So, the argument you're going to get is that a digital port and external A/D is mo bettah for HiFi.
Which, of course, is a remarkably easy argument to shoot down. Just point out that a sizable percentage of headphones sold (and probably the majority) cost under $10, and that any external DAC and amplifier that could reasonably be fitted inside a sub-$10 pair of earbuds without tripling the cost is almost guaranteed to be much lower quality than the DAC and amplifier inside even a low-end cell phone. And for the folks who already buy expensive headphones, there's nothing stopping them from using an external DAC even if there's a traditional analog headphone jack available, which means there's no upside to removing it—only downside.
The FCC, then controlled by Democrats, decided they were going to override the law passed by the (Democrat) legislature and say that TVA was to provide broadband service *outside* of their designated service area.
TVA covers 99.7% of the state of Tennessee, by land area. Who, exactly are they not allowed to serve?
No, you misunderstand. They want to "help private businesses build the networks". Translation: They want to bribe the cable companies and phone companies who refused to build out the network to serve the poor, putting money into their pockets in exchange for a promise of a buildout that will never actually happen except on paper, same as always happens when the Republicans are in control.
There is, as you rightfully point out, exactly one way to build infrastructure that is truly universal, and that's for local governments to foot the bill for construction and then lease access to companies that provide service. That way, the government can bring in multiple providers with minimal up-front costs per provider, thus allowing real, honest-to-goodness competition in broadband service, without the giant noose of the infrastructure construction hanging around the ISPs necks.
What we need right now is a Roosevelt, not a Reagan—a builder, not a financier.
... mainly by bringing in more adjuncts who are paid peanuts, then raising max cap of the lectures to between 200 and 600 students per section (anatomy and physiology I and II, anyone?), and then leveraging TAs in the labs.
...resulting in a lower-quality undergrad education in exchange for that better grad education. Yes, I'm aware. But even if the adjuncts cost a quarter as much per unit as the full-time people, that's still money that the school wouldn't have spent if the full-time faculty taught more classes.
In addition, if you hire a few Chinese or Saudi professors with connections, you can get an influx of under qualified foreign students who will pay FULL PRICE for tuition with no financial aid provided by anything linked to the US.
Although out-of-state and foreign people do pay full price, that's because in-state students are subsidized by the state. Much of the difference in how much they pay is replacing that subsidy—not all of it, mind you, but a big chunk of it. You really can't count most of that as "making money".
Most universities have entire development departments dedicated to bringing in grant money and funding from other outside sources. Those folks get paid a lot less than a $200k/year tenured professor. It would be a lot less expensive for them to do the legwork so that the $200k/year profs can actually do what they were hired to do—teach.
... there's a strong argument to be made that government-provided health care is the problem.
No, actually what those numbers tell you is that older people need more medical care than young people. When you actually look at the efficiency of Medicare, they spend less money on administration than private insurers and have lower reimbursement percentages (about 80% of what private insurance pays).
If anybody is contributing to the high cost of health care, it is private insurance. By having multiple insurance companies that each have to negotiate independently, there's a bigger tendency for the cost of service to go up to the maximum that the insurance providers are willing to pay.
It's not HDCP. In Sierra, some TVs and monitors are incorrectly reported as being non-HDCP-compliant, and the result is that certain software (e.g. Netflix, but only in Safari) throws errors. The OS as a whole, however, is perfectly content with displaying content on a non-HDCP-capable screen.
Yeah, and as a result of that lack of income tax, the poor get gouged and the rich barely even notice the tax systems. It's horribly inefficient, and is the main reason why Tennessee is dependent on aid from the federal government to keep them from going bankrupt. Because of Tennessee's fundamentally broken tax system, the education systems in other states (mostly blue states) suffer, because we have to pay more in taxes to make up for what the state of Tennessee (and others) should be collecting, but aren't.
And as someone with close ties to the UT system, the free tuition at community colleges has caused serious pain for Tennessee's four-year institutions by reducing their incoming enrollment for the first two years and causing them to have to deal with a flood of third-year students whose first two years of education were of significantly lesser quality than they would have gotten at a four-year institution. Worse, it is often impossible for students who start out in a CC to graduate in four years, because the CCs don't offer enough of the required major courses. So the net effect is that the quality of education has suffered significantly as a result of that decision, largely because the people who came up with the plan didn't understand the state's educational system well enough to make good decisions.
