I've been a fan of Woz's ever since I bought my first Apple ][, but, really? Only now are you realising that FB makes its money from your data?
Obviously this has been no secret for a long time, he was likely motivated to take a public position on it by revelations of Facebook's involvement in the election hacking.
Call a spade a spade. These are not good people. Sad thing is they're leading a surprising amount of good people by the nose since they control those people's social circles.
That's your reasons for why the republicans support this. Okay. What's your reasons for why the democrats are supporting this?
The shelves are filled with things that might not work. We expect the FDA to actually stop things that kill people. 700 deaths attributed to the drug is a bit of an extreme side effect, wouldn't you say?
It depends on how many people received the drug and recovered. 700 deaths out of 7000 patients is bad. 700 deaths out of 70k patients is less bad, especially if the remaining 69300 patients experienced relief from dementia.
Honestly, if my options are dementia or a pill that might kill me with a 50:50 chance of relief from the dementia, I'm going to take the pill.
Wozniak wrote that he was no longer satisfied with Facebook, knowing that it makes money off of user data.
Are you just figuring that out Steve or were you once okay with that arrangement and have since soured on it?
You think he's sour now, wait till all the celebrities and newscorps figure out that they have even less influence than they thought when people ignore their hysterical cries and continue using facebook.
The MSM got taught just how little influence they had during the 2016 election when their darling didn't get voted into office. This is payback for that. They want to show facebook who's really the boss by flooding the news with how evil facebook is.
My money is on facebook in this fight. Hell, I don't even like facebook, and refuse to use them, but I still think that the MSM is mad if they think that facebook users care more about MSM than they do about facebook.
I didn't realise it was that popular. I looked it up now and first hit on google says that 23% of sex-ed classes are abstinence. Of course that doesn't mean that birth control isn't taught and/or provided in those 23% of public schools.
Looking deeper into it (I wanted to see if any correlation exists between states with free BC and teenage pregnancies) and I found this public research over here.
Some interesting information from that document:
Among the 48 states in this analysis (all U.S. states except North Dakota and Wyoming), 21 states stressed abstinence-only education in their 2005 state laws and/or policies (level 3), 7 states emphasized abstinence education (level 2), 11 states covered abstinence in the context of comprehensive sex education (level 1), and 9 states did not mention abstinence (level 0) in their state laws or policies (Figure 1). In 2005, level 0 states had an average (± standard error) teen pregnancy rate of 58.78 (±4.96), level 1 states averaged 56.36 (±3.94), level 2 states averaged 61.86 (±3.93), and level 3 states averaged 73.24 (±2.58) teen pregnancies per 1000 girls aged 14â"19 (Table 3).
The most effective method (assuming that the study had a sound methodology) appears to be comprehensive sex-ee rather than BC only. The studies conclusion mentions this as well.
It is also interesting to note that even the states with comprehensive sex-ed had more than double the teen pregnancy rate of other countries. I take that to mean that there is some other factor on teen prengancy rates that has a larger impact on the rate than sex-ed.
For example, the difference in rate between comprehensive sex-ed and abstinence only sex-ed is 16.8 - this is a smaller difference than than the difference between the US rate and other developer countries' rates: the US' best rate is 30.6 higher, 37.56 higher, 44.56 higher, 27.16 higher and 15.06 higher than the other countries in the study.
This tells me that merely providing comprehensive sex-ed and banning abstinence-only sex-ed like other countries do would still leave the US with a rate so much higher it can only be regarded as an outlier.
These researchers should have looked at the results as an opportunity to research what factors influence the average rate in other countries to be so much lower than the lowest in the US.
Replacing absintence-only sex-ed with comprehensive sex-ed doesn't fix the US' teen pregnancy rate. It lowers it, yes, but not by much, comparatively.
Time to teach people about birth control in high school health ed, nationally, so they know what's available, how to use it, and how to get it. (Ideally, give out free condoms everywhere, no questions asked, like NYC health clinics and universities do.)
Is this not already being done? I'm under the impression that birth control is highly publicised and free. Condoms are given out free (no questions asked) where I've been.
Yet the number of single mothers and abortoin is still no insignificant. This should tell you all you need to know about how well birth control is being used.
You see, real science has these things called "control variables". When pay is controlled for job-type, position, experience, profession, qualification, risk, overtime and consecutive years worked the gap is negligible.
You don't do real science, you don't read real science. You don't want to, because they do not support what you believe.
