The summary is scaremongering; the article is more in depth and interesting. Basically it says that researchers need money in order to, you know, actually research Because they need money they need to receive grants. In order to get grants, they need their grant approved. In order to get approval, their research needs to show "promise". In order to increase the amount of "promise" in their research, they need to have flashy results.
All of these steps give a lot of reason for scientists to introduce bias into their work. Even if it isn't intentional, it happens. Introduce the facts that doctors are not mathematicians, some people are lazy, and some people really are bastards, and you get a lot of false promises.
The article goes on to say that even after some conclusions are completely refuted, many doctors still use the disproven results. Whether it's through neglect or bias doesn't matter at this point, it's just bad news for the patient.
Let's consider this possibility: Iran couldn't get the Nuclear Facility up and running properly so they needed a scapegoat. Now, it can't be something simple or else they'd be considered to be incompetent. Also, they'd need to be able to track the problem to a malevolent source, again, so they can shift all blame away from themselves. So what do they do? Create a virus that will be released into the wild and contains obscure references to past Israeli-Iranian conflicts. The virus has the bonus effect of allowing them to spy on their own citizens and companies around the world.
In the end, it doesn't matter who created the virus. If Iran (or anyone else) can't secure a nuclear facility, they shouldn't have a nuclear facility.
The Mythbusters didn't test the idea of light being focused to start fires. What they tested was the probability that this phenomenon could have been weaponized 2200+ years ago. While it was certainly possible, it was highly improbable.
I'd imagine the question would be closer to "Why do most financial fraudsters who possess degrees turn out to have business degrees?"
The answer is quite simple. When someone becomes disillusioned with society he may use his skills in an antisocial manner. If his the field is business, he could end up his understanding of money to defraud people out of their hard earned cash. If his field is in engineering, he blows shit up.
Or perhaps he was fired for something else entirely and they were just looking for an excuse to can his ass. That's usually my assumption when I hear about people being fired for seemingly innocuous actions that pretty much everyone does. I've seen several occasions where lazy people show up to work (or get sick too often) and then complain about how unfair it is that they were fired for something seemingly innocuous.
Pro Tip for Beel and others in his situation: The reason listed is just an excuse to get rid of you while mitigating liability. Nobody likes you, you lazy slob.
This one says he's 18. That doesn't necessarily mean he was 18 at the time, but whatever. Even so, if a 17 year old is so stupid to not realize how monumentally stupid this is, well, I don't feel sorry for him, to say the least.
Peace: See The IRA, Al Qaeda tolerance, acceptance, equality: See Salem Witch Trials, Proposition 8, Slavery, Westboro Baptist Church Taking care of your family: See honor killings Critical though: See Intelligent Design Responsibility: See Catholic Sex abuse cases
Yes, religion can be used for some great things, but every area that you listed can be provided with counterexamples of how religion can be used for evil purposes that fly in the face of what many believe to be the main tenets of modern religions.
While I obviously would not stereotype all conservatives as being knee-jerk reactionaries, many are. Take a look at the Drudge Report headlines regarding the incident:
POLICE KILL ECO-TERRORIST WHO STORMED DISCOVERY CHANNEL BUILDING...
'Awakened' by Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'...
Demanded halt to birth of 'parasitic human infants'...
The first one is a fair description of what happened. The second two are clearly designed to reinforce stereotypes about environmentalists and link this guy to anyone who agreed with Gore's documentary.
To be fair, though, if this guy had instead demanded that they stop propagating the "myth" of global warming, I'm sure many liberal knee-jerk reactionaries would be all over it.
At best, you get groups in the majority who can relate to the minority. But history is full of examples of the majority oppressing the minority, even in the US where our constitution is supposed to stop that from happening. For a modern example, take a look over at California. The majority clearly voted for homosexuals to be oppressed. This is exactly the situation in which the constitution and the US Federal government was designed to prevent. Without the protections against the "tyranny of the majority," gay marriage would be illegal until after homosexuals and their sympathizers gained the majority.