By contrast, the best thing that happened to Tennessee's education system were the lottery scholarships. These needs-based scholarships have made it possible for students to afford four-year colleges.
... so the college actually makes money from superstar researchers.
You were correct up to that point. The cost of tuition for a student is about the same as the resources that he or she consumes. So adding more students doesn't cause the college to "make money". It just causes them to have more students. Even if one extra student doesn't cause an increase in the number of faculty required to teach them, by the time you fill a lab with students, you'll end up bringing in extra resources, making the benefit at most a small fraction of what they pay, at most. And when you consider that the superstar researcher, by not teaching a full course load, is costing the university money on additional professors or instructors, it is very unlikely that the university breaks even, much less makes money, unless you start from the assumption that the university would have done that research anyway and would have paid for the costs out of their own pockets.
Don't get me wrong, research is a good thing, because it drives the state of the art forward, and in some cases, the research itself leads to patents that make money for those universities on an ongoing basis, and the (mostly graduate) students that participate in academic research are presumably better off for having done so, but don't kid yourself by thinking that it is break-even or better. It's a giant money pit. That's why research universities invariably cost so much more for tuition than non-research institutions.
Except when you have friends with similar names (Alexa, Alexia, Alexis/Elexis, Alex), etc. I have three friends whose names are close enough that they would cause a false trigger risk if I ever talked to them on the phone from inside my house. By contrast, I can't remember the last time I said the word "computer" out loud... anywhere.
but those dimensions weren't big enough to accommodate the battery material itself
So... battery supplier problem just like the GP said.
Yes and no. Samsung specified both the enclosure size and the watt-hour capacity (which determines the size of the material inside). Thus, if it wasn't physically possible to meet both specifications at the same time, the specs were ultimately at fault.
The battery supplier is, of course, partially to blame for not detecting the problem and telling Samsung that their specs were infeasible, but unfortunately, that's all too common when dealing with contracted manufacturing. They'll build hardware to your exact specs, and if your specs are wrong, they'll build the product to those specs anyway. I'm not excusing that sort of behavior, mind you, but it isn't at all unusual.
That's why IMO the buck ultimately stops with Samsung, who created the faulty specs that were beyond the limits of the underlying battery technology. Apple fans beware: This is where the obsession with thinness ultimately leads.
When you specify that a batteries maximum envelope is X, and the supplier provides a battery which has a maximum envelope greater than X then, yes, it's a supplier problem.
Except that this isn't what happened, according to the much-more-detailed Anandtech article. Samsung specified the maximum exterior dimensions of the pouch, but those dimensions weren't big enough to accommodate the battery material itself. The second battery was slightly thicker, but suffered the same failure because of the thickness of welds on the very same parts that caused the first battery failure.
When you look at these failures together, it seems reasonable to suggest that Samsung's specifications were pushing the limits of battery technology to the breaking point, and that these unreasonable specifications were the common root cause of both battery failures. In other words, yes, there are limits to how thin you can make a battery and still have it be safe.
My opinion has nothing to do with bad drivers. Everybody gets tired. Everybody gets distracted. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding him/herself.
Besides, more than 70% of all drivers eat while driving, and that's responsible (according to one study) for about 80% of all crashes. When I say humans suck as drivers, I mean that the overwhelming majority of human drivers (if not all) suck at driving at least some of the time. The only reason we don't have orders of magnitude more wrecks than we do is that split-second reaction time is only important on very rare occasions (perhaps five-seconds in a typical hour of driving), so being distracted usually doesn't result in an accident.
I'm anti-antibiotic and modern medical intervention because I think knowing that they're available just makes people careless and sloppy when they travel in areas where those interventions aren't available. I would much rather a few more people die because we don't use antibiotics at all than for people to become reliant on them and just become careless and unfit.
First, antibiotics are available nearly anywhere in the world you might go. By contrast, these sorts of autopilot features are available on a tiny fraction of a percent of vehicles, and probably will be for some time to come.
Second, the technology is highly limited, basically useful only on the highway, which means that if people get used to having that extra support during highway driving, it could easily result in an increase in accidents in cities, where accidents are much more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities. So there's a good possibility that this could actually make traffic deaths worse on the whole over the long term.
