The nice thing about the stock market is that when everything is fine the analysts say that their models are great, but when something unexpected happens they go all "but we couldn't have foreseen that. Except for this unexpected incident, our models are great!". The problem is that these "unforeseen incidents" are what drives most of the extreme changes in the stock market, and more generally, in our entire society. Just look at 9/11 (to use your example): It not only affected the economy, it affected (and still affects) our entire lives - from airport searches, to US PATRIOT acts to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These extreme events are called Black Swans ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory ) and I do recommend the book by the same name by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Fascinating reading (if a bit repetitive sometimes:) ). The bottom line: Trying to predict the future from past events is fine, until it breaks up, and it does so more than we care to imagine.
I meant the second question, i.e. "It looks like you've said "No". Are you sure?" - In which the sane user would answer "Yes" (I'm sure I don't need your Hotmail interconnection) - And then the program should say you keep pressing "Yes", etc...
Sorry for being the Boolean Nazi, but on the second question the "wrong" (i.e. anti-MS) answers is "Yes" (Are you sure? Yes... it appears you keep clicking on "Yes"). Apart from that... LOL
I think it's called the "No true Scotsman" bias. You want to check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman Sorry, but drugs are bad. I know this sounds like a mantra someone (the government?) brainwashed into me, but in this particular case it's true. You may argue why other stuff aren't described as illicit drugs (i.e. alcohol, nicotine), but it doesn't change the fact that drugs such as LSD aren't good for us.
Slightly OT:
How many 'O' do you have in a whoosh? Every one here wrote a different amount, starting with 6 and going all the way down to 2. Is it a function of how whoosh-worthy the OP was (which should get WrongSizeGlass at least 6-7 'O's ([sorry, but you know it's true]), or is there some other factor taken into account?
Psychosis
There are some cases of LSD inducing a psychosis in people who appeared to be healthy prior to taking LSD. In most cases, the psychosis-like reaction is of short duration, but in other cases it may be chronic.
and:
HPPD differs from flashbacks in that it is persistent and apparently entirely visual (although mood and anxiety disorders are sometimes diagnosed in the same individuals). A recent review suggests that HPPD (as defined in the DSM-IV) is rare and affects only a distinctly vulnerable subpopulation of users. However, it is possible that the prevalence of HPPD is underestimated because most of the diagnoses are applied to people who are willing to admit to their health care practitioner that they have previously used psychotropics, and presumably many people are reluctant to admit this.
And those side-effects are not dose-dependents and cannot be prevented by being "responsible".
LSD may not be as bad as other drugs, but it is not good.
Somehow, your comment got modded Interesting, so I have to reply. What AK Mark meant, is that if (hypothetically) CRT monitors also cause cancer and the researchers do not know it beforehand when the study is undertaken then CRT monitor usage will affect the results, in essence confounding them. Hence, sitting in front of CRT monitors is a confounder.
If the researchers would have known about the CRT issue they would have done a the study like you suggested ("The cell phone users, despite their lower CRT exposure, would show a correlation vs. non-cell phone, non-CRT users"). But because the researchers do not know about this confounder they do not take it into account and thus you might get the same (or lower) rate of cancer in cell phone users compared to non-cell phone users. You would get no correlation in the study although you have causation.
Now this example was hypothetic, but it is possible that a real confounder is present, which is a big problem in any study, especially in medicine.
I for one don't believe that cell phones cause cancer, and the bulk of researches up till now support my opinion, but I admit the shortcomings of the studies done till know (mainly, that they are all retrospective) so I try to keep an open mind.
Please try to understand the replies given by people to your comments before dismissing them, especially in a difficult subject such as statistics.
They didn't take a random sample of 13,000 people and found ~5,000 cases of cancer between them (which would be a very high percentage). They took ~5000 cancer patient and 7,500 people with no cancer and surveyed their cell phone usage. This is why it is called a retrospective study.
The major problem with this kind of research is that you ask people about their usage, and some don't remember correctly:
Q: You have brain cancer?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you use the cell phone a lot?
A: Well, now that you mention it, I did!