But just because it has a worst case scenario, should we abandon it altogether? There are many tools in the world that can have catastrophic consequences in the wrong hands, do we outlaw most of them outright? No.
I think the most important issue is information. As long as the information about how these devices may be abused is readily available, I don't see an issue. The knowledgeable will take the proper precautions and the ignorant won't. It's the same as anything else. Some people still walk down dark allies at night and others drive drunk. That doesn't mean that we need to implement a curfew and ban alcohol.
I noticed something similar to this when I was going back and looking at the settings that I use for accounts that I set up long ago. If someone had my hotmail password, they could easily get several of my other passwords because they were set to e-mail my passwords to my hotmail if I had "forgotten" them.
Definitions of innovation (n) innovation [ ìnn váysh'n ] Audio player
1. origination: the act or process of inventing or introducing something new
2. new idea or method: a new invention or way of doing something
3. slight improvement: the act of taking existing technology and improving it slightly so as to call it different.
I don't think it's necessary a troll comment. If graphics were all that mattered to a person's enjoyment, the Wii flat out would not have sold. The graphics capabilities of the PS3 and XBox 360 are superior. The fact that the Wii outsold them is a testament to the fact that gameplay does indeed matter.
If the Constitution is so clear, we'd only ever have unanimous decisions. Even the very first court under John Jay had at split decisions, indicating that less than 5 years after the constitution was completed, there were already disagreements on how it should be interpreted.
The document was written 200+ years ago, before many modern issues could have hoped to crop up. Photography, cinematography, automobiles, airplanes, rocket ships, computers, the internet, medicine, civil rights, economics, weaponry, physics, chemistry, & even mathematics have all advanced significantly since the inception of the constitution. Many of the advances in these areas were completely out of the realm of comprehension in 1787. Even if they were possessed with great foresight, how could the framers have possibly anticipated copyright issues with movies or music, the possibility that health care could ever cost someone more than many people make in a lifetime, or the ramifications of corporate personhood? The fact is they couldn't, and because of that, there are areas in which the constitution is very *unclear*.
This actually just happened in my home state. Senators were blackmailed with child porn placed on their computer through malicious e-mail attachments, apparently in order to sway their votes on some legislation.
Child porn is messed up, but the reaction to it, and the effects stemming from those (over)reactions can be equally messed up.
Is regeneration nature's default, only turned off by our evolved defenses against cancer?
I'm not a biologist, but I'd assume that "nature's default" is simply for a cell to reproduce. . Regeneration is far more complex than that. I would expect a need for a coordinated response by the body to ensure that the *right* cells are reproducing. Without that, we'd just be dealing with the tumors those genes are designed to stop.
Whether you agree with it or not, the point that parent is trying to make is that a lot of people who do home improvements on their own have no idea what the hell they are doing. You might, but a 25 year old married couple who just saw how easy it is to remodel a bathroom for under $200 on HGTV probably do not. I can say with certainty that many people who have no business wielding a wrench have done more damage than good DIYing their home improvements.
If you're not going to get credit for a D, what's the difference between a D and an F?
As it stands now, however, the only way to really get a D, and in many cases a C, in most schools is to fail to put in any effort. B+ is the new C, and C is the new D. Dropping the D grade only ensures that the people who weren't trying don't get free credit, for now. Soon enough, however, parents will pressure teachers to give their kids C's instead of the failing grade that they deserve and the scale will move again. Right now, grades only serve to stroke the ego and don't say much about ability because they vary so much between teachers and between schools.
As far as I'm concerned, there should be a minimum mastery standard and if students can achieve that, they move on. If I understand enough algebra that I can move on into geometry without struggling, then I've passed. Good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary is scaremongering; the article is more in depth and interesting. Basically it says that researchers need money in order to, you know, actually research Because they need money they need to receive grants. In order to get grants, they need their grant approved. In order to get approval, their research needs to show "promise". In order to increase the amount of "promise" in their research, they need to have flashy results.
