Ah, another example of right wing science. (You may not be a rightwinger, but your science sure is). "I like bullets, so lead is less poisonous than ammonia, which I don't like" Fact is, your body is processing ammonia into urea all the time; probably more in your particular body, if you are a hunter and therefore consume a high protein diet. The added ammonia in the pink slime is of no significance against this background. In fact, if you are a big consumer of commercially ground beef, the pink slime may be the safest part of your diet, given the relatively high incidence of bacterial contamination in beef that's been ground, pooled with other ground beef, and stored/shipped for a few days; the pink slime is probably the least likely to be contaminated. Whereas there is no physiological mechanism to deal with lead, it's just toxic to numerous bodily functions on many levels. Unlike ammonia, no amount of lead in the body is part of normal biological operation. That said, the lead contamination from eating animals who were shot, even eating lots of them, is insignificant compared to the background we get from our modern highly leaded environment, even after decades of trying to clean it up. That's not the problem. It's not all about you. The problem is contamination of the environment from all the lead that doesn't end up coming home in the meat. 25% of trumpeter swan fatalities, 15% of bald eagle fatalities, and 30% of loon fatalities in Wisconsin were identified as from lead toxicity, with an annual pattern corresponding to hunting season. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/pbbirds.pdf That, of course, is in addition to all the lead from all the fishing gear that's been building up out there (as in the above paper), over and above the general buildup diffusing out into the general environment from all the lead paint, leaded gasoline, lead-containing alloys, and last but definitely not least, coal burning, that we have enjoyed over the centuries. The problem is that no matter how much you may not care about swans, eagles and loons, that's just going to come back and bite us, not just fade away. We really need to get past this concept that if we can throw something far enough away, it disappears from existence, particularly when far enough away is defined as a couple of miles past city limits, out near the reservoir.
So, ammunition doesn't kill people. And guns don't kill people And judging from the Zimmerman/Martin verdict, people don't kill people. Hot damn, we're going to live forever!
Post the rates, heck; if they are part of a group or based in a hospital, they likely don't have the faintest idea what is being charged for their services.
I've always found this whole glass business to be dubious. The way glass was made at the time means not only that the thickness was uneven, but also that it would not change monotonically. So, there is no reason to believe the thickest part would be at the edge at all, rather than just somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that one edge would be thicker than the other, even aside from this; the thickness of the edges is going to vary from point to point so that there is likely to be thick and thin regions on any edge. Given this, the idea of determining the thicker half of the glass via the thickness of the edge, and thus installing it with the center of gravity in the lowest position seems dubious at best, even if that would be advantageous. Anyway, these old windows were not a large sheet of glass, but were assembled from small panes and, certainly in stained glass windows, these panes wouldn't be symmetrical and lend themselves to flipping over and still fitting in the same hole.
first, fracking has come to mean the whole sphere of environmental damage involved with natural gas wells, not specifically actual specific fracking. (Yeah, I don't approve of imprecision either, but...) for instance, methane contamination of water which is so frequent a complaint, or as widely publicized recently, the release of methane as part of the gas extraction process, which, given the very high AGW potential of methane, can easily overwhelm whatever advantage natural gas has in terms of lower AGW.
second, is every fracking carried out 3,000 feet below the water well depths? (not rhetorical, I really don't know)
well, you'll probably need to live near a research university, of course. then you have to accept that you won't be making a fortune, but you'll probably do OK. there are a couple of different paths; if you want to stay with the Java/C++ type thing, you'll be more on the programming side of things, or you could pick up a statistical/analytic language like SAS or SPSS and get less involved with the nuts and bolts and more involved with the actual data munching. even take a few steps into statistical analysis, if you want to go that way. another route, especially if you've picked up SAS, is to go into a drug company. i don't know about all of them, but my experience has been that the data and analysis side of things is honest work. money is way better than academics
Generally spot on, but I have to point out that the standard government worker is no more useless than the standard corporate worker. Corporations are routinely damaged or destroyed because some executive won't listen to the lower level guy who happens to be immersed daily in the reality of the business situation, telling him that his brilliant idea for a new formula for Coke isn't going to work.
After all, those people in the CIA and FBI trying to get someone to listen in the upper management levels were also standard government workers; the guys who tossed the memo "bin Laden Determined to Strike in UN" into the trash can were the corporate titans who came in to government to run it like a business. Which it appears they did.
