I'm not disagreeing, just noting that it is happening. With supervision and additional schooling (but not a full medical degree), psychologists can prescribe in New Mexico & Louisiana (AFAIK). Bills have been proposed in a number of other states but so far have been shot down.
In some states psychologists can become licensed to prescribe mediation (after additional training). Sure, unlicensed psychologists should not be telling people what meds to go on, but the psychiatrist/psychologist line is not a definite as it used to be. And doctors who prescribe based solely on what a parent tells them their psychologist said ought to get just as much blame.
Sorry, semantics... that's why consulting a lawyer is recommended.:p That said, in practice no two candidates are ever perfectly equal. These cases are made off of overall trends, not a single hiring decision.
Yes you do. It is illegal for hiring to cause "adverse impact". The OP specifically mentions a preference towards older applicants. IF younger applicants can show that older applicants are being hired disproportionately over younger applicants with similar job-related knowledge, skills, and abilities, they could have a case in court. Not as strong as traditionally protected classes (minorities, disabled, women, 40+ workers) but a case nonetheless.
IF the OP states a preference for older employees but hires the most qualified individuals no matter what whether they're all old, young, or an even mix (and can back it up), his actions are defensible.
Disclaimer: Want to know more? Ask a lawyer, not me.:)
As much as I dislike advertising or product placement in games, it is less distasteful than the proposed idea. Why not look at magazines? Magazines get passed around to people other than the subscriber and they LIKE it because it increases the number of people viewing ads, raising ad prices. Heaven forbid, maybe game developers could profit without bending players over! Or maybe they're just floating this nonsense idea so they can "backpedal" to increasing advertising in games, their real goal in the first place?
Um, no. You are mixing two arguments. EVEN IF you successfully make the case for racist African-American voting during the primaries, it does NOT negate the fact, mentioned in your own post, that African-Americans always vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate in the general election. John McCain lost the election because whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, youth, suburbanites, etc, voted against him.
You also end your post with a plea that makes no sense and shoots your (obviously) racist platform in the foot: if everyone DID vote based on the color of their skin, the white candidate would not be picking up the asian/hispanic votes! Do you really think all of the minorities in this country, if they were deciding to follow your racist call-to-arms, would line up behind the WHITE candidate? They're just minorities, not idiots. *rolls eyes*
No, the games of our youth were social activities with other gamers, so that didn't count as real social activity. When they say "becoming social" they're referring to all the non-gamers who are playing these days. And who are now considered gamers...
News flash! What works in one situation (or for one person) might not work so well in another. Too little research takes the context into account, particularly regarding any research that is human-related, and so it becomes easy to "disprove" prior findings.
I thought it was pretty clear they don't consider the registry to be effectively disseminating results: "Data from fewer than one in five research trials are ever published. Findings from the vast majority of human trials become buried for reasons that may never come to light". If blame is to be placed, I agree it's always on the reader -- researchers don't bother publishing failed studies because nobody wants to publish them. They don't sell subscriptions. But that hardly means we can expect doctors to look at everything in the registry, or contact all of the researchers in that field and ask about any pilot studies they've done recently that didn't get published.
A meta-analysis is currently very hard because whoever is doing the meta-analysis has to assign a value for each of those things you mentioned and do it across every single study they examine. If we had a system where we did that as we went, rather than in a giant intimidating chunk (meta-analysis), we would be able to do a sort of meta-analysis on the fly. And maybe the registry in the article is trying to do that (I'm not familiar with it) but I don't think so. If everything that went into the registry was peer reviewed upon entry and values were assigned to those variables, there's no real reason it couldn't work. A strong meta-analysis shouldn't have too many subtle decisions involved. It should start out with clear delineations that multiple raters can agree on. There's no reason we couldn't set guidelines and apply the same logic of crowd wisdom to this that we applied to scanning images for Steve Fossett. There would always be some gray areas in either approach, but the presence of subtle decisions would seem to bolster the case for meta-as-we-go. Difficult yes, impossible no.:)
My impression from the article was that nobody checks this registry (aka file drawer). I didn't mean to give pharma a free pass -- the article suggests they have a greater rate of "file drawer" than non-industry research.