Re patriarchical society - it's your claim, you provide the proof. You don't get to claim that your god is real because no one can disprove it. You don't get to claim that your god is real because someone wrote a story about your god 2000 years ago. In the same way, you don't get to claim that your narrative is true because no one can disprove it, nor do you get to claim it is true because it forms a story that is retold by people who share your belief.
Also, those feminist "conspiracies" you mention, are all backed up by over a century of research and study.
No, they aren't. They're backed by narratives. They aren't backed by numbers. When you equivocate narratives to science as the social sciences do you end up believing that narratives are facts.
I'll take Mueller's word for it, when he finishes investigating...
Irrelevant. What exists right now are a slew of hard left conspiracy theories with not one whit of evidence. Whether it's true or not when future evidence comes to light is irrelevant because the conspiracy theory exists right now without any supporting evidence.
You naively claimed that conspiracy theory is an alt-right thing - I've provided an example of hard left conspiracy theory.
Those attributes you claim are characteristic of alt-right/far-right/whatever are also characteristics of the hard left, for example claiming sexual/degeneracy is something the hard left does too ("all sex is rape"... "rape culture"... "toxic masculinity").
Or what about the the conspiracy theory of the patriarchy? The gender gap? Pervasive sexism *against* women in western culture? All those are conspiracy theories too, you idiot. There is so little empirical support for those statements that proponents use a narrative to explain their belief.
The hard left is virtually indistinguishable from the hard right to those of us in the centre
Conspiracies are a hard left thing too, you know. For example, a popular one is that Russia meddled in the US elections. Not a shred of evidence for that one, but we still here it from hard left nitwits who point at speculation as "proof".
Except Tesla has been "running out of money" because they've invested profits plus investor money in the business.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they've been spending their money on if they are unable to pay their bills.
they could stop at any time and just focus on what they already have.
It's too late for that - they've already stopped the capital investment, for over a year already, which is why I said that they need to make enough revenue to meet their costs.
In order to do that they have to hit their targets for both production and sales. Sales doesn't look like a problem, what with people lining up to buy their product, but production appeared to be a problem. If they make enough cars they'll get enough revenue to meet their bills.
If they don't hit certain production numbers they are going to have to raise money (again) via investors or go bankrupt and let their creditors tear them apart.
The only thing that matters is whether Tesla can meet their numbers before their money runs out. We all know that they'll hit their targets eventually, but if they run out of money and can't raise any more then it doesn't matter if they hit their targets next quarter because they'll already be out of business.
Personally I'll wait and see, but I have to admit it isn't looking good for them - the last time they sold stock it turned to junk bonds immediately.
I dunno, I know a lot of workers who I'd describe as having a very low EQ which causes severe problems. As in the expert in a domain who loudly thinks he's the expert in every domain and has alienated everyone at the company who actively avoid meetings that he is in.
And exactly how would knowing his EQ score help? The subject can get whatever EQ score they want to; EQ is essentially self-reported after all. The tests that they ask can all be answered dishonestly by someone who wants a high score.
You can't game an IQ test to report a 200 IQ when you only have a 100 IQ. You can game an EQ score to report yourself as a sociable and outgoing person.
a MD practicing acupuncture obviously knows more about it than you do.
There are more MDs and researchers in the medical sciences who say that it is bogus than there are MDs and researchers in the medical sciences who say it isn't bogus.
I've seen high IQ people make bad decisions for really stupid reasons.
Nothing wrong with high IQ- it's great. But I deal with mature code. I'd rather have people with wisdom than just intelligence.
EQ is a made-up thing that doesn't measure anything, because anyone with a slightly above-average IQ can game the test to tell the tester what they think the tester wants to know.
You can't game the IQ test to get an IQ higher than you really have. You can game the EQ tests to say just about anything.
EQ is part of the "new science" where there are no facts only opinions, and everyone gets a participation trophy. IQ is part of the old science where things remain true or false regardless of the faith behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been a fan of Woz's ever since I bought my first Apple ][, but, really? Only now are you realising that FB makes its money from your data?
Obviously this has been no secret for a long time, he was likely motivated to take a public position on it by revelations of Facebook's involvement in the election hacking.
You have a strange way of spelling 'allegations'.
Call a spade a spade. These are not good people. Sad thing is they're leading a surprising amount of good people by the nose since they control those people's social circles.
That's your reasons for why the republicans support this. Okay. What's your reasons for why the democrats are supporting this?
OTOH, it might not work. Whoops!
The shelves are filled with things that might not work. We expect the FDA to actually stop things that kill people. 700 deaths attributed to the drug is a bit of an extreme side effect, wouldn't you say?