Early studies strongly suggested that partial self-driving solutions did more harm than good, which is why I think we should wait to make self-driving technology available until it can truly take the place of the human driver, rather than introducing a solution that only works part of the time and can lead to false confidence the rest of the time. I could be wrong, and I'd like to be wrong, but my gut says we'd be better off waiting a few more years for a more complete solution, rather than deploying a partial solution more broadly.
I'm not saying that the challenge of coming up with software that allows a car to autonomously drive itself better than a human isn't possible. I just challenge the assertion that a computer with multiple cameras is likely superior to a human.
I say that for several reasons:
Human vision is inherently focused on a single thing at a time. They teach you to move your eyes around and scan for things that might be problems, but the reality is that we're very limited in our ability to do so. Computers don't have that problem. They can see that kid on the side of the road who might fall out into traffic long before a human driver would happen to randomly glance in that direction, which means that on average, they can take corrective action much sooner even if their actual reaction time is much slower.
Computers can also look behind and beside them constantly. You might look in your side or rearview mirror when you're about to turn or change lanes or back up. However, the odds of seeing someone cutting into your side or flying up behind you in time to avoid a collision is remarkably small. A computer, however, would see those vehicles every time, and would often be able to prevent the resulting accidents.
Statistically, one in five collisions happens in parking lots, where human vision is hopelessly obstructed by other vehicles. Computers should be able to trivially avoid essentially all of those collisions. So right off the bat, even if computers were no better than human drivers while on the road, you'd expect a 20% drop in accidents just from having complete 360-degree vision while pulling out of parking spaces. And nearly half of all pedestrian accidents occur in parking lots, so the seemingly excessive caution that computer-controlled cars use should dramatically decrease pedestrian injuries and deaths as well.
Besides, Tesla's autopilot feature is designed exclusively for highway driving. (AFAIK, it still ignores stop signs and traffic lights entirely.) Highway driving is, on the whole, some of the safest driving possible, with nearly every accident caused by some combination of fatigue, distraction (particularly involving food/drinks), and/or drunkenness on the part of one of the drivers involved. To beat a human driver under those conditions, all Tesla's autopilot really has to do is keep the car in the current lane, reliably detect cars that have stopped in front of it without nodding off after half an hour or chugging one for the road, and avoid other people who have fallen asleep or are drunk. Of those, only the last one is particularly challenging, which is almost certainly why the crash numbers are only down by 40% instead of 80% or more.:-)
I think that two numbers would be deceptive because almost no-one is capable of acknowledging their inattention.
They don't have to. With as much data collection as the Tesla systems do, assuming they collect the same data with autopilot disabled, too, it should be possible to do a post-mortem (so to speak) on a random sampling of accidents and determine whether a reasonable person should have noticed the stopped car in front of them (for example) or not and whether the driver failed to react in a timely fashion or not.
I think that two numbers would be deceptive because almost no-one is capable of acknowledging their inattention. If you found at that that 50% of accidents are caused by inattention, but the autopilot is a 20% *worse* driver than someone paying attention, you *know* that everyone would flee from AutoPilot it on the assumption they won't be part of the 50% failing to pay attention.
On the contrary. If the autopilot is 20% worse than a driver who is paying attention, then having those concrete statistics would provide the motivation to change the behavior of the autopilot feature to be more sensible, such as looking for signs that the driver isn't paying attention, and then automatically engaging when the driver's hands leave the wheel, when the driver's eyes leave the road, when the driver's grip on the wheel relaxes too much, etc., rather than making things worse by engaging when the driver would have done a better job. And as the statistics become more complete, you'd probably decide to add other weighting factors, such as time of day, whether they're driving away from home at night (e.g. to work the night shift) or towards it, etc.
One would expect that. Even a bad computer program with a dozen eyes is likely to be better than a bag of meat with only two.
I'm more concerned about the long-term secondary effects. Do drivers who get used to this technology become dependent on it, and thus have higher accident rates when driving rental cars that lack this technology?
Additionally, I'm less than convinced by the use of a single number here. To be meaningful, you need at least two numbers: the number of crashes avoided because of software intervention and the number of crashes caused by driver inattention. After all, if the system saves a bunch of lives because of things that a human driver couldn't have predicted, but costs a small number of lives because some humans depended too much on the vehicle to drive for them, then it is great from a statistical perspective, but that's little comfort for the families of people who died because the autopilot lulled them into a false sense of security.
