Much of the problem comes from studies being published whose data is not robust because the sample size is too small to be meaningfully significant. This needs to be headlined in the abstract if it is published at all; the best magazines should refuse anything without a decent sample size, whilst the ones further down the food chain should have statisticans on hand to ask hard questions.
Discovering an apparent effect should result in more research - not a rush to believe...
The MMR vaccine fiasco is of course the classic example of this; there are still people acting on the assumption that the lies were true, and that's getting people killed.
There seems to be absolutely no need for Europe to get involved in this issue, and the fact that there are some wanting it to do so is a sign that there's no real commitment to subsidiarity (why does the decision need to be taken an EU level given that ISP are inevitably local?). It also suggests there are Eurocrats with too little to do with their time...
Of course the whole area is product of the ignorance of our lords and masters at how easy it is to get past such barriers...
There isn't an agreement yet - there couldn't be because Congress hadn't agreed the fast track power. WHEN the agreement exists, it will be presented to congress as a treaty and will then be public. It's unfortunate when people misunderstand what is going on, because it increases the mistrust of congress, but wrongly. When they are criticised wrongly, it merely bounces off and makes them less willing to hear right criticism.
If the lobbyists KNOW that the area where their employers are concerned with is currently under discussion, then they will harass the negotiations while this is the case. If it's all hidden, then they will be spraying their efforts less effectively, with the result that the general interest - which is what the lobbyists are campaigning against - is slightly more likely to be heard.
This is merely a particular example of the wider problem of such lobbying. If the general interest of the buying public is being set against the interests of the car manufacturers, the tendency is for the manufacturers to win. This is because they can easily corral the money required to present their case noisily, whilst the consumer has no such well financed lobbyists to present their perspective. Occasionally a Ralph Nader will come along and use the mass media in such a way that even the congress rats notice, but that's only possible on a small range of issues. Most of the time there's noone with the public interest at the table that really decides.
Given that we haven't actually got to see the text yet, that is speculation combined with gross pessimism about the state of most parts of the US government - the executive doing the negotiating and the legislature that will actually agree to it. Let's wait and see, shall we?
"Unfortunately it also requires trust in government to be working in the best interest of the country and that trust simply is not present today and hasn't been for a while."
You're missing the point. The trust is demonstrated when the proposed treaty is offered and passed or rejected. There's no need for negotiations to occur in public, but they don't actually commit anyone to anything. The belief that it is possible to negotiate anything in a blaze of publicity is one of the strangest pieces of fundamentalism on the planet today; in practice it's inevitable that compromises and trade offs have to be approached cautiously, without those being disadvantaged being able to torpedo them. Otherwise nothing will happen, because both sides will resist being the one to make the first compromise proposal. If you put microphones in the negotiating room, the real negotiation will occur in the rest room etc etc.
Yes - everyone who has done Economics 101 understands why free trade is a good thing. But given that the people who lose out shout far more loudly than the vast numbers who gain - which is inevitable - it is necessary to present the entire package with some way to ease the pain for the losers and restrain the abuses that can occur. Given this, the most likely way to get a package agreed and enacted is to do the negotiations in secret until a complete package that can be sold to the people emerges. The alternative is to leave the present mess in place, and lots of people a lot poorer than they need to be.
Of course all this assumes that free trade DOES advantage the whole population. Unfortunately telling rust belt union members that the rest of the country has benefited from it is hard work. It's easier to play to their suffering.
The reason why China has been a major success in industrialising is that it has provided the world with cheaper industrial goods. Everything from clothing and footwear through to furniture.
So the adoption of policies appropriate to Europe FOR THAT AREA of the USA is entirely appropriate. The failure to learn those lessons, and instead to insist on spraying AMTRAK money across totally useless routes as pork for congress rats, is an example of the problems of US democracy.
Microsoft continues to have vast amounts of cash; that some of it is going to be used to build some useful infrastructure is a good thing. However the idea that this is best value for shareholders, who surely invested in a software company, is less obvious.
Whilst the DMCA may or may not be a good thing, it is certainly not a means for the car manufacturers to impose a SAFETY based restriction. That organisations pull that sort of abuse is why the legal system is held in contempt.
That's the problem we have. Given how much of 'accepted science' gets challenged and reworked, we are always faced with a spectrum from the very secure to the totally crackpot. After all, Einstein successfully torpedoed Newton's laws of motion, which were as widely accepted as you get. Somehow we need to have a process for determining whether a scientific claim is sufficient to justify its use for criminal trials. On a good day the court process will do that; on a bad day a poor quality lawyer will be unwilling to challenge it.
One of the frustrations we slashdotters often suffer is the ordinary person who disbelieves a scientific finding; climate change and anti-vaccers are the most visible at present. Yet it is stories like this that give people every justification for their scepticism; we need to be willing to hear their attitude and its reasons!