The article highlighted the problem perfectly -- only 20% of the studies in the registry are reaching publication. Since publication is where many people (doctors) learn about what's new, 80% of the data is never seen.
They are trying to do something about it, such as require results to be shared from any trial using government funding, but the problem persists if the results end up in a registry that nobody reads. Or the "Journal of Studies that found Nothing New", where each volume is 4 times as dense as any competing journal. Meta-analysis may be our savior but there needs to be new research generated so we can meta-analyze it -- researchers can't spend all their time looking at prior studies.
Now if some techie could put together software that does the meta-analysis for us (giving averages across, say, all studies of Treatment X for Lung Cancer on a query) it would be a pretty epic breakthrough. But the variables would have to be entered along with the studies, and peer reviewed for accuracy (study #10285 used inappropriate statistical analysis and was not as rigorous as the authors claimed; study #26581 had superb experimental control but only examined 20 year olds; etc etc). Actually, moderated & meta-moderated is probably a more appropriate term than peer reviewed given where we're posting! Hopefully scientists across all fields move towards that, where it's second nature to publish the results of your study in a quantifiable manner no matter the results, but I think it's a while off.
So get on it, somebody... my programming days are long over.:p Heck, get government funding from NSF and make a buck doing it!
It's called the "file drawer problem" and impacts every field of science. If you don't find significant results, you don't get published, and you stick your "failed" study in the file drawer. As a result, "failed" studies on ANY topic usually get swept away. It's unfortunate, but there's nothing particular sinister about it (as the article seems to imply). There's just no incentive to publish the trials and studies that didn't work.
Exactly. Do we really want people who are apparently having trouble catching all the road signs to have a free ticket to ignore the side of the road? Best not bike, walk, or try to back a car out of a driveway in a retirement community...
I seem to remember looking at an exhibit at Te Papa in Wellington, NZ, at least two or three years ago that showed the different efficiencies of various 3D shapes in solar collection. But that's about the extent of my solar cell design knowledge! So did this kid think up something completely different, or did he come up with an improved 3D design?
I'm sure they mean well, but the CEO of a company should not necessarily know how to perform every task of the organization. It is not their job. The same applies here -- managers manage people. If the people are organized/empowered/self-managed/[buzz word here] in such a way they don't need that management, go ahead and fire the boss.
Spreading slightly plausible misinformation (about the opposing candidate) is far more effective than telling the truth. That's why people do it. It's just like running negative ads, which everybody bitches about, but which are time and time again shown to be more effective than positive ads. Sure it's slimy, but if you want an answer to the question, there you go.
The sad thing is, it takes time to fact check, and many people don't want to spend the time (or don't know where to look).
Many of these questions should be asked for ANY position, regardless of how much telecommuting is involved. Questions 2 & 3 are relevant to most any job (i.e. "what am I actually paid for?"). #4 & 5 are relevant in any place that has teleworkers, even if it's not you, since they might be on your team, and 6 applies to just about any job situation. It's the "what if things change?" question.
My understanding is that Los Angeles really got the ball rolling in terms of having a sponsored Olympics because they actually managed to turn a profit. Compared to previous events, which had dipped massively in debt, it seemed like a good model for host cities to follow.
That made my day! But when I ponder the question, I don't see why not. It's like passing with a C minus. Our robotic overlords don't have to fool EVERYBODY, just enough of us...
With the right tech, in 20 years I'll be able to pick and choose whose face I want to deliver the "news", or star in my favorite shows/movies for that matter. Altered wedding photos will be the least of our worries.;)
If their seeding plan had failed, they still would have called it a success because it rained in Beijing and washed away some of the smog. They had nothing to lose!
Wouldn't this product be a little more useful (than a Segway) for the mobility challenged who don't yet need a wheelchair? I.e. the elderly so often targeted by Japanese robotics, who maybe just need to get around their house or immediate neighborhood?
If they're serious about going after younger folks in malls and airports, probably the most use I'll ever get out of one is from watching a spoof chase scene in an otherwise forgettable comedy movie.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not disagreeing, just noting that it is happening. With supervision and additional schooling (but not a full medical degree), psychologists can prescribe in New Mexico & Louisiana (AFAIK). Bills have been proposed in a number of other states but so far have been shot down.