One repository isn't necessary, but one interface would be tremendously useful. If I want to watch a show, I don't care if it is being offered by Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, BBC, Amazon, etc. I just know the name of the show and want to watch it. If I subscribe to the service, it should be trivial for me to key in the name of the show and have it play, no matter which service it came from.
How is a person's retirement fund getting poorer if the price of a stock rebounds in a week?
Because the stock price dropping by more than a small amount indicates a significant amount of selling, and there's a decent chance that a chunk of that selling came from big funds.
Wait for Trump to say something stupid that knocks a chunk of money off of a stock, wait a few hours for it to crash, buy low, and sell it after a week when the price rebounds. Once again, the ultra-wealthy with their high-frequency traders get richer, and normal people's retirement funds get poorer....
Well, *technically* it's not supposed to be zero, but the plane is 200 feet long and you're supposed to have 150 feet of visibility. In other words, you can see only half a second in front of you.
The plane's length and its landing speed aren't necessarily equal. That said, it's amusing that the first plane I looked up—the 767—the landing speed is up to 199 MPH, and that does just happen to equate to almost exactly half a second.:-)
But it is at least as likely that having shorter telomeres predisposes you to be less active, choosing to sit more than other people. In fact, I would argue that genes affecting behavior is far more likely than behavior affecting genes. Without a truly randomized study with a control group, I don't see how you can convincingly prove causation.
Slashdot Mirror
Which, of course, is a remarkably easy argument to shoot down. Just point out that a sizable percentage of headphones sold (and probably the majority) cost under $10, and that any external DAC and amplifier that could reasonably be fitted inside a sub-$10 pair of earbuds without tripling the cost is almost guaranteed to be much lower quality than the DAC and amplifier inside even a low-end cell phone. And for the folks who already buy expensive headphones, there's nothing stopping them from using an external DAC even if there's a traditional analog headphone jack available, which means there's no upside to removing it—only downside.
TVA covers 99.7% of the state of Tennessee, by land area. Who, exactly are they not allowed to serve?
No, you misunderstand. They want to "help private businesses build the networks". Translation: They want to bribe the cable companies and phone companies who refused to build out the network to serve the poor, putting money into their pockets in exchange for a promise of a buildout that will never actually happen except on paper, same as always happens when the Republicans are in control.
There is, as you rightfully point out, exactly one way to build infrastructure that is truly universal, and that's for local governments to foot the bill for construction and then lease access to companies that provide service. That way, the government can bring in multiple providers with minimal up-front costs per provider, thus allowing real, honest-to-goodness competition in broadband service, without the giant noose of the infrastructure construction hanging around the ISPs necks.
What we need right now is a Roosevelt, not a Reagan—a builder, not a financier.
...resulting in a lower-quality undergrad education in exchange for that better grad education. Yes, I'm aware. But even if the adjuncts cost a quarter as much per unit as the full-time people, that's still money that the school wouldn't have spent if the full-time faculty taught more classes.
Although out-of-state and foreign people do pay full price, that's because in-state students are subsidized by the state. Much of the difference in how much they pay is replacing that subsidy—not all of it, mind you, but a big chunk of it. You really can't count most of that as "making money".
Most universities have entire development departments dedicated to bringing in grant money and funding from other outside sources. Those folks get paid a lot less than a $200k/year tenured professor. It would be a lot less expensive for them to do the legwork so that the $200k/year profs can actually do what they were hired to do—teach.
No, actually what those numbers tell you is that older people need more medical care than young people. When you actually look at the efficiency of Medicare, they spend less money on administration than private insurers and have lower reimbursement percentages (about 80% of what private insurance pays).
If anybody is contributing to the high cost of health care, it is private insurance. By having multiple insurance companies that each have to negotiate independently, there's a bigger tendency for the cost of service to go up to the maximum that the insurance providers are willing to pay.
Depends on whether your 2010 is still as-shipped or not. Stick a 1 TB SSD in that 2010, and the performance difference gets a lot smaller.
It's not HDCP. In Sierra, some TVs and monitors are incorrectly reported as being non-HDCP-compliant, and the result is that certain software (e.g. Netflix, but only in Safari) throws errors. The OS as a whole, however, is perfectly content with displaying content on a non-HDCP-capable screen.