It's the difference between deliberate lying and passing on a fact that proves to be inaccurate. To the extent that these guys were reflecting the general consensus of their profession, then their comments aren't lying. To the extent that they had their own doubts which they failed to express to juries, they are guilty of perjury. But never underestimate the power of groupthink. The experimental demonstrations of the way in which people succumb to social pressure to say what is not true, when those they are with are actors saying the untruth, are terrifying. http://www.simplypsychology.or...
I'll give you the smart phone; as a luddite who refuses to use one, I tend to forget their significance. Digital cameras - also true. Genome sequencing - not yet THAT significant; whilst helpful for law enforcement, we've yet to see its wider application. LCD monitors - only significant as leading towards smartphones etc. LINUX, Amazon and electric cars - nah - not that significant.
However the central experience of western life - of living in nuclear families in dispersed suburbs, travelling to work in non-agricultural occupations every day whilst children are schooled in institutions - hasn't changed qualitatively for 150 years; more and more conform to this pattern of course, but my point is that we're doing more of this - not changing those forms much.
The last major, world changing thing, was the internet - some 25 years ago. Since then we've just seen it get better and better - but no real breakthroughs
Before that it was jet planes and anti-biotics - mid 50s
Before that motor cars - 1900 or so
Before that railroads - 1830 or so
Now it may be that we are waiting for the next major breakthrough.
At some point it will cease to make sense to update your computer on a regular basis. I have a 10 year old one that is fine for internet browsing and word processing. I have a friend who still uses Windows 2000 on hers - though her household does have another one. As computers get to be point of being good enough for all but the latest, most processor intense, activities, then the concept of keeping an heirloom one - especially ones designed to be upgradeable - will probably make more and more sense.
Legitimate court rulings that demonstrate real harm as a result of bad software design are a means of achieving change; the alternative is that the providers get to hide behind the claim that they are complying with all the regulations - despite providing a product that doesn't work. Whilst much lawyering is unhelpful, the reality is that SOMETIMES it does enable good things to happen!
Given that GCHQ's behaviour achieved nothing of objective value - the data was safely backed up elsewhere - I've always suspected this was a piece of performance art, and this appears to prove it. The only question is whether it was funded out of GCHQ's art budget, or the Arts Council...
The concept seems good - but unless they are adding a lot of value, all they are doing is providing the same service as Yellow Pages, with the possibility of reviews. Or am I missing something? The review concept would be useful, but that's about it, surely.
Slashdot Mirror
Much of the problem comes from studies being published whose data is not robust because the sample size is too small to be meaningfully significant. This needs to be headlined in the abstract if it is published at all; the best magazines should refuse anything without a decent sample size, whilst the ones further down the food chain should have statisticans on hand to ask hard questions.
Discovering an apparent effect should result in more research - not a rush to believe...
The MMR vaccine fiasco is of course the classic example of this; there are still people acting on the assumption that the lies were true, and that's getting people killed.
There seems to be absolutely no need for Europe to get involved in this issue, and the fact that there are some wanting it to do so is a sign that there's no real commitment to subsidiarity (why does the decision need to be taken an EU level given that ISP are inevitably local?). It also suggests there are Eurocrats with too little to do with their time...
Of course the whole area is product of the ignorance of our lords and masters at how easy it is to get past such barriers...
There isn't an agreement yet - there couldn't be because Congress hadn't agreed the fast track power. WHEN the agreement exists, it will be presented to congress as a treaty and will then be public. It's unfortunate when people misunderstand what is going on, because it increases the mistrust of congress, but wrongly. When they are criticised wrongly, it merely bounces off and makes them less willing to hear right criticism.
If the lobbyists KNOW that the area where their employers are concerned with is currently under discussion, then they will harass the negotiations while this is the case. If it's all hidden, then they will be spraying their efforts less effectively, with the result that the general interest - which is what the lobbyists are campaigning against - is slightly more likely to be heard.
This is merely a particular example of the wider problem of such lobbying. If the general interest of the buying public is being set against the interests of the car manufacturers, the tendency is for the manufacturers to win. This is because they can easily corral the money required to present their case noisily, whilst the consumer has no such well financed lobbyists to present their perspective. Occasionally a Ralph Nader will come along and use the mass media in such a way that even the congress rats notice, but that's only possible on a small range of issues. Most of the time there's noone with the public interest at the table that really decides.
Given that we haven't actually got to see the text yet, that is speculation combined with gross pessimism about the state of most parts of the US government - the executive doing the negotiating and the legislature that will actually agree to it. Let's wait and see, shall we?
"Unfortunately it also requires trust in government to be working in the best interest of the country and that trust simply is not present today and hasn't been for a while."
You're missing the point. The trust is demonstrated when the proposed treaty is offered and passed or rejected. There's no need for negotiations to occur in public, but they don't actually commit anyone to anything. The belief that it is possible to negotiate anything in a blaze of publicity is one of the strangest pieces of fundamentalism on the planet today; in practice it's inevitable that compromises and trade offs have to be approached cautiously, without those being disadvantaged being able to torpedo them. Otherwise nothing will happen, because both sides will resist being the one to make the first compromise proposal. If you put microphones in the negotiating room, the real negotiation will occur in the rest room etc etc.
