Rather than the technical solution of wearing plate armor when grocery shopping we put people who in jail who stab random people in the supermarket. The legal solution works perfectly well.
Yeah, I said their were positive and negative associations to listing it as a hobby.And being a raid leader seems as useful as being "head of the X team" in high school that people like to keep mentioning.
There are lots of 50 year olds who grew up with gaming but most didn't. And by 16 you've picked other hobbies.
35 is the magic age - the Atari 2600 was released when you were 0.The C64 came out when you were 5. The vast bulk of people 35 and under owned a console/home computer or had a friend who did when they were still aged in single digits.
If you vote against this candidate because of the party's ad then you are every bit as much the fool as those who vote for him because of the party's ad.
Why? It's a group the candidate has voluntary associated himself with. Sure, there are more important concerns but if it's a close choice taking that into account isn't foolish.
And listing WOW as a hobby would be fine (there are positive and negative associations so you proabbly want to consider the audience), but that wasn't the claim. The claim was listing it as a "SKILL".
Yes. Because I want a refridgerator sized printer that easily churns out 50000 pages a month in my home office. And the university down the street wants a laptop sized printer that can only take 20 peices of paper in the feeder at a time.
If you are aiming for creatures capable of interstellar space travel I suspect you can assume they can work out some simple clues.
Use binary to reduce the numeric symbol space from 10 to 2 and to make the base representation of numbers obvious faster. Show a table of lines next to the numeric representation of the number of lines. Show a table of various examples of each operation. Deriving what those operations represent should be trivial (assuming that those operations are as universal as is being assumed of course). Show some examples of algebra. Define things like sin and cos using a digram and the algebra you hopefully got across already.
Show some equations that we know are true and so on.
I'm not sure what useful information you'll be communicating though, other than "hey look we can do simple math" and "we think the physical laws are as follows".
He;d already indicated yes by raising his hand, then when the judge says "LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN." he unsurprisingly gives some details. As do all the other people who raised their hand for the rest of the session.
He answered the question as it was asked. It just asked if you had been involved in "a lawsuit", and then after he gave the details of one the questioner went on to the next prospective juror without asking if there were any other instances.
At least from the transcript he didn't appear to lie and given the wording of the questions he could easily have not understood they wanted an enumeration of all such lawsuits. He doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer after all.
Yeah, my day job involves processing pubmed data. It's a true PITA when irrelevant (for the stuff we care about) stuff like that comes in and messes with the author lists. And it's not uncommon...
We also teach it because it works. Sure it's wrong. Sure it gives the wrong answers in a lot of cases. But it gives the right answers for some useful cases.
And it isn't a classical description. It's a quantum theory (not quantum mechanics though).
Which is why I didn't say I wouldn't encourage wearing a seatbelt, I'm not sure what your point is there.
The article provides a bunch of benefits of not wearing a helmet, I feel no need to repeat them.
Of course fatalities decreased. Helmets protect you head, that isn't being argued against.
"""The surveys in Melbourne found 442 children wore helmets voluntarily before the law. Identical surveys conducted in 1991, after helmets became compulsory, counted 43 more helmet wearers but 649 fewer child cyclists. This supports the conclusion that the main effect of legislation was to discourage cycling rather than encourage helmet wearing. In the 1991 survey, 42% fewer child cyclists and 29% fewer adult cyclists were counted.""" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/
So fewer head injuries and fatalities amonst the cyclists (at the very least because there are fewer cyclists) but you can't just ignore the health damage due to 42% of children who once cycled now watching the TV (or whatever).
And I'm not against wearing helmets. I wear one myself, and the kid wears one when he rides somewhere other than between the houses in the street. There is no argument about whether wearing a helmet is good or bad on an individual basis.
So you are claiming there are only 10 million bike rides a year in the US? There are 15 million bikes sold in year (http://nbda.com/articles/industry-overview-2011-pg34.htm) but each one is ridden less than once before the owner gives up entirely or buys another bike? And of course that's assuming every single injury is a head injury.
Oh wait you are only counting non-helmet wearing rides. So that still isn't anywhere near a useful statistic since it doesn't break down the injuries by helmet status or say how many rides a year there are. or what percentage of those rides are without a helmet.
Even if the rate of injury is relatively low, is it still not worth protecting against when the solution is so simple?