It depends on how many people received the drug and recovered. 700 deaths out of 7000 patients is bad. 700 deaths out of 70k patients is less bad, especially if the remaining 69300 patients experienced relief from dementia.
Honestly, if my options are dementia or a pill that might kill me with a 50:50 chance of relief from the dementia, I'm going to take the pill.
Wozniak wrote that he was no longer satisfied with Facebook, knowing that it makes money off of user data.
Are you just figuring that out Steve or were you once okay with that arrangement and have since soured on it?
You think he's sour now, wait till all the celebrities and newscorps figure out that they have even less influence than they thought when people ignore their hysterical cries and continue using facebook.
The MSM got taught just how little influence they had during the 2016 election when their darling didn't get voted into office. This is payback for that. They want to show facebook who's really the boss by flooding the news with how evil facebook is.
My money is on facebook in this fight. Hell, I don't even like facebook, and refuse to use them, but I still think that the MSM is mad if they think that facebook users care more about MSM than they do about facebook.
I didn't realise it was that popular. I looked it up now and first hit on google says that 23% of sex-ed classes are abstinence. Of course that doesn't mean that birth control isn't taught and/or provided in those 23% of public schools.
Looking deeper into it (I wanted to see if any correlation exists between states with free BC and teenage pregnancies) and I found this public research over here.
Some interesting information from that document:
Among the 48 states in this analysis (all U.S. states except North Dakota and Wyoming), 21 states stressed abstinence-only education in their 2005 state laws and/or policies (level 3), 7 states emphasized abstinence education (level 2), 11 states covered abstinence in the context of comprehensive sex education (level 1), and 9 states did not mention abstinence (level 0) in their state laws or policies (Figure 1). In 2005, level 0 states had an average (± standard error) teen pregnancy rate of 58.78 (±4.96), level 1 states averaged 56.36 (±3.94), level 2 states averaged 61.86 (±3.93), and level 3 states averaged 73.24 (±2.58) teen pregnancies per 1000 girls aged 14â"19 (Table 3).
The most effective method (assuming that the study had a sound methodology) appears to be comprehensive sex-ee rather than BC only. The studies conclusion mentions this as well.
It is also interesting to note that even the states with comprehensive sex-ed had more than double the teen pregnancy rate of other countries. I take that to mean that there is some other factor on teen prengancy rates that has a larger impact on the rate than sex-ed.
For example, the difference in rate between comprehensive sex-ed and abstinence only sex-ed is 16.8 - this is a smaller difference than than the difference between the US rate and other developer countries' rates: the US' best rate is 30.6 higher, 37.56 higher, 44.56 higher, 27.16 higher and 15.06 higher than the other countries in the study.
This tells me that merely providing comprehensive sex-ed and banning abstinence-only sex-ed like other countries do would still leave the US with a rate so much higher it can only be regarded as an outlier.
These researchers should have looked at the results as an opportunity to research what factors influence the average rate in other countries to be so much lower than the lowest in the US.
Replacing absintence-only sex-ed with comprehensive sex-ed doesn't fix the US' teen pregnancy rate. It lowers it, yes, but not by much, comparatively.
Time to teach people about birth control in high school health ed, nationally, so they know what's available, how to use it, and how to get it. (Ideally, give out free condoms everywhere, no questions asked, like NYC health clinics and universities do.)
Is this not already being done? I'm under the impression that birth control is highly publicised and free. Condoms are given out free (no questions asked) where I've been.
Where are you living where this is not the case?
Yet the number of single mothers and abortoin is still no insignificant. This should tell you all you need to know about how well birth control is being used.
What if you want to have sex but don't want to necessarily be in a life-long relationship with any one person? Or perhaps haven't met that person yet?
You don't get a choice if a child is born as a result. You're going to interact with that person for the rest of your life whether you like it or not.
Why this condonation in the article?
I think you mean condemnation?
You see, real science has these things called "control variables". When pay is controlled for job-type, position, experience, profession, qualification, risk, overtime and consecutive years worked the gap is negligible.
You don't do real science, you don't read real science. You don't want to, because they do not support what you believe.
Re patriarchical society - it's your claim, you provide the proof. You don't get to claim that your god is real because no one can disprove it. You don't get to claim that your god is real because someone wrote a story about your god 2000 years ago. In the same way, you don't get to claim that your narrative is true because no one can disprove it, nor do you get to claim it is true because it forms a story that is retold by people who share your belief.
Also, those feminist "conspiracies" you mention, are all backed up by over a century of research and study.
No, they aren't. They're backed by narratives. They aren't backed by numbers. When you equivocate narratives to science as the social sciences do you end up believing that narratives are facts.