Of course, I am oversimplifying it. The interviews are usually more elaborate, but the example serves to clarify the problem. And that's why the Europeans are launching a prospective trial (from TFA).
As far as I know, in all modern countries you have to pass an Ethics committee before human trials. I think you raise a good point: maybe there should be some sort of privacy-related Helsinki committee. OTOH, the companies probably will be against it, if only because that means passing their products to an outside body for inspection before release - which could be a potential source for product leaks (that is, if they don't forget those products in bars:) ). Notice that many leaks about smartphones come from FCC submissions. I don't think they will want the same situation for software products/services.
I think part of the problem is that companies need to gather more information about users - both to give better service and to get more ad revenue. Sadly enough, many of them don't remember that with great power comes great responsibility, and that's when fuck-ups happen.
Let's hope that at least some of the leading companies will pick up the "Honest is the best policy" line and use it more often.
Although some of your points are valid, I think you missed one of the most important issues regarding the entire story: Google were frank about their mess-up.
When we have trouble with privacy with Facebook/MS/Apple/Sony/pick-your-flavor-of-the-month-privacy-issue-culprit you usually have to dig up the info yourself for weeks until you get the company to admit anything was wrong, and then you still have to raise hell to get them to fix the problem (if they can - Sony rootkit fiasco a case in point).
Here Google had many options:
1) They could have found about the error and deleted all information the moment the Germans started inquiring - nobody would have known anything. If asked - do like the politician, deny.
2) They could have issued a short statement claiming that they independently found an error and fixed it, without disclosing too much details.
3) They could have issued a long statement admitting that they started the investigation after the German inquiry, admitting their mistake, their lessons and the steps they took to resolve the issue, including stopping the StreetView WiFi collection project.
I honestly think that Google was as straight-forward and honest as can be admitting their mistake, and that should give them some credit. If their original intent was "evil", I don't think they would have chosen option no. 3.
We keep asking companies to be honest about their practices and mistakes, but when they do admit wrongdoing, we bash them on/. and then promise not to use their services. I personally think that I admire Google for being so honest and will continue using their services, but that's just me.
Well, if you'd RTFA, then you'd know the answer is 'no'. From the article: "The court also limited its decision, ruling that users could not be expected to constantly update their wireless connection's security — they are only required to protect their Internet access by setting up a password when they first install it."
So the judge only wants they user to take minimal action and set up a password, they are not expected to do regular security maintenance and keep up with the latest encryption protocol. That is not to say I agree with the decision, just clarifying the point.
Actually, the Epley maneuver is about 95% effective in treating BPPV ( http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/884261-treatment ) and in many patients it is a permanent cure (the recurrence rate is 10-25% - http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/884261-followup). The fact that for you it is not so, does not mean no one will benefit from it.
P.S.
You do not need to move the Calcium particles back to their original place for the maneuver to be considered a cure. Having them someplace "out of the way" is enough.
LOL: "All the major ones now support @font-face and Canvas/VML. In fact, 97% of browsers (including IE!) support web fonts." How's that for a vote of confidence in IE:)
The tides are "not-quite-so-extra-high" when the sun and the moon are at 90 degrees to one another (relative to earth). When they are at opposite sides of the earth, you also have high tide, because the sun amplifies the moon's "squashing" effect (as described by pclminion at the post above). see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Range_variation:_springs_and_neaps
Sorry to be the devil's advocate, but if a bunch of people sat down and wrote a video codec that is currently the best one out there, then they have every right to ask people who use the codec to pay for using it. They can also say "he is not making any/much money from using my codec, so it is not worth my time to demand money from him", and wait for him to start making money before coming up to him with royalty demands.
Sorry, but it does make business sense, and it does not sound so unmoral as you paint it. Claiming software patents for "a device that does something" - that is the real problem of software patents, but please don't confuse the patent-trolls with people who worked on a novel idea and want to make money off of it. Not everyone who is not open-source is EVIL.
IMHO.
Sorry to be the partypooper, but actually, you can't use MRI to model your skull, because MRI doesn't image bones (they show up as black areas). MRI is very good at imaging soft tissue, e.g "The Brain". If you want to model your skull, I would recommend going to the nearest CT and you'll have one in no time.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you are. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/
Whoosh
And much more "Revolutionary" and "Magical' than a bj.