It depends on the cost of the solution, as always. The article describes some potential costs I'm not going to bother regurgitating them since that has nothing to do with the point. I'm not actually interested in whether a helmet is a great idea or not. All I'm interested in is you 5% figure and where it comes from.
Put differently, the chance of a baseball player actually getting hit in the groin with a baseball is pretty low, but they all were cups just in case. If it is that important to protect the family jewels, should protecting one's brain and head be of even greater importance? Just a thought.
Do you make your kids where a cup when they play baseball in the street with friends? When they are using a tennis ball? If they would not bother playing if they had to would you still do so? But anyway, it's irrelevant to the actual issue.
ps. there is a link from the cdc page to the bicyclinginfo.org that is full of statistics, including crash statistics. Some of the stats conflict with the CDC stats and the Children's Safety Network. All of them, though show that there are risks involved and fatalities do occur more than people would expect.
I looked as best I considering the other things I have to get done. And I can't find stats that give the numbers for the claim - over 5% of all bike rides without a helmet result in a head injury.
Best I can find (why I need to do the digging to support your claim I still don't understand) is: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0036941/m0036941.asp. It says "Bicycles are owned by approximately 30% of the U.S. population, and 45% of bike owners ride at least occasionally " and "557,936 persons were treated in emergency departments for bicycle-related injuries" and " addition, approximately 33% of all bicycle-related emergency department visits and 67% of all bicycle-related hospital admissions (5,8) involve head injuries " and " For example, from 1984 through 1988, if a presumed helmet-use rate of 10% had been increased to 100% (i.e., universal helmet use), an average of 500 fatal and 151,400 nonfatal bicycle-related head injuries could have been prevented each year".
So that gives us a few numbers - mind you we are at the "presumed" level of confidence. 557396*1/3=185800 round it so 200000 head injuries at the "go to the emergency dept" level a year.. 263,000,000 * 0.3 * 0.45 = 35.5 million. 90% of that gives us 31,950,000 people who "ride at least occasionally" without a helmet. So for your 5% number if we take the best case (for it) that all head injuries involved non-helmet wearers then "occasionally" must mean riding your bike 0.125 times a year. And of course far lower than that since every kid who rides their bike once a day adds 3000 such occasional riders worth of such rides to the stats pool (and should sustain 18 head injuries a year themselves
Of course, it's a smell test. A "is this within orders of magnitude of what experience tells me" test. If it had been vaguely close to what I see I would have spent time digging up stats.
None of your stats are relevant.
Percentage of accidents occurring in certain age ranges tells me nothing about the chance of a head injury from a single bicycle ride. Fatality rates tell me nothing about head injury rates. Annual costs tell me nothing about chances of a head injury from a single bicycle ride.
Head injuries accounting for fatality rates tells me nothing about head injury rates. Neither does collisions with a motor vehicle. Neither does a not quite intersection of the two.
So do you have anything to back up the 5% claim?
As I said I looked up some stats but none were directly relevant and the number was so far outside experience I'm asking for them rather than doing more searching. I can't find numbers for how many bicycle trips there are in some time frame without wearing a helmet to compare with the injury stats and check that 5% number. Everything I see says it is a huge exaggeration though.
Of course not. Discouraging them from riding in cars is a good thing, so making it less convenient is a goal in itself.
Not looking both ways while crossing the road? Driving with your eyes closed? Driving drunk?
Of course not again. There's no benefit from those actions, why would I advocate them?
But there is NEVER a time where you'll be ok without a helmet, but wouldn't be ok if you had been wearing one.
NEVER is far too strong a claim. Head injuries increased with helmet use back in 1991. A badly designed helmet can increase injuries in an accident. And so on.
Sure, if you are wearing a helmet and have an accident you are significantly less likely to get a head injury. I agree with that. But that isn't what you wrote.
So if I cycle for two hours I burnt more calories "just sitting" for the other 22 hours of the day. That would seem to backup the claim your are calling "100% wrong".
So, when he is a teenager, are you going to tell him to not use a condom? I mean, the overall pregnancy rate for unprotected sex is around 5% which is actually lower than the head injury rate from biking without a helmet.
Bullshit.
Let's just try the smell test. There are 5 boys in my street (one of which is mine) between the ages of 8 and 12. They all ride bikes, none wear helmets. A typical weekday would see them riding their bikes twice (to somewhere and then back again). Though they ride more often on weekends and less often in winter. So lets call it once a day. There wasn't a single head injury from biking in the last year. Or the year before that. So call that 5*365*2 = 3650 (it's a smell test, that it's a leap year is the least significant of our errors). So by your unsourced claim there should have been 182 head injuries amongst these 5 boys.