Yeah, and as a result of that lack of income tax, the poor get gouged and the rich barely even notice the tax systems. It's horribly inefficient, and is the main reason why Tennessee is dependent on aid from the federal government to keep them from going bankrupt. Because of Tennessee's fundamentally broken tax system, the education systems in other states (mostly blue states) suffer, because we have to pay more in taxes to make up for what the state of Tennessee (and others) should be collecting, but aren't.
And as someone with close ties to the UT system, the free tuition at community colleges has caused serious pain for Tennessee's four-year institutions by reducing their incoming enrollment for the first two years and causing them to have to deal with a flood of third-year students whose first two years of education were of significantly lesser quality than they would have gotten at a four-year institution. Worse, it is often impossible for students who start out in a CC to graduate in four years, because the CCs don't offer enough of the required major courses. So the net effect is that the quality of education has suffered significantly as a result of that decision, largely because the people who came up with the plan didn't understand the state's educational system well enough to make good decisions.
By contrast, the best thing that happened to Tennessee's education system were the lottery scholarships. These needs-based scholarships have made it possible for students to afford four-year colleges.
You were correct up to that point. The cost of tuition for a student is about the same as the resources that he or she consumes. So adding more students doesn't cause the college to "make money". It just causes them to have more students. Even if one extra student doesn't cause an increase in the number of faculty required to teach them, by the time you fill a lab with students, you'll end up bringing in extra resources, making the benefit at most a small fraction of what they pay, at most. And when you consider that the superstar researcher, by not teaching a full course load, is costing the university money on additional professors or instructors, it is very unlikely that the university breaks even, much less makes money, unless you start from the assumption that the university would have done that research anyway and would have paid for the costs out of their own pockets.
Don't get me wrong, research is a good thing, because it drives the state of the art forward, and in some cases, the research itself leads to patents that make money for those universities on an ongoing basis, and the (mostly graduate) students that participate in academic research are presumably better off for having done so, but don't kid yourself by thinking that it is break-even or better. It's a giant money pit. That's why research universities invariably cost so much more for tuition than non-research institutions.
Except when you have friends with similar names (Alexa, Alexia, Alexis/Elexis, Alex), etc. I have three friends whose names are close enough that they would cause a false trigger risk if I ever talked to them on the phone from inside my house. By contrast, I can't remember the last time I said the word "computer" out loud... anywhere.
Yes and no. Samsung specified both the enclosure size and the watt-hour capacity (which determines the size of the material inside). Thus, if it wasn't physically possible to meet both specifications at the same time, the specs were ultimately at fault.
The battery supplier is, of course, partially to blame for not detecting the problem and telling Samsung that their specs were infeasible, but unfortunately, that's all too common when dealing with contracted manufacturing. They'll build hardware to your exact specs, and if your specs are wrong, they'll build the product to those specs anyway. I'm not excusing that sort of behavior, mind you, but it isn't at all unusual.
That's why IMO the buck ultimately stops with Samsung, who created the faulty specs that were beyond the limits of the underlying battery technology. Apple fans beware: This is where the obsession with thinness ultimately leads.
Except that this isn't what happened, according to the much-more-detailed Anandtech article. Samsung specified the maximum exterior dimensions of the pouch, but those dimensions weren't big enough to accommodate the battery material itself. The second battery was slightly thicker, but suffered the same failure because of the thickness of welds on the very same parts that caused the first battery failure.
When you look at these failures together, it seems reasonable to suggest that Samsung's specifications were pushing the limits of battery technology to the breaking point, and that these unreasonable specifications were the common root cause of both battery failures. In other words, yes, there are limits to how thin you can make a battery and still have it be safe.
My opinion has nothing to do with bad drivers. Everybody gets tired. Everybody gets distracted. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding him/herself.
Besides, more than 70% of all drivers eat while driving, and that's responsible (according to one study) for about 80% of all crashes. When I say humans suck as drivers, I mean that the overwhelming majority of human drivers (if not all) suck at driving at least some of the time. The only reason we don't have orders of magnitude more wrecks than we do is that split-second reaction time is only important on very rare occasions (perhaps five-seconds in a typical hour of driving), so being distracted usually doesn't result in an accident.
First, antibiotics are available nearly anywhere in the world you might go. By contrast, these sorts of autopilot features are available on a tiny fraction of a percent of vehicles, and probably will be for some time to come.