Yes - everyone who has done Economics 101 understands why free trade is a good thing. But given that the people who lose out shout far more loudly than the vast numbers who gain - which is inevitable - it is necessary to present the entire package with some way to ease the pain for the losers and restrain the abuses that can occur. Given this, the most likely way to get a package agreed and enacted is to do the negotiations in secret until a complete package that can be sold to the people emerges. The alternative is to leave the present mess in place, and lots of people a lot poorer than they need to be.
Of course all this assumes that free trade DOES advantage the whole population. Unfortunately telling rust belt union members that the rest of the country has benefited from it is hard work. It's easier to play to their suffering.
Given they've got hearing at a higher frequency, the operating frequency will have to be VERY high to avoid upsetting our best friends...
The reason why China has been a major success in industrialising is that it has provided the world with cheaper industrial goods. Everything from clothing and footwear through to furniture.
So the adoption of policies appropriate to Europe FOR THAT AREA of the USA is entirely appropriate. The failure to learn those lessons, and instead to insist on spraying AMTRAK money across totally useless routes as pork for congress rats, is an example of the problems of US democracy.
n/t
Microsoft continues to have vast amounts of cash; that some of it is going to be used to build some useful infrastructure is a good thing. However the idea that this is best value for shareholders, who surely invested in a software company, is less obvious.
" the powers-that-be want to slow it down a bit and rake in some of the dough while the going's good."
What's wrong with that? If you don't, it will end in accelerating inflation and a balance of payments crisis.
Whilst the DMCA may or may not be a good thing, it is certainly not a means for the car manufacturers to impose a SAFETY based restriction. That organisations pull that sort of abuse is why the legal system is held in contempt.
That's the problem we have. Given how much of 'accepted science' gets challenged and reworked, we are always faced with a spectrum from the very secure to the totally crackpot. After all, Einstein successfully torpedoed Newton's laws of motion, which were as widely accepted as you get. Somehow we need to have a process for determining whether a scientific claim is sufficient to justify its use for criminal trials. On a good day the court process will do that; on a bad day a poor quality lawyer will be unwilling to challenge it.
One of the frustrations we slashdotters often suffer is the ordinary person who disbelieves a scientific finding; climate change and anti-vaccers are the most visible at present. Yet it is stories like this that give people every justification for their scepticism; we need to be willing to hear their attitude and its reasons!
It's the difference between deliberate lying and passing on a fact that proves to be inaccurate. To the extent that these guys were reflecting the general consensus of their profession, then their comments aren't lying. To the extent that they had their own doubts which they failed to express to juries, they are guilty of perjury. But never underestimate the power of groupthink. The experimental demonstrations of the way in which people succumb to social pressure to say what is not true, when those they are with are actors saying the untruth, are terrifying. http://www.simplypsychology.or...
I'll give you the smart phone; as a luddite who refuses to use one, I tend to forget their significance. Digital cameras - also true. Genome sequencing - not yet THAT significant; whilst helpful for law enforcement, we've yet to see its wider application. LCD monitors - only significant as leading towards smartphones etc. LINUX, Amazon and electric cars - nah - not that significant.
However the central experience of western life - of living in nuclear families in dispersed suburbs, travelling to work in non-agricultural occupations every day whilst children are schooled in institutions - hasn't changed qualitatively for 150 years; more and more conform to this pattern of course, but my point is that we're doing more of this - not changing those forms much.
The last major, world changing thing, was the internet - some 25 years ago. Since then we've just seen it get better and better - but no real breakthroughs
Before that it was jet planes and anti-biotics - mid 50s
Before that motor cars - 1900 or so
Before that railroads - 1830 or so
Now it may be that we are waiting for the next major breakthrough.
At some point it will cease to make sense to update your computer on a regular basis. I have a 10 year old one that is fine for internet browsing and word processing. I have a friend who still uses Windows 2000 on hers - though her household does have another one. As computers get to be point of being good enough for all but the latest, most processor intense, activities, then the concept of keeping an heirloom one - especially ones designed to be upgradeable - will probably make more and more sense.
Legitimate court rulings that demonstrate real harm as a result of bad software design are a means of achieving change; the alternative is that the providers get to hide behind the claim that they are complying with all the regulations - despite providing a product that doesn't work. Whilst much lawyering is unhelpful, the reality is that SOMETIMES it does enable good things to happen!
Obviously dodgy...
Given that GCHQ's behaviour achieved nothing of objective value - the data was safely backed up elsewhere - I've always suspected this was a piece of performance art, and this appears to prove it. The only question is whether it was funded out of GCHQ's art budget, or the Arts Council...
The concept seems good - but unless they are adding a lot of value, all they are doing is providing the same service as Yellow Pages, with the possibility of reviews. Or am I missing something? The review concept would be useful, but that's about it, surely.