The nice thing about the stock market is that when everything is fine the analysts say that their models are great, but when something unexpected happens they go all "but we couldn't have foreseen that. Except for this unexpected incident, our models are great!". The problem is that these "unforeseen incidents" are what drives most of the extreme changes in the stock market, and more generally, in our entire society. :) ).
Just look at 9/11 (to use your example): It not only affected the economy, it affected (and still affects) our entire lives - from airport searches, to US PATRIOT acts to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These extreme events are called Black Swans ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory ) and I do recommend the book by the same name by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Fascinating reading (if a bit repetitive sometimes
The bottom line: Trying to predict the future from past events is fine, until it breaks up, and it does so more than we care to imagine.
I meant the second question, i.e. "It looks like you've said "No". Are you sure?" - In which the sane user would answer "Yes" (I'm sure I don't need your Hotmail interconnection) - And then the program should say you keep pressing "Yes", etc...
Sorry for being the Boolean Nazi, but on the second question the "wrong" (i.e. anti-MS) answers is "Yes" (Are you sure? Yes ... it appears you keep clicking on "Yes").
Apart from that... LOL
I think it's called the "No true Scotsman" bias. You want to check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
Sorry, but drugs are bad. I know this sounds like a mantra someone (the government?) brainwashed into me, but in this particular case it's true. You may argue why other stuff aren't described as illicit drugs (i.e. alcohol, nicotine), but it doesn't change the fact that drugs such as LSD aren't good for us.
I believe you were looking for this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlc1uBbBkN8
Ob, Big Lebowsky ref.:
"Do you have to use so many cuss words?
What the fuck are you talking about?"
Slightly OT:
How many 'O' do you have in a whoosh? Every one here wrote a different amount, starting with 6 and going all the way down to 2. Is it a function of how whoosh-worthy the OP was (which should get WrongSizeGlass at least 6-7 'O's ([sorry, but you know it's true]), or is there some other factor taken into account?
Psychosis
There are some cases of LSD inducing a psychosis in people who appeared to be healthy prior to taking LSD. In most cases, the psychosis-like reaction is of short duration, but in other cases it may be chronic.
and:
HPPD differs from flashbacks in that it is persistent and apparently entirely visual (although mood and anxiety disorders are sometimes diagnosed in the same individuals). A recent review suggests that HPPD (as defined in the DSM-IV) is rare and affects only a distinctly vulnerable subpopulation of users. However, it is possible that the prevalence of HPPD is underestimated because most of the diagnoses are applied to people who are willing to admit to their health care practitioner that they have previously used psychotropics, and presumably many people are reluctant to admit this.
And those side-effects are not dose-dependents and cannot be prevented by being "responsible".
LSD may not be as bad as other drugs, but it is not good.
Somehow, your comment got modded Interesting, so I have to reply. What AK Mark meant, is that if (hypothetically) CRT monitors also cause cancer and the researchers do not know it beforehand when the study is undertaken then CRT monitor usage will affect the results, in essence confounding them. Hence, sitting in front of CRT monitors is a confounder.
If the researchers would have known about the CRT issue they would have done a the study like you suggested ("The cell phone users, despite their lower CRT exposure, would show a correlation vs. non-cell phone, non-CRT users"). But because the researchers do not know about this confounder they do not take it into account and thus you might get the same (or lower) rate of cancer in cell phone users compared to non-cell phone users. You would get no correlation in the study although you have causation.
Now this example was hypothetic, but it is possible that a real confounder is present, which is a big problem in any study, especially in medicine.
I for one don't believe that cell phones cause cancer, and the bulk of researches up till now support my opinion, but I admit the shortcomings of the studies done till know (mainly, that they are all retrospective) so I try to keep an open mind.
Please try to understand the replies given by people to your comments before dismissing them, especially in a difficult subject such as statistics.
They didn't take a random sample of 13,000 people and found ~5,000 cases of cancer between them (which would be a very high percentage). They took ~5000 cancer patient and 7,500 people with no cancer and surveyed their cell phone usage. This is why it is called a retrospective study.