All of these steps give a lot of reason for scientists to introduce bias into their work. Even if it isn't intentional, it happens. Introduce the facts that doctors are not mathematicians, some people are lazy, and some people really are bastards, and you get a lot of false promises.
The article goes on to say that even after some conclusions are completely refuted, many doctors still use the disproven results. Whether it's through neglect or bias doesn't matter at this point, it's just bad news for the patient.
There are other little tricks that they use to screw you, too. They don't have to add up to big money lost on an individual basis, but they basically steal a couple cents from us every time we check/leave a voicemail.
Let's consider this possibility: Iran couldn't get the Nuclear Facility up and running properly so they needed a scapegoat. Now, it can't be something simple or else they'd be considered to be incompetent. Also, they'd need to be able to track the problem to a malevolent source, again, so they can shift all blame away from themselves. So what do they do? Create a virus that will be released into the wild and contains obscure references to past Israeli-Iranian conflicts. The virus has the bonus effect of allowing them to spy on their own citizens and companies around the world.
In the end, it doesn't matter who created the virus. If Iran (or anyone else) can't secure a nuclear facility, they shouldn't have a nuclear facility.
The Mythbusters didn't test the idea of light being focused to start fires. What they tested was the probability that this phenomenon could have been weaponized 2200+ years ago. While it was certainly possible, it was highly improbable.
I'd imagine the question would be closer to "Why do most financial fraudsters who possess degrees turn out to have business degrees?"
The answer is quite simple. When someone becomes disillusioned with society he may use his skills in an antisocial manner. If his the field is business, he could end up his understanding of money to defraud people out of their hard earned cash. If his field is in engineering, he blows shit up.
Or perhaps he was fired for something else entirely and they were just looking for an excuse to can his ass. That's usually my assumption when I hear about people being fired for seemingly innocuous actions that pretty much everyone does. I've seen several occasions where lazy people show up to work (or get sick too often) and then complain about how unfair it is that they were fired for something seemingly innocuous.
Pro Tip for Beel and others in his situation: The reason listed is just an excuse to get rid of you while mitigating liability. Nobody likes you, you lazy slob.
http://www.freep.com/article/20100901/BLOG44/100901029/1437/news05/Student-sues-school-for-self-inflicted-nipple-shock
This one says he's 18. That doesn't necessarily mean he was 18 at the time, but whatever. Even so, if a 17 year old is so stupid to not realize how monumentally stupid this is, well, I don't feel sorry for him, to say the least.
Peace: See The IRA, Al Qaeda
tolerance, acceptance, equality: See Salem Witch Trials, Proposition 8, Slavery, Westboro Baptist Church
Taking care of your family: See honor killings
Critical though: See Intelligent Design
Responsibility: See Catholic Sex abuse cases
Yes, religion can be used for some great things, but every area that you listed can be provided with counterexamples of how religion can be used for evil purposes that fly in the face of what many believe to be the main tenets of modern religions.
While I obviously would not stereotype all conservatives as being knee-jerk reactionaries, many are. Take a look at the Drudge Report headlines regarding the incident:
POLICE KILL ECO-TERRORIST WHO STORMED DISCOVERY CHANNEL BUILDING...
'Awakened' by Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'...
Demanded halt to birth of 'parasitic human infants'...
The first one is a fair description of what happened. The second two are clearly designed to reinforce stereotypes about environmentalists and link this guy to anyone who agreed with Gore's documentary.
To be fair, though, if this guy had instead demanded that they stop propagating the "myth" of global warming, I'm sure many liberal knee-jerk reactionaries would be all over it.
At best, you get groups in the majority who can relate to the minority. But history is full of examples of the majority oppressing the minority, even in the US where our constitution is supposed to stop that from happening. For a modern example, take a look over at California. The majority clearly voted for homosexuals to be oppressed. This is exactly the situation in which the constitution and the US Federal government was designed to prevent. Without the protections against the "tyranny of the majority," gay marriage would be illegal until after homosexuals and their sympathizers gained the majority.
But just because it has a worst case scenario, should we abandon it altogether? There are many tools in the world that can have catastrophic consequences in the wrong hands, do we outlaw most of them outright? No.