I must live in the luckiest street in the world or something.
Then again I haven't seen a notice from the school or from the local nosy parents about helmets. I would expect if someone did sustain a head injury while biking without a helmet I would have heard about it in yet another of their idiotic safety notices. So if the rest of school district kids are similar we can probably increase the number of bike rides by a couple of orders of magnitude and would expect to have seen 36500 head injuries in the last two years. I really think I would seen a safety notice by now, or at least seen the queues at the hospital. Though of course some kids will be wearing helmets I doubt 9 out of 10 but lets reduce it to 3650 anyway. I think of would have heard of the five head injuries a day by now. Maybe luckiest school district too?
Given how ludicrous those numbers are I don't see much point in trying to find actual stats for head injuries from riding bicycles with and without a helmet. I can find hospital visit counts and number of cyclists counts, but not according to helmet wearing state and head injuries in particular. You must have some to make the claim, so please point me at them.
And if you crash your car and suffer a head injury, the rest us will end up paying for it. So we should mandate wearing helmets while in a car, right? Race car drivers wear them, so they must have some sort of benefit in a crash.
Structures sometimes fail, and strong winds can knock down tree on to houses. So we should mandate wearing hard hats when sitting on the lounge watching TV too, right?
And if cyclists didn't do that I'm pretty sure you'd complain about that. Back when I used to ride to work there was a spike in complaints about cyclists not following all the rules (which they should) that also included such things as cyclists shouldn't be allowed to do that, etc.
So one day I didn't do that. There's a traffic light at the top of a hill that enters you on to the main road to the city - the bike lane starts on that main road. Usually I would slowly cycle on the inside of the stopped traffic and stop at the light then when it was green I cross and enter into the bike lane. So I didn't do that, instead when the car in front of me stopped I stopped behind it and waited for it to move again.
Since I'm on a shitty mountain bike and it's uphill I start rather slowly and it takes some time for me to pick up any speed. Hence no one behind made the light either. From the reactions I think the drivers prefer the rule allowing me to pass on the inside.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than the technical solution of wearing plate armor when grocery shopping we put people who in jail who stab random people in the supermarket. The legal solution works perfectly well.
Note, that electricity and water are both metered everywhere I've lived, so even as a utility why wouldn't internet access be?
Yeah, I said their were positive and negative associations to listing it as a hobby.And being a raid leader seems as useful as being "head of the X team" in high school that people like to keep mentioning.
There are lots of 50 year olds who grew up with gaming but most didn't. And by 16 you've picked other hobbies.
35 is the magic age - the Atari 2600 was released when you were 0.The C64 came out when you were 5. The vast bulk of people 35 and under owned a console/home computer or had a friend who did when they were still aged in single digits.
Why? It's a group the candidate has voluntary associated himself with. Sure, there are more important concerns but if it's a close choice taking that into account isn't foolish.
And listing WOW as a hobby would be fine (there are positive and negative associations so you proabbly want to consider the audience), but that wasn't the claim. The claim was listing it as a "SKILL".
Except it would be unlikely he got full price reselling things. And his future earnings are going to be significantly impacted as well.
Yes. Because I want a refridgerator sized printer that easily churns out 50000 pages a month in my home office. And the university down the street wants a laptop sized printer that can only take 20 peices of paper in the feeder at a time.
Your example is a misuse. His is not. Replacing a dropped letter with an apastrophe is normal usage (frowned upon in some circles but still valid).
If you are aiming for creatures capable of interstellar space travel I suspect you can assume they can work out some simple clues.
Use binary to reduce the numeric symbol space from 10 to 2 and to make the base representation of numbers obvious faster. Show a table of lines next to the numeric representation of the number of lines. Show a table of various examples of each operation. Deriving what those operations represent should be trivial (assuming that those operations are as universal as is being assumed of course). Show some examples of algebra. Define things like sin and cos using a digram and the algebra you hopefully got across already.
Show some equations that we know are true and so on.
I'm not sure what useful information you'll be communicating though, other than "hey look we can do simple math" and "we think the physical laws are as follows".
He;d already indicated yes by raising his hand, then when the judge says "LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN." he unsurprisingly gives some details. As do all the other people who raised their hand for the rest of the session.
