It does include mortgage debt. Perhaps this will suit you better: U.S. household debt is 136% of income, in urban China it's 17%. Meanwhile, more urban Chinese own their own home (85% to 69%), and those who do are far more likely to do so outright (11% with mortgage vs. 70% in U.S.).
FTA: "Japan's electricity system got its start in 1883 with the founding of Tokyo Electric Light Co. Demand quickly grew and in 1895 the company bought electricity generation equipment from Germany's AEG. In west Japan the same evolution was taking place, and Osaka Electric Lamp imported equipment from General Electric."
Wait: I thought the free market solved all problems and never needed government intervention.
Except that Texas, in its crusading fundamentalism, keeps taking over the country's political establishment -- taking the U.S. Presidency (Bush I and II), mandating national textbook standards, etc. If they were to secede then there'd be much less of a problem.
"I have a question about 'falsifiability'. How is evolution or the big bang falsifiable in a practical sense... Or if a fossil shows up in the wrong layer or dates to the wrong time, we wouldn't say 'Aha! Evolution is wrong!'"
Answer: In principle -- If a whole lot of that stuff keeps showing up. The concrete and testable predictions from the theory are that that won't happen.
Agreed that in a really strictly practical sense, it's not falsifiable, because of its being true.
According to the article, the three students in question called the teacher (a) pedophile, (b) rapist, and (c) bipolar. While many commentators have emphasized (a), I actually think (b) is a lot worse (asserts actual violent/sexual action, as opposed to mere predisposition).
The thing that does bother me here is how the students who did (a) and (b) are honors students and were merely suspended. The student who said (c) -- the least serious accusation -- was not an honors student, and was expelled. The article also says this: "At least two of the students’ families plan to hire attorneys." Let me guess, that would be the first two students' families, because they're more wealthy and have the support to produce honors students, right? And that latter student is from a family without wealth, expelled with no legal resources, and is shit out of luck, right? (Just a hypothesis.)
I actually disagree with a lot of what you just wrote there.
I'll take one very clear-cut point -- "the corrected p value was 0.05" is false; you're misreading the abstract. It says, "Design, Setting, and Participants... P.05 (corrected for multiple comparisons) were considered significant." So that's the threshold picked in the design stage, prior to the experiment being carried out, as being significant (as you would expect). At the end, when the experiment was actually run, the observed P-value (after all corrections) was indeed found to be P=0.004. Since that's less (a lot less) than the initially chosen significance threshold, the results are declared to be "significant".
"This study involved computer based analysis using PET scan data*. Similar studies have often been shown to have overstated or no real statistical significance**. With only 47 participants this study has, in my eyes, about the same validity as the average undergrad study."
I don't think any of those things mean what you seem to think they mean. *
(1) On PET scan data not having "validity" -- skeptical. Citation needed. (2) On the linked article of science paper statistical shortfalls -- there are some good cautionary points in that article. The article does not say that similar studies have been shown to have "no real statistical significance" (in fact, just the opposite). I challenge you to point out specific statistical pitfalls (from your linked article) of which this abstract runs afoul? Because I don't see any. (3) 47 participants is perfectly reasonable, since the accepted number for a t-test as done in the study is considered to be 30 or more (hence generating an approximately-normal sampling distribution of sample mean results, per the Central Limit Theorem, assuming no outliers found in the obtained data). The strength of the evidence obtained is reflected in the calculation of P = 0.004 (which is super, super low, i.e., enormously significantly significant), not by your hand waving about what should count "in your eyes".
Total bullshit. I don't believe that for a second. (a) The site was up prior to be blocked. (b) Per governor's spokesman Cullen Werwie: ""The Department of Administration blocks all new websites shortly after they are created, until they go through a software approval program that unblocks them." Really? Does that sound even remotely technically feasible?
TFA doesn't say anything about state government workers. The Wisconsin Capitol houses the State Legislature and the State Supreme Court. Of course their job is inherently political, and moreover, deserves full access to information.
"Not an YRO... I don't think this teacher's suspension over the blog is a violation of her rights online."
Note that linguistically, "Your rights online" != "Violations of your rights online". For example, an exploration of "Do people have right X online?" would fall in the category.
"Disclaimer: I am currently employed by a Government entity. I worked in the privet sector for 22 year prior to that... However, I have seen many times where educated, smart peple try to force what are evffectivly engineered decsion down a cities throat without actually have engineering experience..."