I think the most important issue is information. As long as the information about how these devices may be abused is readily available, I don't see an issue. The knowledgeable will take the proper precautions and the ignorant won't. It's the same as anything else. Some people still walk down dark allies at night and others drive drunk. That doesn't mean that we need to implement a curfew and ban alcohol.
I noticed something similar to this when I was going back and looking at the settings that I use for accounts that I set up long ago. If someone had my hotmail password, they could easily get several of my other passwords because they were set to e-mail my passwords to my hotmail if I had "forgotten" them.
Definitions of innovation (n)
innovation [ ìnn váysh'n ] Audio player
1. origination: the act or process of inventing or introducing something new
2. new idea or method: a new invention or way of doing something
3. slight improvement: the act of taking existing technology and improving it slightly so as to call it different.
Okay, so I made up #3. It's not actually there.
I don't think it's necessary a troll comment. If graphics were all that mattered to a person's enjoyment, the Wii flat out would not have sold. The graphics capabilities of the PS3 and XBox 360 are superior. The fact that the Wii outsold them is a testament to the fact that gameplay does indeed matter.
Just file this under "CmdrTaco Hates Apple." In fact, I propose that as a new hash tag.
Coming from University of Wisconsin - Green Bay, I vote that we keep the -Madison.
If the Constitution is so clear, we'd only ever have unanimous decisions. Even the very first court under John Jay had at split decisions, indicating that less than 5 years after the constitution was completed, there were already disagreements on how it should be interpreted.
The document was written 200+ years ago, before many modern issues could have hoped to crop up. Photography, cinematography, automobiles, airplanes, rocket ships, computers, the internet, medicine, civil rights, economics, weaponry, physics, chemistry, & even mathematics have all advanced significantly since the inception of the constitution. Many of the advances in these areas were completely out of the realm of comprehension in 1787. Even if they were possessed with great foresight, how could the framers have possibly anticipated copyright issues with movies or music, the possibility that health care could ever cost someone more than many people make in a lifetime, or the ramifications of corporate personhood? The fact is they couldn't, and because of that, there are areas in which the constitution is very *unclear*.
This actually just happened in my home state. Senators were blackmailed with child porn placed on their computer through malicious e-mail attachments, apparently in order to sway their votes on some legislation.
Child porn is messed up, but the reaction to it, and the effects stemming from those (over)reactions can be equally messed up.
Is regeneration nature's default, only turned off by our evolved defenses against cancer?
I'm not a biologist, but I'd assume that "nature's default" is simply for a cell to reproduce. . Regeneration is far more complex than that. I would expect a need for a coordinated response by the body to ensure that the *right* cells are reproducing. Without that, we'd just be dealing with the tumors those genes are designed to stop.
Doctors, embarassed by man who lost patience with substandard care, hope police can help them save face.
Whether you agree with it or not, the point that parent is trying to make is that a lot of people who do home improvements on their own have no idea what the hell they are doing. You might, but a 25 year old married couple who just saw how easy it is to remodel a bathroom for under $200 on HGTV probably do not. I can say with certainty that many people who have no business wielding a wrench have done more damage than good DIYing their home improvements.
I was wondering why all the people getting onto the bus were caucasian, myself.
Not every lawsuit is about money.
Those damn tribalists. They do nothing but harm!
If you're not going to get credit for a D, what's the difference between a D and an F?
As it stands now, however, the only way to really get a D, and in many cases a C, in most schools is to fail to put in any effort. B+ is the new C, and C is the new D. Dropping the D grade only ensures that the people who weren't trying don't get free credit, for now. Soon enough, however, parents will pressure teachers to give their kids C's instead of the failing grade that they deserve and the scale will move again. Right now, grades only serve to stroke the ego and don't say much about ability because they vary so much between teachers and between schools.
As far as I'm concerned, there should be a minimum mastery standard and if students can achieve that, they move on. If I understand enough algebra that I can move on into geometry without struggling, then I've passed. Good enough.