare them for different jurisdictions quantitatively, whereas "many people" having "significantly worse results" are specious weasel words with no objective, and therefore any, meaning.
Sure, it will cost a few billion up front, but the long-term savings would be enormous
There would be no long-term savings. If you could convince every illegal immigrant in this country to leave, what you would see is a tremendous contraction of the US economy.
Cheap labor from undocumented immigrants lowers the price of goods and services for countless staple goods that you and I purchase every day, and illegal immigrants have created value in homes and commercial construction probably worth trillions of dollars that otherwise would not have been built. Cost savings from cheaper goods and services are spent on more new goods and services, which create jobs.
The whole thing is based on the deeply stupid idea that there are a fixed number of "jobs" in an economy, and if somebody is employed they will take up one of the "jobs" and that job will be used up now. If we kick out that person we will create a "job" for someone else. It's ridiculous. If someone is employed, their work will create value for their employers that creates jobs, and that persons income will be expended on goods and services that will create more jobs. That is how economies grow. Take that person away, and jobs will be destroyed, not created. Kicking out illegal immigrants would result in a gigantic contraction of the US economy, with fewer jobs for non-immigrants available until the economy can recover, and a general rise in price level for consumer goods across the board.
What do you think they're doing to be doing bong hits of?
All this time I've been smoking harmless tobacco!
As an internet shopper, I am pleased by this decision because this will also mean the end of the stupid bargain/rebate/shoparound/missed discount remorse routine.
Breathe easier by having to pay the maximum possible price everywhere you shop!
The current political parties are trying to pigeon-hole everyone and say that if you are "pro-choice," you must also be "pro gay," "favor higher taxes, especially on the wealthy," and "favor gun control."
You're quite wrong, if only in attributing this to some *intentional scheme* by the parties, like this is something they do on purpose.
In reality, this is common human group-based behavior. It's how people tend to think in groups.
People start to think that "everyone on my side is right" and "everything on the other side is wrong" even if the collection of those ideas is arbitrary and often contradictory, and no matter what kind of group we're talking about. Not a big scheme by American political parties.
Even George Washington warned against the formation of political parties.
Ironically, many of the founding fathers shared his feelings on this subject, yet created a first-past-the-post, winner takes all voting system in which powerful political parties would be virtually guaranteed.
Also note this is not a scheme by the political parties either. 2 hegemonic parties is a quite stable feature of our electoral system for 225+ years, surviving many challenges despite many cycles of actual political ideas contained within and many generations of their actual human members. Ask yourself, how could this happen if it were part of a intentional plan by the parties, as their members keep dying and being replaced over generations? It's simply a stable outcome of the game theory of our voting system.
In a world where advertisers/government can track and uniquely identify everyones retinas at range, and people get total eyeball replacement surgery to circumvent such, but the technology to produce mirrored sunglasses has been lost to history...
This "we're going to go down fighting" was obviously some nonsense invented by Digg's public relations team.
Digg is venture capital funded, its management would be replaced by the end of the day if they seriously intended to risk any amount of equity in the company over some symbolic statement like that.
They'll obviously now just wait for the DMCA notices to take the offending material down, at which point we might expect more grandeur from their PR department if anyone notices.
Given that the medical expense is now the leading cause of declaring personal bankruptcy in this country, and of those doing so are mostly middle class, I suggest you have no idea what you're talking about. Of those declaring medical bankruptcy in 2001, a little more than 75% did in fact have insurance coverage at the onset of their illness.
So it's not people choosing to be poor and/or choosing not to have insurance. Thanks for playing.
You spoiled kids and all your bandwidth! In my day... I can't think of anything funny. Well anyway, here's the code in base64, requiring minimal space to transmit it in ascii:
CfkRAp1041vYQVbFY1aIwA==
Save on bandwidth!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signaling_(economics
Good news! The government has raised the chocolate ration to 20 grams a week!
In Putin's Russia, the In Soviet Russia joke writes itself
Wasn't Litvinenko the guy who was assassinated with that mysterious poisoning a few months ago?
halal food, Korans wrapped in plastic, delivered by glove wearing guards (so the Koran will not be "defiled" by the "infidel") are provided to the "prisoners".
Well, when you put it that way holding people for half a decade without charges *does* sound like a good idea.
Honey, it's true what they're saying... habeus corpus *is* overrated... yes, they get Korans and things... if I had only had known they would be getting halal food!