He answered the question as it was asked. It just asked if you had been involved in "a lawsuit", and then after he gave the details of one the questioner went on to the next prospective juror without asking if there were any other instances.
At least from the transcript he didn't appear to lie and given the wording of the questions he could easily have not understood they wanted an enumeration of all such lawsuits. He doesn't appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer after all.
Yeah, my day job involves processing pubmed data. It's a true PITA when irrelevant (for the stuff we care about) stuff like that comes in and messes with the author lists. And it's not uncommon...
We also teach it because it works. Sure it's wrong. Sure it gives the wrong answers in a lot of cases. But it gives the right answers for some useful cases.
And it isn't a classical description. It's a quantum theory (not quantum mechanics though).
Because http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23019611 is a medical science paper?
Which is why I didn't say I wouldn't encourage wearing a seatbelt, I'm not sure what your point is there.
The article provides a bunch of benefits of not wearing a helmet, I feel no need to repeat them.
Of course fatalities decreased. Helmets protect you head, that isn't being argued against.
"""The surveys in Melbourne found 442 children wore helmets voluntarily before the law. Identical surveys conducted in 1991, after helmets became compulsory, counted 43 more helmet wearers but 649 fewer child cyclists. This supports the conclusion that the main effect of legislation was to discourage cycling rather than encourage helmet wearing. In the 1991 survey, 42% fewer child cyclists and 29% fewer adult cyclists were counted.""" - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/
So fewer head injuries and fatalities amonst the cyclists (at the very least because there are fewer cyclists) but you can't just ignore the health damage due to 42% of children who once cycled now watching the TV (or whatever).
And I'm not against wearing helmets. I wear one myself, and the kid wears one when he rides somewhere other than between the houses in the street. There is no argument about whether wearing a helmet is good or bad on an individual basis.
So you are claiming there are only 10 million bike rides a year in the US? There are 15 million bikes sold in year (http://nbda.com/articles/industry-overview-2011-pg34.htm) but each one is ridden less than once before the owner gives up entirely or buys another bike? And of course that's assuming every single injury is a head injury.
Oh wait you are only counting non-helmet wearing rides. So that still isn't anywhere near a useful statistic since it doesn't break down the injuries by helmet status or say how many rides a year there are. or what percentage of those rides are without a helmet.
It depends on the cost of the solution, as always. The article describes some potential costs I'm not going to bother regurgitating them since that has nothing to do with the point. I'm not actually interested in whether a helmet is a great idea or not. All I'm interested in is you 5% figure and where it comes from.
Do you make your kids where a cup when they play baseball in the street with friends? When they are using a tennis ball? If they would not bother playing if they had to would you still do so? But anyway, it's irrelevant to the actual issue.
I looked as best I considering the other things I have to get done. And I can't find stats that give the numbers for the claim - over 5% of all bike rides without a helmet result in a head injury.
Best I can find (why I need to do the digging to support your claim I still don't understand) is: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0036941/m0036941.asp. It says "Bicycles are owned by approximately 30% of the U.S. population, and 45% of bike owners ride at least occasionally " and "557,936 persons were treated in emergency departments for bicycle-related injuries" and " addition, approximately 33% of all bicycle-related emergency department visits and 67% of all bicycle-related hospital admissions (5,8) involve head injuries " and " For example, from 1984 through 1988, if a presumed helmet-use rate of 10% had been increased to 100% (i.e., universal helmet use), an average of 500 fatal and 151,400 nonfatal bicycle-related head injuries could have been prevented each year".
So that gives us a few numbers - mind you we are at the "presumed" level of confidence. 557396*1/3=185800 round it so 200000 head injuries at the "go to the emergency dept" level a year.. 263,000,000 * 0.3 * 0.45 = 35.5 million. 90% of that gives us 31,950,000 people who "ride at least occasionally" without a helmet. So for your 5% number if we take the best case (for it) that all head injuries involved non-helmet wearers then "occasionally" must mean riding your bike 0.125 times a year. And of course far lower than that since every kid who rides their bike once a day adds 3000 such occasional riders worth of such rides to the stats pool (and should sustain 18 head injuries a year themselves
Of course, it's a smell test. A "is this within orders of magnitude of what experience tells me" test. If it had been vaguely close to what I see I would have spent time digging up stats.
None of your stats are relevant.