But only if she reads /.
In some states psychologists can become licensed to prescribe mediation (after additional training). Sure, unlicensed psychologists should not be telling people what meds to go on, but the psychiatrist/psychologist line is not a definite as it used to be. And doctors who prescribe based solely on what a parent tells them their psychologist said ought to get just as much blame.
Sorry, semantics... that's why consulting a lawyer is recommended. :p That said, in practice no two candidates are ever perfectly equal. These cases are made off of overall trends, not a single hiring decision.
Yes you do. It is illegal for hiring to cause "adverse impact". The OP specifically mentions a preference towards older applicants. IF younger applicants can show that older applicants are being hired disproportionately over younger applicants with similar job-related knowledge, skills, and abilities, they could have a case in court. Not as strong as traditionally protected classes (minorities, disabled, women, 40+ workers) but a case nonetheless.
IF the OP states a preference for older employees but hires the most qualified individuals no matter what whether they're all old, young, or an even mix (and can back it up), his actions are defensible.
Disclaimer: Want to know more? Ask a lawyer, not me. :)
As much as I dislike advertising or product placement in games, it is less distasteful than the proposed idea. Why not look at magazines? Magazines get passed around to people other than the subscriber and they LIKE it because it increases the number of people viewing ads, raising ad prices. Heaven forbid, maybe game developers could profit without bending players over! Or maybe they're just floating this nonsense idea so they can "backpedal" to increasing advertising in games, their real goal in the first place?
Um, no. You are mixing two arguments. EVEN IF you successfully make the case for racist African-American voting during the primaries, it does NOT negate the fact, mentioned in your own post, that African-Americans always vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate in the general election. John McCain lost the election because whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, youth, suburbanites, etc, voted against him.
You also end your post with a plea that makes no sense and shoots your (obviously) racist platform in the foot: if everyone DID vote based on the color of their skin, the white candidate would not be picking up the asian/hispanic votes! Do you really think all of the minorities in this country, if they were deciding to follow your racist call-to-arms, would line up behind the WHITE candidate? They're just minorities, not idiots. *rolls eyes*
No, the games of our youth were social activities with other gamers, so that didn't count as real social activity. When they say "becoming social" they're referring to all the non-gamers who are playing these days. And who are now considered gamers...
*head explodes*
News flash! What works in one situation (or for one person) might not work so well in another. Too little research takes the context into account, particularly regarding any research that is human-related, and so it becomes easy to "disprove" prior findings.
I thought it was pretty clear they don't consider the registry to be effectively disseminating results: "Data from fewer than one in five research trials are ever published. Findings from the vast majority of human trials become buried for reasons that may never come to light". If blame is to be placed, I agree it's always on the reader -- researchers don't bother publishing failed studies because nobody wants to publish them. They don't sell subscriptions. But that hardly means we can expect doctors to look at everything in the registry, or contact all of the researchers in that field and ask about any pilot studies they've done recently that didn't get published.
A meta-analysis is currently very hard because whoever is doing the meta-analysis has to assign a value for each of those things you mentioned and do it across every single study they examine. If we had a system where we did that as we went, rather than in a giant intimidating chunk (meta-analysis), we would be able to do a sort of meta-analysis on the fly. And maybe the registry in the article is trying to do that (I'm not familiar with it) but I don't think so. If everything that went into the registry was peer reviewed upon entry and values were assigned to those variables, there's no real reason it couldn't work. A strong meta-analysis shouldn't have too many subtle decisions involved. It should start out with clear delineations that multiple raters can agree on. There's no reason we couldn't set guidelines and apply the same logic of crowd wisdom to this that we applied to scanning images for Steve Fossett. There would always be some gray areas in either approach, but the presence of subtle decisions would seem to bolster the case for meta-as-we-go. Difficult yes, impossible no. :)
My impression from the article was that nobody checks this registry (aka file drawer). I didn't mean to give pharma a free pass -- the article suggests they have a greater rate of "file drawer" than non-industry research.
The article highlighted the problem perfectly -- only 20% of the studies in the registry are reaching publication. Since publication is where many people (doctors) learn about what's new, 80% of the data is never seen.