Oh. My. God. Are you trying to put as many wrong things into every sentence as possible?!?
"If you're going to modify elections, try direct popular vote for once. None of that 'Well, your state only gets ___ votes so your vote didn't count' bullshit."
This makes it sound like the only vote you're thinking about is the one for U.S. President, which is enormously myopic -- possibly the least important vote you cast.
"That weird concept of 'throwing away your vote' when the person you voted for doesn't win is probably one of the biggest things wrong with our voting system... it seems that most of the American public (and probably most of the rest of humanity) is dumb enough to fall for this propaganda technique."
No, it's basic game theory, specifically called Tactical Voting. The the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem shows that any system must be either (a) susceptible to tactical voting, or (b) a dictatorship. Link.
I honestly think that this is the single most important change we can make for our democracy (not to say that it's a total silver bullet, either). I'm kind of amazed that this might actually have traction anyplace. Go NH.
"Just because two or more candidates might be acceptable to me, doesn't mean that they're equally acceptable to me."
Which do you think is most common? (a) Having two or more acceptable candidates with distinctly different levels of likability, or (b) Having two or more unacceptable candidates with equal levels of "I don't really give a damn". (Or at least: equal levels of "I don't care enough to spend time ranking them.") I'll bet (b) is enormously more common -- and so we should optimize for that.
In short, most people don't have the time or attention span (or incentive) for condorcet voting. Acceptance voting is both actually feasible and a major improvement.
Congrats, you just restated the point of TFA: "Rowthorn has developed a model that shows that the genetic components that predispose a person toward religion are currently 'hitchhiking' on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates. "
The article's point is exactly the opposite. FTA: "Studies have found that the high fertility rates stem from cultural and social influences by religious organizations rather than biological factors.".
Slashdot Mirror
Forbes article 6/24/2010, probably elsewhere, too: http://blogs.forbes.com/moneybuilder/2010/06/24/one-big-difference-between-chinese-and-american-households-debt/
It does include mortgage debt. Perhaps this will suit you better: U.S. household debt is 136% of income, in urban China it's 17%. Meanwhile, more urban Chinese own their own home (85% to 69%), and those who do are far more likely to do so outright (11% with mortgage vs. 70% in U.S.).
FTA: "Japan's electricity system got its start in 1883 with the founding of Tokyo Electric Light Co. Demand quickly grew and in 1895 the company bought electricity generation equipment from Germany's AEG. In west Japan the same evolution was taking place, and Osaka Electric Lamp imported equipment from General Electric."
Wait: I thought the free market solved all problems and never needed government intervention.
Except that Texas, in its crusading fundamentalism, keeps taking over the country's political establishment -- taking the U.S. Presidency (Bush I and II), mandating national textbook standards, etc. If they were to secede then there'd be much less of a problem.
"I have a question about 'falsifiability'. How is evolution or the big bang falsifiable in a practical sense... Or if a fossil shows up in the wrong layer or dates to the wrong time, we wouldn't say 'Aha! Evolution is wrong!'"
Answer: In principle -- If a whole lot of that stuff keeps showing up. The concrete and testable predictions from the theory are that that won't happen.
Agreed that in a really strictly practical sense, it's not falsifiable, because of its being true.
Mod this up, super well put.
Effective resistance never comes from within the empire.
According to the article, the three students in question called the teacher (a) pedophile, (b) rapist, and (c) bipolar. While many commentators have emphasized (a), I actually think (b) is a lot worse (asserts actual violent/sexual action, as opposed to mere predisposition).
The thing that does bother me here is how the students who did (a) and (b) are honors students and were merely suspended. The student who said (c) -- the least serious accusation -- was not an honors student, and was expelled. The article also says this: "At least two of the students’ families plan to hire attorneys." Let me guess, that would be the first two students' families, because they're more wealthy and have the support to produce honors students, right? And that latter student is from a family without wealth, expelled with no legal resources, and is shit out of luck, right? (Just a hypothesis.)
I actually disagree with a lot of what you just wrote there.
I'll take one very clear-cut point -- "the corrected p value was 0.05" is false; you're misreading the abstract. It says, "Design, Setting, and Participants... P .05 (corrected for multiple comparisons) were considered significant." So that's the threshold picked in the design stage, prior to the experiment being carried out, as being significant (as you would expect). At the end, when the experiment was actually run, the observed P-value (after all corrections) was indeed found to be P=0.004. Since that's less (a lot less) than the initially chosen significance threshold, the results are declared to be "significant".