Percentage of accidents occurring in certain age ranges tells me nothing about the chance of a head injury from a single bicycle ride. Fatality rates tell me nothing about head injury rates. Annual costs tell me nothing about chances of a head injury from a single bicycle ride.
Head injuries accounting for fatality rates tells me nothing about head injury rates. Neither does collisions with a motor vehicle. Neither does a not quite intersection of the two.
So do you have anything to back up the 5% claim?
As I said I looked up some stats but none were directly relevant and the number was so far outside experience I'm asking for them rather than doing more searching. I can't find numbers for how many bicycle trips there are in some time frame without wearing a helmet to compare with the injury stats and check that 5% number. Everything I see says it is a huge exaggeration though.
Of course not. Discouraging them from riding in cars is a good thing, so making it less convenient is a goal in itself.
Of course not again. There's no benefit from those actions, why would I advocate them?
NEVER is far too strong a claim. Head injuries increased with helmet use back in 1991. A badly designed helmet can increase injuries in an accident. And so on.
Sure, if you are wearing a helmet and have an accident you are significantly less likely to get a head injury. I agree with that. But that isn't what you wrote.
So if I cycle for two hours I burnt more calories "just sitting" for the other 22 hours of the day. That would seem to backup the claim your are calling "100% wrong".
Bullshit.
Let's just try the smell test. There are 5 boys in my street (one of which is mine) between the ages of 8 and 12. They all ride bikes, none wear helmets. A typical weekday would see them riding their bikes twice (to somewhere and then back again). Though they ride more often on weekends and less often in winter. So lets call it once a day. There wasn't a single head injury from biking in the last year. Or the year before that. So call that 5*365*2 = 3650 (it's a smell test, that it's a leap year is the least significant of our errors). So by your unsourced claim there should have been 182 head injuries amongst these 5 boys.
I must live in the luckiest street in the world or something.
Then again I haven't seen a notice from the school or from the local nosy parents about helmets. I would expect if someone did sustain a head injury while biking without a helmet I would have heard about it in yet another of their idiotic safety notices. So if the rest of school district kids are similar we can probably increase the number of bike rides by a couple of orders of magnitude and would expect to have seen 36500 head injuries in the last two years. I really think I would seen a safety notice by now, or at least seen the queues at the hospital. Though of course some kids will be wearing helmets I doubt 9 out of 10 but lets reduce it to 3650 anyway. I think of would have heard of the five head injuries a day by now. Maybe luckiest school district too?
Given how ludicrous those numbers are I don't see much point in trying to find actual stats for head injuries from riding bicycles with and without a helmet. I can find hospital visit counts and number of cyclists counts, but not according to helmet wearing state and head injuries in particular. You must have some to make the claim, so please point me at them.
Because a single anecdote outweighs a country worth of census data generating statistics on a before and after case?
But OK. I personally have ridden my bike on more than one occasion in which I wouldn't have if I had to wear a helmet. So that's one person.
And if you crash your car and suffer a head injury, the rest us will end up paying for it. So we should mandate wearing helmets while in a car, right? Race car drivers wear them, so they must have some sort of benefit in a crash.
Structures sometimes fail, and strong winds can knock down tree on to houses. So we should mandate wearing hard hats when sitting on the lounge watching TV too, right?
In many places such passing is perfectly legal for cyclists. Not having lights isn't anywhere I've ridden though.
For example, http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/subordleg+179+2008+pt.11-div.3+0+N - they drive on the left in Oz, so cyclists are allowed to undertake. If you pull out and hit them that would be entirely your fault (unless they didn't have lights at night). The rules might be different where you are, of course.
And if cyclists didn't do that I'm pretty sure you'd complain about that. Back when I used to ride to work there was a spike in complaints about cyclists not following all the rules (which they should) that also included such things as cyclists shouldn't be allowed to do that, etc.
So one day I didn't do that. There's a traffic light at the top of a hill that enters you on to the main road to the city - the bike lane starts on that main road. Usually I would slowly cycle on the inside of the stopped traffic and stop at the light then when it was green I cross and enter into the bike lane. So I didn't do that, instead when the car in front of me stopped I stopped behind it and waited for it to move again.
Since I'm on a shitty mountain bike and it's uphill I start rather slowly and it takes some time for me to pick up any speed. Hence no one behind made the light either. From the reactions I think the drivers prefer the rule allowing me to pass on the inside.
Or just use proportional representation instead of districts.