Vaguely related to my previous post above, having all the data in the world can actually impede your ability to find what you are looking for. Consider the frequent TV lawyer show of responding to the other side's request for disclosure by handing them a truckload of documents related to the case, since they're not going to be able to find the one smoking gun document they are looking for.
That's what happened in 9/11 in part; the government had tons of data, but without having a focus on al qaeda, bin laden, etc. they just didn't have the data mining capacity to see the links in the data and pull them out. And the Cheney administration was still focused on fighting the damn commies and russkies, and had dropped what they considered Clinton's bizarre obsession with Al Qaeda and bin Laden. (None other than Paul Bremer told the Washington Post in 2000 that the Clinton administration had been "correctly focused on bin Laden". Now that is ironic.) And of course brushed off the famous "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" memo that could probably have netted some info from the pile of data if they had taken it seriously and gone on a hunt in their data. If you're looking for needles in your haystack, you're not going to find a toothpick.
The point being, that if the only test you have produces more false positives than true positives by orders of magnitude, it's worthless for actually finding the true positives anyway, so if there's going to be an epidemic, your lousy test isn't going to help at all.
Gedanken experiment, Reductio ad absurdum, etc.: Consider the ultimate in such tests: Just flag everybody who gets the test as a positive result. You will absolutely be guaranteed to catch every single true positive case, and you will be absolutely guaranteed to be no further ahead than you were without the test.
In order to see if the test has any advantage at all, you need to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency (sensitivity * specificity) This would eliminate such items as the "flag everybody" test, which would have an efficiency of 1*0=0. But for a more sophisticated look at a test where the penalties for false positives and false negatives are different, you should probably look at the Receiver Operator Characteristic, which despite the abstruse name is basically just a graph of the sensitivity versus selectivity for a given test as you vary the threshold at which you decide negative vs positive result. You can then balance the advantage the test gives you versus the differing penalties for either kind of error.
meanwhile, back at the farm: " In an almost cartoonish response to a relatively minor problem, employees at the obscure Economic Development Administration took a hammer to their computers, keyboards and mice in an effort to destroy all of the agency’s tech-related hardware after incorrectly believing their network had been hacked. " http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/10/us-agency-destroys-computers/#ixzz2Z9DF6GdH
Know how many white people are killed each year by black people? How many robberies? Why does race never come up in any of these crimes, but comes up every time a white person does anything to a black person? (And I'm not white).
because when a white person is killed by a black person, generally the black person gets plea bargained straight into jail since there is no hope he will be acquitted on "stand your ground" or "self defense"
Right. Because in a fight between a grandmother and a professional gunman both equipped with the same firearms, it's totally 50/50 who would win. That happens all the time. That's why we send so many grandmothers off to war.
You do realize that the insurance companies already have full access to your medical records, as part of their contract to insure you, electronic or written, and that if your doctor fails to disclose anything he is liable to get his butt kicked, and if you fail to disclose anything you are very likely to NOT get that million dollar claim that we buy insurance against paid? And that the same ACA which pushes for electronic records will take the pressure off the need to hide preexisting conditions from potential insurers who otherwise wouldn't touch you?
And that as part of this move to electronic records, the government has beefed up health privacy laws to the point where there is a $1,000 penalty for accidental disclosure of information and a $250,000 penalty for criminal disclosure FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL RECORD, along with 10 years in jail as a criminal penalty (i.e. provide an employer with health info on a hundred employees, get fined $25,000,000)? Which specifically includes your employer, even your family (such things as leaving test results on an answering machine at your house are a violation, for example); the only reason it doesn't include your insurance company is that aforementioned contract. Ironically, the only people who currently have absolute privacy in their healthcare are the uninsured, who don't actually have to hide anything sensitive (expensive) from an insurer. Another lucky break for the homeless.
"If you are going to protest google, protest the policy/ideology/action that google does that you do not like. Not the fact they worked with a politician that you wouldn't vote for, because they liked something unrelated to the policy you're fighting against."
See also: Mussolini made the trains run on time, therefore he was popular with railroad buffs worldwide.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, another example of right wing science. (You may not be a rightwinger, but your science sure is).
"I like bullets, so lead is less poisonous than ammonia, which I don't like"
Fact is, your body is processing ammonia into urea all the time; probably more in your particular body, if you are a hunter and therefore consume a high protein diet. The added ammonia in the pink slime is of no significance against this background. In fact, if you are a big consumer of commercially ground beef, the pink slime may be the safest part of your diet, given the relatively high incidence of bacterial contamination in beef that's been ground, pooled with other ground beef, and stored/shipped for a few days; the pink slime is probably the least likely to be contaminated.
