I'd go for an over-inflated plastic bag and a firm strike from the palm of your hand. If nail clippers can land you in jail, this is Gitmo worthy shit right there.
Yeah, I buy that as a more likely explanation than racism. In fact, my guess would be that the CYA in this instance is an ADA trying to avoid "you don't care about the safety of our children" allegations, more so than them being worried about a school's budget (though I guess it's possible that they got the directive from higher ups).
The way I interpreted the summary is as follows: "Case A wasn't prosecuted, case B was. Case B was less deserving of prosecution than case A. One difference between the two cases is attribute R, which should not have any bearing on the decision to prosecute, but in practice often does (as is quite well documented). Hence, it is worth questioning whether this is one of the instances where attribute R is incorrectly used to decide matters regarding criminal justice".
What does a kid with a BB gun have to do with this? Nothing, but it "creates the narrative".
Funny, if you drop the quotes, instead of "creating a narrative", the BB gun story actually creates a narrative. Namely a narrative where an ADA is out for blood in one instance of possibly reckless behavior from a child that didn't cause anybody any harm, but ignored another instance of possibly reckless behavior from a child that resulted in the loss of life. Whether this has anything to do with race is of secondary importance. The primary issue is the apparent lack of consistency in the severity of prosecution from this ADA.
If you want to learn more, read about Bayesian probability theory.
Not to get into a Bayesian vs. frequentist debate here, but note that this is not the only interpretation of probability out there. The frequentist interpretation is, in spirit, a statement "in hindsight". Troyusrex's point is that it's meaningless to talk about probabilities of things that are fixed quantities; the frequentist interpretation gets around that by making statements about quantities that have yet to be determined. So one only speaks of probabilities before an experiment has been performed and a measurement made. In practice of course we give things like p-values and confidence intervals based on actual observations, but we interpret all probabilities in terms of an infinite number of identical hypothetical experiments.
Seriously, instead of going after some of the truly egregious scams consumers face these days (pharma advertising, hello??), he picked a completely reasonable advertisement claim that you'd have to be a complete moron to misunderstand. Way to be on the little guy's side, Bob Ferguson.
Could you possibly be confusing stigma with obscurity? I have never met anyone outside the tech world who had ever even heard the word Linux in their lives (that they could remember). Perhaps Google avoided it because every word in marketing is precious, and specifying a detail that won't help sales (even if it won't hurt, either) is a waste.
Well duh, the best thing is obviously to copy Apple in every way, and then take it to 11. Since MacOS does the "pinned popup" thing sometimes, it must be even better to do it all the time.
If there were a location where politicians were actually listening(and, implicitly, money and power were available for allocation), you'd need explosives to cut your way through the astroturf...
There already is a place like that, and it's called lobbying. Explosives = $1e+9.
That's why I banned Expert Sex Change from my google results years ago. Say what you want about information bubbles, but sometimes personalized search results can be nice.
Maybe try reading it? It's only flamebait because a few idiots here decided to interpret the claims of the article in the way that would offend them the most.
Within the foreseeable future no doctor is going to be replaced by machines. Some nurses, lab technicians and orderlies might lose their jobs to robots, but not one doctor will. Machines will simply allow for higher quality care. There is no incentive for doctors to fight robots (except possibly some irrational "when I was your age" get-off-my-lawning). The second story is purely about the work of a bunch of unethical ambulance chasing lawyers out to make a quick buck through frivolous lawsuits and FUD, not some conspiracy between doctors that are afraid their jobs will be outsourced to I Robot.
If you're really interested in an answer, check out an ID-related museum. I've never been, but having read about it, essentially what they do is either come up with legitimate questions that science has yet to answer (but hasn't given up on), and inferring that no answer could possibly exist, which proves the existence of god; or, they misrepresent facts in subtle yet important ways to support their pseudo-science.