(a) Accuracy, (b) Efficiency, (c) Privacy, (d) Noise pollution.
The point is, they think we're too weak to do anything about it.
Total bullshit from top to bottom. That's all I've got to say.
"This study involved computer based analysis using PET scan data*. Similar studies have often been shown to have overstated or no real statistical significance**. With only 47 participants this study has, in my eyes, about the same validity as the average undergrad study."
I don't think any of those things mean what you seem to think they mean. *
(1) On PET scan data not having "validity" -- skeptical. Citation needed.
(2) On the linked article of science paper statistical shortfalls -- there are some good cautionary points in that article. The article does not say that similar studies have been shown to have "no real statistical significance" (in fact, just the opposite). I challenge you to point out specific statistical pitfalls (from your linked article) of which this abstract runs afoul? Because I don't see any.
(3) 47 participants is perfectly reasonable, since the accepted number for a t-test as done in the study is considered to be 30 or more (hence generating an approximately-normal sampling distribution of sample mean results, per the Central Limit Theorem, assuming no outliers found in the obtained data). The strength of the evidence obtained is reflected in the calculation of P = 0.004 (which is super, super low, i.e., enormously significantly significant), not by your hand waving about what should count "in your eyes".
* I'm a lecturer in college statistics.
That's the single biggest bullshit-alarm in the article. Does that sound remotely technically feasible?
Total bullshit. I don't believe that for a second. (a) The site was up prior to be blocked. (b) Per governor's spokesman Cullen Werwie: ""The Department of Administration blocks all new websites shortly after they are created, until they go through a software approval program that unblocks them." Really? Does that sound even remotely technically feasible?
TFA doesn't say anything about state government workers. The Wisconsin Capitol houses the State Legislature and the State Supreme Court. Of course their job is inherently political, and moreover, deserves full access to information.
"UK no longer has imperial ambitions"
The first foreign dignitary to Mubarak-free Egypt -- the British Prime Minister, with a party of 8 defense-firm CEOs in tow.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359316/Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-takes-arms-dealers-Egypt-promote-democracy.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
"Not an YRO... I don't think this teacher's suspension over the blog is a violation of her rights online."
Note that linguistically, "Your rights online" != "Violations of your rights online". For example, an exploration of "Do people have right X online?" would fall in the category.
"Disclaimer: I am currently employed by a Government entity. I worked in the privet sector for 22 year prior to that... However, I have seen many times where educated, smart peple try to force what are evffectivly engineered decsion down a cities throat without actually have engineering experience..."
Oh. My. God. Are you trying to put as many wrong things into every sentence as possible?!?
"If you're going to modify elections, try direct popular vote for once. None of that 'Well, your state only gets ___ votes so your vote didn't count' bullshit."
This makes it sound like the only vote you're thinking about is the one for U.S. President, which is enormously myopic -- possibly the least important vote you cast.
"That weird concept of 'throwing away your vote' when the person you voted for doesn't win is probably one of the biggest things wrong with our voting system... it seems that most of the American public (and probably most of the rest of humanity) is dumb enough to fall for this propaganda technique."
No, it's basic game theory, specifically called Tactical Voting. The the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem shows that any system must be either (a) susceptible to tactical voting, or (b) a dictatorship. Link.
I honestly think that this is the single most important change we can make for our democracy (not to say that it's a total silver bullet, either). I'm kind of amazed that this might actually have traction anyplace. Go NH.
"Just because two or more candidates might be acceptable to me, doesn't mean that they're equally acceptable to me."
Which do you think is most common? (a) Having two or more acceptable candidates with distinctly different levels of likability, or (b) Having two or more unacceptable candidates with equal levels of "I don't really give a damn". (Or at least: equal levels of "I don't care enough to spend time ranking them.") I'll bet (b) is enormously more common -- and so we should optimize for that.
In short, most people don't have the time or attention span (or incentive) for condorcet voting. Acceptance voting is both actually feasible and a major improvement.
Congrats, you just restated the point of TFA: "Rowthorn has developed a model that shows that the genetic components that predispose a person toward religion are currently 'hitchhiking' on the back of the religious cultural practice of high fertility rates. "
Then you'll die laughing at this: "The theoretical physics are supported by numerical simulations."
The article's point is exactly the opposite. FTA: "Studies have found that the high fertility rates stem from cultural and social influences by religious organizations rather than biological factors.".