They are trying to do something about it, such as require results to be shared from any trial using government funding, but the problem persists if the results end up in a registry that nobody reads. Or the "Journal of Studies that found Nothing New", where each volume is 4 times as dense as any competing journal. Meta-analysis may be our savior but there needs to be new research generated so we can meta-analyze it -- researchers can't spend all their time looking at prior studies.
Now if some techie could put together software that does the meta-analysis for us (giving averages across, say, all studies of Treatment X for Lung Cancer on a query) it would be a pretty epic breakthrough. But the variables would have to be entered along with the studies, and peer reviewed for accuracy (study #10285 used inappropriate statistical analysis and was not as rigorous as the authors claimed; study #26581 had superb experimental control but only examined 20 year olds; etc etc). Actually, moderated & meta-moderated is probably a more appropriate term than peer reviewed given where we're posting! Hopefully scientists across all fields move towards that, where it's second nature to publish the results of your study in a quantifiable manner no matter the results, but I think it's a while off.
So get on it, somebody... my programming days are long over. :p Heck, get government funding from NSF and make a buck doing it!
It's called the "file drawer problem" and impacts every field of science. If you don't find significant results, you don't get published, and you stick your "failed" study in the file drawer. As a result, "failed" studies on ANY topic usually get swept away. It's unfortunate, but there's nothing particular sinister about it (as the article seems to imply). There's just no incentive to publish the trials and studies that didn't work.
Exactly. Do we really want people who are apparently having trouble catching all the road signs to have a free ticket to ignore the side of the road? Best not bike, walk, or try to back a car out of a driveway in a retirement community...
I seem to remember looking at an exhibit at Te Papa in Wellington, NZ, at least two or three years ago that showed the different efficiencies of various 3D shapes in solar collection. But that's about the extent of my solar cell design knowledge! So did this kid think up something completely different, or did he come up with an improved 3D design?
I'm sure they mean well, but the CEO of a company should not necessarily know how to perform every task of the organization. It is not their job. The same applies here -- managers manage people. If the people are organized/empowered/self-managed/[buzz word here] in such a way they don't need that management, go ahead and fire the boss.
Spreading slightly plausible misinformation (about the opposing candidate) is far more effective than telling the truth. That's why people do it. It's just like running negative ads, which everybody bitches about, but which are time and time again shown to be more effective than positive ads. Sure it's slimy, but if you want an answer to the question, there you go.
The sad thing is, it takes time to fact check, and many people don't want to spend the time (or don't know where to look).
Or you could sign up for the Amazon Prime trial, which is free.
1 minute, but thanks for playing!
Many of these questions should be asked for ANY position, regardless of how much telecommuting is involved. Questions 2 & 3 are relevant to most any job (i.e. "what am I actually paid for?"). #4 & 5 are relevant in any place that has teleworkers, even if it's not you, since they might be on your team, and 6 applies to just about any job situation. It's the "what if things change?" question.
Mod parent up!
My understanding is that Los Angeles really got the ball rolling in terms of having a sponsored Olympics because they actually managed to turn a profit. Compared to previous events, which had dipped massively in debt, it seemed like a good model for host cities to follow.
To be fair, some human faces give me the creeps.
Is a Turing test valid if the human is an idiot?
That made my day! But when I ponder the question, I don't see why not. It's like passing with a C minus. Our robotic overlords don't have to fool EVERYBODY, just enough of us...
Are you kidding? I don't trust the news now!
With the right tech, in 20 years I'll be able to pick and choose whose face I want to deliver the "news", or star in my favorite shows/movies for that matter. Altered wedding photos will be the least of our worries. ;)
If their seeding plan had failed, they still would have called it a success because it rained in Beijing and washed away some of the smog. They had nothing to lose!
Wouldn't this product be a little more useful (than a Segway) for the mobility challenged who don't yet need a wheelchair? I.e. the elderly so often targeted by Japanese robotics, who maybe just need to get around their house or immediate neighborhood?
If they're serious about going after younger folks in malls and airports, probably the most use I'll ever get out of one is from watching a spoof chase scene in an otherwise forgettable comedy movie.