I'll take Mueller's word for it, when he finishes investigating...
Irrelevant. What exists right now are a slew of hard left conspiracy theories with not one whit of evidence. Whether it's true or not when future evidence comes to light is irrelevant because the conspiracy theory exists right now without any supporting evidence.
You naively claimed that conspiracy theory is an alt-right thing - I've provided an example of hard left conspiracy theory.
Those attributes you claim are characteristic of alt-right/far-right/whatever are also characteristics of the hard left, for example claiming sexual/degeneracy is something the hard left does too ("all sex is rape"... "rape culture" ... "toxic masculinity").
Or what about the the conspiracy theory of the patriarchy? The gender gap? Pervasive sexism *against* women in western culture? All those are conspiracy theories too, you idiot. There is so little empirical support for those statements that proponents use a narrative to explain their belief.
The hard left is virtually indistinguishable from the hard right to those of us in the centre
Conspiracies are a hard left thing too, you know. For example, a popular one is that Russia meddled in the US elections. Not a shred of evidence for that one, but we still here it from hard left nitwits who point at speculation as "proof".
She seems to have bought in to all the rubbish about vast conspiracies against conservatives.
Her politics appear to be hard left, you moron.
Q: "Why should I care about "gun violence"?"
A: Because it is inifinitely easier to murder tens of people with a gun than with a knife.
And the easiest of all is to murder people who are unarmed.
Apparently a woman shooter.
I wonder who pissed her off?
I'll bet good money that she's a hard left feminist who gets treated with with gloves by the justice system.
Except Tesla has been "running out of money" because they've invested profits plus investor money in the business.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they've been spending their money on if they are unable to pay their bills.
they could stop at any time and just focus on what they already have.
It's too late for that - they've already stopped the capital investment, for over a year already, which is why I said that they need to make enough revenue to meet their costs.
In order to do that they have to hit their targets for both production and sales. Sales doesn't look like a problem, what with people lining up to buy their product, but production appeared to be a problem. If they make enough cars they'll get enough revenue to meet their bills.
If they don't hit certain production numbers they are going to have to raise money (again) via investors or go bankrupt and let their creditors tear them apart.
The only thing that matters is whether Tesla can meet their numbers before their money runs out. We all know that they'll hit their targets eventually, but if they run out of money and can't raise any more then it doesn't matter if they hit their targets next quarter because they'll already be out of business.
Personally I'll wait and see, but I have to admit it isn't looking good for them - the last time they sold stock it turned to junk bonds immediately.
That's not how you math.
Extremely unlikely.
Well, it's your claim so you provide the proof.
half the world has medicine where acupuncture is a basic treatment.
Yeah. Half the world also believes in an invisible man in the sky. Doesn't mean that there is one.
You are an idiot.
Maybe so, but that's still better than believing in magic.
I dunno, I know a lot of workers who I'd describe as having a very low EQ which causes severe problems. As in the expert in a domain who loudly thinks he's the expert in every domain and has alienated everyone at the company who actively avoid meetings that he is in.
And exactly how would knowing his EQ score help? The subject can get whatever EQ score they want to; EQ is essentially self-reported after all. The tests that they ask can all be answered dishonestly by someone who wants a high score.
You can't game an IQ test to report a 200 IQ when you only have a 100 IQ. You can game an EQ score to report yourself as a sociable and outgoing person.
a MD practicing acupuncture obviously knows more about it than you do.
There are more MDs and researchers in the medical sciences who say that it is bogus than there are MDs and researchers in the medical sciences who say it isn't bogus.
Good luck in refuting this simple statement.
Done.
I'd rather base it on EQ.
I've seen high IQ people make bad decisions for really stupid reasons.
Nothing wrong with high IQ- it's great. But I deal with mature code. I'd rather have people with wisdom than just intelligence.
EQ is a made-up thing that doesn't measure anything, because anyone with a slightly above-average IQ can game the test to tell the tester what they think the tester wants to know.
You can't game the IQ test to get an IQ higher than you really have. You can game the EQ tests to say just about anything.
EQ is part of the "new science" where there are no facts only opinions, and everyone gets a participation trophy. IQ is part of the old science where things remain true or false regardless of the faith behind it.
However, acupuncture is in a slightly different category in that it has been shown to relieve pain.
Acupuncture hasn't been shown to relieve pain. Random needling has been shown to relieve pain. You can do random needling without doing acupuncture.
"...would..." The article is BS. Do. Or do not. There is no try.
Tell that to Uber's self-driving researchers.