Limbaugh's theory is the left's "demonization of the rich" is what caused the shooter (and liberal, Limbaugh concludes) to do it:
RTFA:
Note that the supreme court dodged a bullet by not basing their decision on the question of the validity of anthopogenic global warming. As the New York Times reported:
In sending the case back for further proceedings, Stevens said the high court did not decide which policy the EPA must follow. "We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute," he wrote.
Darth Maul, as cool as he may have looked, was almost completely insignificant to the story.
Story?
Ok, I agree more with your point of view as articulated here, and sorry if I was a bit snarky. Climate models are not experimental, though many aspects of climate science can be. Basic greenhouse effects can be demonstrated experimentally, for instance.
However, I don't agree that because it has confidence intervals means that it is useless, especially since we're not just talking about one or two studies here, we're talking about a large number of them.
You've just made a common mistake about science and the scientific method--that the best theory science can offer must necessarily be correct until proven otherwise. When no theory carries the weight of sufficient evidence, then we have no real understanding of what is going on at all. You don't have to "reject every conclusion, ever", just reject those that aren't well understood yet. Skepticism is valuable.
...and you've done it again. A theory is not a
I don't think that's what I said. That would be a rather absurd to think. The point I was trying to make was that "might be wrong" is not by itself grounds for rejection or loss of confidence in a theory because every theory might be wrong.
When people appeal to the imaginable future scientists laughing at us they never seem to make the argument that future future scientists might laugh at them, and so on.
And, rejecting a particular reason to reject a theory does not imply acceptance, and nowhere did I say it did.
"You're basically asking everyone to assume that you have some great piece of counter-evidence or theory that hasn't been thought of yet."
Where did he say that? When real scientists test their theories, they neither expect evidence nor counter-evidence. They only expect data that helps them gain a better understanding and improve their theories. Once again you take the assumption that an existing theory is corrent. A real scientist does not do that.
He did that with the analogy here: "We look back mockingly at how ignorant some scientists were 40 years ago [...]. It is silly to think that people forty years from now won't be doing the same about us." Scientists deal with theories and evidence that exists now, not hypothetical future theories that can't be described.
"If that were a good argument then you could "disprove" any piece of knowledge about anything, forever, and to be consistent, you'd have to."
"piece of knowledge", it may or may not be correct.
I did not intend for "knowledge" to have a specialized meaning as something that must not be wrong.
"If later scientists disprove global warming theory some day, you should also reject that conclusion on the grounds that later scientists might disprove them in turn. And so on."
No you should not! Every theory should be approached with an open mind. We should not blindly assume they are all correct or all incorrect.
I wasn't saying that we should do that, I was saying that someone who accepted the "might be wrong someday" test would have to, which would be absurd, which was my point.
"I have a hypothesis: you've just made all of this up off the top of your head but it sounds plausible to you personally. I invite you to disprove this hypothesis."
Since it's your hypothesis, the burden is on you to prove it.
Obviously I was just being rhetorical here. I obviously have no way of proving or disproving anything about him, which is why I invited him to do so. I did not intend for it to be a scientifically useful hypothesis other than goading him to respond.
Contrary to your post, his was completely reasonable.
Even the "To think that we (as a human race) have a very good understanding of long-term climatic processes is just arrogance" part?
To think that we (as a human race) have a very good understanding of long-term climatic processes is just arrogance.
Did you notice this sounds exactly like the start of an argument for intelligent design?
We have models which we are always refining, but they will always just be speculation. We look back mockingly at how ignorant some scientists were 40 years ago (eg. during the 1960s many/most geologists did not accept tectonic plate theory). It is silly to think that people forty years from now won't be doing the same about us.
The whole point of theory and evidence is so you can be relatively more confident that this is not going to happen. If the criticism of science that it might be overturned one day is sufficient to reject its conclusions, then you should always reject every conclusion, ever.
You're basically asking everyone to assume that you have some great piece of counter-evidence or theory that hasn't been thought of yet. If that were a good argument then you could "disprove" any piece of knowledge about anything, forever, and to be consistent, you'd have to. If later scientists disprove global warming theory some day, you should also reject that conclusion on the grounds that later scientists might disprove them in turn. And so on.
The whole point of science is to come up with knowledge that is less likely to be overturned than other kinds of knowledge (hearsay, religion-based, mere postulation).
That should be particularly true of climatic modelling. There is no robust equation for climate. People essentially just sit down and tweak the models until they get the results they expect, then use them to generate best case and worst case analysis. That folks, is hardly science.
Science is about evidence. Do you have any evidence of any of this happening? Is there any reason to believe you're not making it all up?
I have a hypothesis: you've just made all of this up off the top of your head but it sounds plausible to you personally. I invite you to disprove this hypothesis.