Whereas there is no physiological mechanism to deal with lead, it's just toxic to numerous bodily functions on many levels. Unlike ammonia, no amount of lead in the body is part of normal biological operation.
That said, the lead contamination from eating animals who were shot, even eating lots of them, is insignificant compared to the background we get from our modern highly leaded environment, even after decades of trying to clean it up. That's not the problem. It's not all about you.
The problem is contamination of the environment from all the lead that doesn't end up coming home in the meat.
25% of trumpeter swan fatalities, 15% of bald eagle fatalities, and 30% of loon fatalities in Wisconsin were identified as from lead toxicity, with an annual pattern corresponding to hunting season. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/pbbirds.pdf
That, of course, is in addition to all the lead from all the fishing gear that's been building up out there (as in the above paper), over and above the general buildup diffusing out into the general environment from all the lead paint, leaded gasoline, lead-containing alloys, and last but definitely not least, coal burning, that we have enjoyed over the centuries. The problem is that no matter how much you may not care about swans, eagles and loons, that's just going to come back and bite us, not just fade away. We really need to get past this concept that if we can throw something far enough away, it disappears from existence, particularly when far enough away is defined as a couple of miles past city limits, out near the reservoir.
So, ammunition doesn't kill people.
And guns don't kill people
And judging from the Zimmerman/Martin verdict, people don't kill people.
Hot damn, we're going to live forever!
Hump Dayyyy!
Post the rates, heck; if they are part of a group or based in a hospital, they likely don't have the faintest idea what is being charged for their services.
Not only that; if you have insurance you get the discount even if the insurance isn't paying and you are paying out of pocket.
They just have a false memory of doing so, implanted by the mice who weren't too thrilled about going through the shock.
yeah. My generic drugstore checkout car counter won't even register a blink on the Iphone's led.
I've always found this whole glass business to be dubious.
The way glass was made at the time means not only that the thickness was uneven, but also that it would not change monotonically. So, there is no reason to believe the thickest part would be at the edge at all, rather than just somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that one edge would be thicker than the other, even aside from this; the thickness of the edges is going to vary from point to point so that there is likely to be thick and thin regions on any edge. Given this, the idea of determining the thicker half of the glass via the thickness of the edge, and thus installing it with the center of gravity in the lowest position seems dubious at best, even if that would be advantageous.
Anyway, these old windows were not a large sheet of glass, but were assembled from small panes and, certainly in stained glass windows, these panes wouldn't be symmetrical and lend themselves to flipping over and still fitting in the same hole.
first, fracking has come to mean the whole sphere of environmental damage involved with natural gas wells, not specifically actual specific fracking. (Yeah, I don't approve of imprecision either, but...) for instance, methane contamination of water which is so frequent a complaint, or as widely publicized recently, the release of methane as part of the gas extraction process, which, given the very high AGW potential of methane, can easily overwhelm whatever advantage natural gas has in terms of lower AGW.
second, is every fracking carried out 3,000 feet below the water well depths? (not rhetorical, I really don't know)
Yeah; drone hunting meaning hunting by drone; good for eradication, bad for food.
well, you'll probably need to live near a research university, of course. then you have to accept that you won't be making a fortune, but you'll probably do OK.
there are a couple of different paths; if you want to stay with the Java/C++ type thing, you'll be more on the programming side of things, or you could pick up a statistical/analytic language like SAS or SPSS and get less involved with the nuts and bolts and more involved with the actual data munching. even take a few steps into statistical analysis, if you want to go that way.
another route, especially if you've picked up SAS, is to go into a drug company. i don't know about all of them, but my experience has been that the data and analysis side of things is honest work. money is way better than academics
My dad had an engine which ran on water.
I think it was called an outboard motor.
On behalf of the Holy Alliance Against Little People With Facial Hair, I must protest.
Generally spot on, but I have to point out that the standard government worker is no more useless than the standard corporate worker. Corporations are routinely damaged or destroyed because some executive won't listen to the lower level guy who happens to be immersed daily in the reality of the business situation, telling him that his brilliant idea for a new formula for Coke isn't going to work.