Second, the technology is highly limited, basically useful only on the highway, which means that if people get used to having that extra support during highway driving, it could easily result in an increase in accidents in cities, where accidents are much more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities. So there's a good possibility that this could actually make traffic deaths worse on the whole over the long term.
Early studies strongly suggested that partial self-driving solutions did more harm than good, which is why I think we should wait to make self-driving technology available until it can truly take the place of the human driver, rather than introducing a solution that only works part of the time and can lead to false confidence the rest of the time. I could be wrong, and I'd like to be wrong, but my gut says we'd be better off waiting a few more years for a more complete solution, rather than deploying a partial solution more broadly.
I say that for several reasons:
Besides, Tesla's autopilot feature is designed exclusively for highway driving. (AFAIK, it still ignores stop signs and traffic lights entirely.) Highway driving is, on the whole, some of the safest driving possible, with nearly every accident caused by some combination of fatigue, distraction (particularly involving food/drinks), and/or drunkenness on the part of one of the drivers involved. To beat a human driver under those conditions, all Tesla's autopilot really has to do is keep the car in the current lane, reliably detect cars that have stopped in front of it without nodding off after half an hour or chugging one for the road, and avoid other people who have fallen asleep or are drunk. Of those, only the last one is particularly challenging, which is almost certainly why the crash numbers are only down by 40% instead of 80% or more. :-)
They don't have to. With as much data collection as the Tesla systems do, assuming they collect the same data with autopilot disabled, too, it should be possible to do a post-mortem (so to speak) on a random sampling of accidents and determine whether a reasonable person should have noticed the stopped car in front of them (for example) or not and whether the driver failed to react in a timely fashion or not.
On the contrary. If the autopilot is 20% worse than a driver who is paying attention, then having those concrete statistics would provide the motivation to change the behavior of the autopilot feature to be more sensible, such as looking for signs that the driver isn't paying attention, and then automatically engaging when the driver's hands leave the wheel, when the driver's eyes leave the road, when the driver's grip on the wheel relaxes too much, etc., rather than making things worse by engaging when the driver would have done a better job. And as the statistics become more complete, you'd probably decide to add other weighting factors, such as time of day, whether they're driving away from home at night (e.g. to work the night shift) or towards it, etc.
One would expect that. Even a bad computer program with a dozen eyes is likely to be better than a bag of meat with only two.
I'm more concerned about the long-term secondary effects. Do drivers who get used to this technology become dependent on it, and thus have higher accident rates when driving rental cars that lack this technology?
Additionally, I'm less than convinced by the use of a single number here. To be meaningful, you need at least two numbers: the number of crashes avoided because of software intervention and the number of crashes caused by driver inattention. After all, if the system saves a bunch of lives because of things that a human driver couldn't have predicted, but costs a small number of lives because some humans depended too much on the vehicle to drive for them, then it is great from a statistical perspective, but that's little comfort for the families of people who died because the autopilot lulled them into a false sense of security.
One repository isn't necessary, but one interface would be tremendously useful. If I want to watch a show, I don't care if it is being offered by Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, BBC, Amazon, etc. I just know the name of the show and want to watch it. If I subscribe to the service, it should be trivial for me to key in the name of the show and have it play, no matter which service it came from.
Because the stock price dropping by more than a small amount indicates a significant amount of selling, and there's a decent chance that a chunk of that selling came from big funds.
Wait for Trump to say something stupid that knocks a chunk of money off of a stock, wait a few hours for it to crash, buy low, and sell it after a week when the price rebounds. Once again, the ultra-wealthy with their high-frequency traders get richer, and normal people's retirement funds get poorer....
No, but it looked like you were. :-)
No, giant OLED panels on the outside of your car and on the interior of the windshield. It's $500 with ads, $50,000 without.
The plane's length and its landing speed aren't necessarily equal. That said, it's amusing that the first plane I looked up—the 767—the landing speed is up to 199 MPH, and that does just happen to equate to almost exactly half a second. :-)
But it is at least as likely that having shorter telomeres predisposes you to be less active, choosing to sit more than other people. In fact, I would argue that genes affecting behavior is far more likely than behavior affecting genes. Without a truly randomized study with a control group, I don't see how you can convincingly prove causation.