One of the arguments I've heard, just to give you a taste (I don't know how common it is, but it's definitely out there), is the following. After a bunch of handwaving about thermodynamics, we conclude that nothing can increase in complexity (without having properly defined what we mean by complexity, and having deliberately ignored the fact that the top 2 miles of crust + bottom 2 miles of the atmosphere of earth is not a closed system, whereas thermodynamics only makes claims about closed systems). Then, we claim that because of said factoid, through evolution it would only be possible for a species to morph into one of equivalent or decreased complexity, not increased. Finally, we conclude that it would have been impossible for, e.g., humans to evolve from single celled organisms.
some scientists actually believe that if evolution is real that God can't be
Um, what!? I guess technically, since you haven't defined what you mean by "some", that has to be true (there probably exists at least one scientist who believes that). But despite having lived my entire life in academia, I have yet to hear someone seriously claim that evolution somehow disproves the existence of God. In fact, the only occasions in which I have encountered evolution and divine beings mentioned in the same breath is when someone is denying evolution, not God.
By the way, I'm an atheist, and the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with that.
It is deep stage 3 (delta) non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep that is important to memory, not REM sleep.
Where are you getting that? I've learned from multiple sources (college cognitive psych, many news articles, Wikipedia) that REM sleep is believed to be important for some types of memory.
Actually, only about a third of the manufacturing jobs lost in the US have moved to other countries. The rest have disappeared altogether due to technology. I.e. you're wrong.
I really hope they do; there's very good reason why mental health professionals have so many protections and obligations regarding patient privacy. If there is one place in the world where the government really shouldn't get involved, it's the therapist's office. Besides, most psychiatrists are already either required or encouraged to report to the appropriate officials when they believe a life is in danger, either the patient's or others. The only thing this law accomplishes is to repeat that in the specific context of guns, and draw attention to it in what is sure to be a long and detailed coverage by the media.
I wish psychologists would stop using students as guinea pigs and then publishing papers on the results. We already know waaay too much about college undergraduates.
Unfortunately that's often the only way to start investigating something, since undergraduate subjects come either cheap or free (lower level psychology courses in my university had a research participation requirement, I imagine the same goes for many other universities).
Slashdot Mirror
I'd go for an over-inflated plastic bag and a firm strike from the palm of your hand. If nail clippers can land you in jail, this is Gitmo worthy shit right there.
Yeah, I buy that as a more likely explanation than racism. In fact, my guess would be that the CYA in this instance is an ADA trying to avoid "you don't care about the safety of our children" allegations, more so than them being worried about a school's budget (though I guess it's possible that they got the directive from higher ups).
The way I interpreted the summary is as follows: "Case A wasn't prosecuted, case B was. Case B was less deserving of prosecution than case A. One difference between the two cases is attribute R, which should not have any bearing on the decision to prosecute, but in practice often does (as is quite well documented). Hence, it is worth questioning whether this is one of the instances where attribute R is incorrectly used to decide matters regarding criminal justice".
That seems quite reasonable to me.
What does a kid with a BB gun have to do with this? Nothing, but it "creates the narrative".
Funny, if you drop the quotes, instead of "creating a narrative", the BB gun story actually creates a narrative. Namely a narrative where an ADA is out for blood in one instance of possibly reckless behavior from a child that didn't cause anybody any harm, but ignored another instance of possibly reckless behavior from a child that resulted in the loss of life. Whether this has anything to do with race is of secondary importance. The primary issue is the apparent lack of consistency in the severity of prosecution from this ADA.
If you want to learn more, read about Bayesian probability theory.
Not to get into a Bayesian vs. frequentist debate here, but note that this is not the only interpretation of probability out there. The frequentist interpretation is, in spirit, a statement "in hindsight". Troyusrex's point is that it's meaningless to talk about probabilities of things that are fixed quantities; the frequentist interpretation gets around that by making statements about quantities that have yet to be determined. So one only speaks of probabilities before an experiment has been performed and a measurement made. In practice of course we give things like p-values and confidence intervals based on actual observations, but we interpret all probabilities in terms of an infinite number of identical hypothetical experiments.
Seriously, instead of going after some of the truly egregious scams consumers face these days (pharma advertising, hello??), he picked a completely reasonable advertisement claim that you'd have to be a complete moron to misunderstand. Way to be on the little guy's side, Bob Ferguson.
Related -- the harmless and effective sleeping gases that Hollywood invented sadly do not exist. If they did, 130 people wouldn't have died here.
Yes, because it takes a lot of technical know-how to create a zip file and making it available as a torrent... /s
Perhaps: good at gliding => can use rising air columns from e.g. forest fires to stay in the air much longer.