After all, those people in the CIA and FBI trying to get someone to listen in the upper management levels were also standard government workers; the guys who tossed the memo "bin Laden Determined to Strike in UN" into the trash can were the corporate titans who came in to government to run it like a business. Which it appears they did.
viagra
Vaguely related to my previous post above, having all the data in the world can actually impede your ability to find what you are looking for. Consider the frequent TV lawyer show of responding to the other side's request for disclosure by handing them a truckload of documents related to the case, since they're not going to be able to find the one smoking gun document they are looking for.
That's what happened in 9/11 in part; the government had tons of data, but without having a focus on al qaeda, bin laden, etc. they just didn't have the data mining capacity to see the links in the data and pull them out. And the Cheney administration was still focused on fighting the damn commies and russkies, and had dropped what they considered Clinton's bizarre obsession with Al Qaeda and bin Laden. (None other than Paul Bremer told the Washington Post in 2000 that the Clinton administration had been "correctly focused on bin Laden". Now that is ironic.) And of course brushed off the famous "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" memo that could probably have netted some info from the pile of data if they had taken it seriously and gone on a hunt in their data. If you're looking for needles in your haystack, you're not going to find a toothpick.
The point being, that if the only test you have produces more false positives than true positives by orders of magnitude, it's worthless for actually finding the true positives anyway, so if there's going to be an epidemic, your lousy test isn't going to help at all.
Gedanken experiment, Reductio ad absurdum, etc.: Consider the ultimate in such tests: Just flag everybody who gets the test as a positive result. You will absolutely be guaranteed to catch every single true positive case, and you will be absolutely guaranteed to be no further ahead than you were without the test.
In order to see if the test has any advantage at all, you need to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency (sensitivity * specificity)
This would eliminate such items as the "flag everybody" test, which would have an efficiency of 1*0=0.
But for a more sophisticated look at a test where the penalties for false positives and false negatives are different, you should probably look at the Receiver Operator Characteristic, which despite the abstruse name is basically just a graph of the sensitivity versus selectivity for a given test as you vary the threshold at which you decide negative vs positive result. You can then balance the advantage the test gives you versus the differing penalties for either kind of error.
Pakistan beats the US in number of female heads of state.
meanwhile, back at the farm:
" In an almost cartoonish response to a relatively minor problem, employees at the obscure Economic Development Administration took a hammer to their computers, keyboards and mice in an effort to destroy all of the agency’s tech-related hardware after incorrectly believing their network had been hacked. "
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/10/us-agency-destroys-computers/#ixzz2Z9DF6GdH
Know how many white people are killed each year by black people? How many robberies? Why does race never come up in any of these crimes, but comes up every time a white person does anything to a black person? (And I'm not white).
because when a white person is killed by a black person, generally the black person gets plea bargained straight into jail since there is no hope he will be acquitted on "stand your ground" or "self defense"
when did he get to be a jew? or do you mean "to a guy with a name which people will assume is jewish"?
Right. Because in a fight between a grandmother and a professional gunman both equipped with the same firearms, it's totally 50/50 who would win. That happens all the time. That's why we send so many grandmothers off to war.
well, that nice George Zimmerman didn't kill Trayvon, so maybe it's not people who kill people after all; maybe it is the gun.
You do realize that the insurance companies already have full access to your medical records, as part of their contract to insure you, electronic or written, and that if your doctor fails to disclose anything he is liable to get his butt kicked, and if you fail to disclose anything you are very likely to NOT get that million dollar claim that we buy insurance against paid? And that the same ACA which pushes for electronic records will take the pressure off the need to hide preexisting conditions from potential insurers who otherwise wouldn't touch you?
And that as part of this move to electronic records, the government has beefed up health privacy laws to the point where there is a $1,000 penalty for accidental disclosure of information and a $250,000 penalty for criminal disclosure FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL RECORD, along with 10 years in jail as a criminal penalty (i.e. provide an employer with health info on a hundred employees, get fined $25,000,000)? Which specifically includes your employer, even your family (such things as leaving test results on an answering machine at your house are a violation, for example); the only reason it doesn't include your insurance company is that aforementioned contract. Ironically, the only people who currently have absolute privacy in their healthcare are the uninsured, who don't actually have to hide anything sensitive (expensive) from an insurer. Another lucky break for the homeless.
"If you are going to protest google, protest the policy/ideology/action that google does that you do not like. Not the fact they worked with a politician that you wouldn't vote for, because they liked something unrelated to the policy you're fighting against."
See also:
Mussolini made the trains run on time, therefore he was popular with railroad buffs worldwide.