Big data is the counterargument to AI-completeness, essentially it's the Chinese Room.
Could you possibly be confusing stigma with obscurity? I have never met anyone outside the tech world who had ever even heard the word Linux in their lives (that they could remember). Perhaps Google avoided it because every word in marketing is precious, and specifying a detail that won't help sales (even if it won't hurt, either) is a waste.
Well duh, the best thing is obviously to copy Apple in every way, and then take it to 11. Since MacOS does the "pinned popup" thing sometimes, it must be even better to do it all the time.
Dude, have you ever had any contact with a child?
If there were a location where politicians were actually listening(and, implicitly, money and power were available for allocation), you'd need explosives to cut your way through the astroturf...
There already is a place like that, and it's called lobbying. Explosives = $1e+9.
That's why I banned Expert Sex Change from my google results years ago. Say what you want about information bubbles, but sometimes personalized search results can be nice.
if you really want America to have been build on somebody's back, that back would belong to the immigrant laborer
Although depending on who you ask, those immigrants could also be classified as slave labor.
Maybe try reading it? It's only flamebait because a few idiots here decided to interpret the claims of the article in the way that would offend them the most.
Within the foreseeable future no doctor is going to be replaced by machines. Some nurses, lab technicians and orderlies might lose their jobs to robots, but not one doctor will. Machines will simply allow for higher quality care. There is no incentive for doctors to fight robots (except possibly some irrational "when I was your age" get-off-my-lawning). The second story is purely about the work of a bunch of unethical ambulance chasing lawyers out to make a quick buck through frivolous lawsuits and FUD, not some conspiracy between doctors that are afraid their jobs will be outsourced to I Robot.
If you're really interested in an answer, check out an ID-related museum. I've never been, but having read about it, essentially what they do is either come up with legitimate questions that science has yet to answer (but hasn't given up on), and inferring that no answer could possibly exist, which proves the existence of god; or, they misrepresent facts in subtle yet important ways to support their pseudo-science.
One of the arguments I've heard, just to give you a taste (I don't know how common it is, but it's definitely out there), is the following. After a bunch of handwaving about thermodynamics, we conclude that nothing can increase in complexity (without having properly defined what we mean by complexity, and having deliberately ignored the fact that the top 2 miles of crust + bottom 2 miles of the atmosphere of earth is not a closed system, whereas thermodynamics only makes claims about closed systems). Then, we claim that because of said factoid, through evolution it would only be possible for a species to morph into one of equivalent or decreased complexity, not increased. Finally, we conclude that it would have been impossible for, e.g., humans to evolve from single celled organisms.
some scientists actually believe that if evolution is real that God can't be
Um, what!? I guess technically, since you haven't defined what you mean by "some", that has to be true (there probably exists at least one scientist who believes that). But despite having lived my entire life in academia, I have yet to hear someone seriously claim that evolution somehow disproves the existence of God. In fact, the only occasions in which I have encountered evolution and divine beings mentioned in the same breath is when someone is denying evolution, not God.
By the way, I'm an atheist, and the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with that.
It is deep stage 3 (delta) non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep that is important to memory, not REM sleep.
Where are you getting that? I've learned from multiple sources (college cognitive psych, many news articles, Wikipedia) that REM sleep is believed to be important for some types of memory.
Actually, only about a third of the manufacturing jobs lost in the US have moved to other countries. The rest have disappeared altogether due to technology. I.e. you're wrong.
I really hope they do; there's very good reason why mental health professionals have so many protections and obligations regarding patient privacy. If there is one place in the world where the government really shouldn't get involved, it's the therapist's office. Besides, most psychiatrists are already either required or encouraged to report to the appropriate officials when they believe a life is in danger, either the patient's or others. The only thing this law accomplishes is to repeat that in the specific context of guns, and draw attention to it in what is sure to be a long and detailed coverage by the media.
I wish psychologists would stop using students as guinea pigs and then publishing papers on the results. We already know waaay too much about college undergraduates.
Unfortunately that's often the only way to start investigating something, since undergraduate subjects come either cheap or free (lower level psychology courses in my university had a research participation requirement, I imagine the same goes for many other universities).
For a moment there I thought Dr Whofrom was some German scientist that did an educational TV show in the 80s.