The major problem with this kind of research is that you ask people about their usage, and some don't remember correctly:
Q: You have brain cancer?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you use the cell phone a lot?
A: Well, now that you mention it, I did!
Of course, I am oversimplifying it. The interviews are usually more elaborate, but the example serves to clarify the problem. And that's why the Europeans are launching a prospective trial (from TFA).
As far as I know, in all modern countries you have to pass an Ethics committee before human trials. I think you raise a good point: maybe there should be some sort of privacy-related Helsinki committee. OTOH, the companies probably will be against it, if only because that means passing their products to an outside body for inspection before release - which could be a potential source for product leaks (that is, if they don't forget those products in bars :) ). Notice that many leaks about smartphones come from FCC submissions. I don't think they will want the same situation for software products/services.
I think part of the problem is that companies need to gather more information about users - both to give better service and to get more ad revenue. Sadly enough, many of them don't remember that with great power comes great responsibility, and that's when fuck-ups happen.
Let's hope that at least some of the leading companies will pick up the "Honest is the best policy" line and use it more often.
Although some of your points are valid, I think you missed one of the most important issues regarding the entire story: Google were frank about their mess-up.
When we have trouble with privacy with Facebook/MS/Apple/Sony/pick-your-flavor-of-the-month-privacy-issue-culprit you usually have to dig up the info yourself for weeks until you get the company to admit anything was wrong, and then you still have to raise hell to get them to fix the problem (if they can - Sony rootkit fiasco a case in point).
Here Google had many options:
1) They could have found about the error and deleted all information the moment the Germans started inquiring - nobody would have known anything. If asked - do like the politician, deny.
2) They could have issued a short statement claiming that they independently found an error and fixed it, without disclosing too much details.
3) They could have issued a long statement admitting that they started the investigation after the German inquiry, admitting their mistake, their lessons and the steps they took to resolve the issue, including stopping the StreetView WiFi collection project.
I honestly think that Google was as straight-forward and honest as can be admitting their mistake, and that should give them some credit. If their original intent was "evil", I don't think they would have chosen option no. 3. /. and then promise not to use their services. I personally think that I admire Google for being so honest and will continue using their services, but that's just me.
We keep asking companies to be honest about their practices and mistakes, but when they do admit wrongdoing, we bash them on
Oh, and btw, I think it's recommended to read their original blog post - http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wifi-data-collection-update.html just to have their side of the story straight.
Well, if you'd RTFA, then you'd know the answer is 'no'. From the article: "The court also limited its decision, ruling that users could not be expected to constantly update their wireless connection's security — they are only required to protect their Internet access by setting up a password when they first install it." So the judge only wants they user to take minimal action and set up a password, they are not expected to do regular security maintenance and keep up with the latest encryption protocol. That is not to say I agree with the decision, just clarifying the point.
Actually, the Epley maneuver is about 95% effective in treating BPPV ( http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/884261-treatment ) and in many patients it is a permanent cure (the recurrence rate is 10-25% - http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/884261-followup). The fact that for you it is not so, does not mean no one will benefit from it. P.S. You do not need to move the Calcium particles back to their original place for the maneuver to be considered a cure. Having them someplace "out of the way" is enough.
Yes, December 2007, but then it was a first public beta, for registered users only. According TFA, now it's out of beta and open to all.
LOL: "All the major ones now support @font-face and Canvas/VML. In fact, 97% of browsers (including IE!) support web fonts." How's that for a vote of confidence in IE :)
The tides are "not-quite-so-extra-high" when the sun and the moon are at 90 degrees to one another (relative to earth). When they are at opposite sides of the earth, you also have high tide, because the sun amplifies the moon's "squashing" effect (as described by pclminion at the post above). see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide#Range_variation:_springs_and_neaps
Sorry to be the devil's advocate, but if a bunch of people sat down and wrote a video codec that is currently the best one out there, then they have every right to ask people who use the codec to pay for using it. They can also say "he is not making any/much money from using my codec, so it is not worth my time to demand money from him", and wait for him to start making money before coming up to him with royalty demands. Sorry, but it does make business sense, and it does not sound so unmoral as you paint it. Claiming software patents for "a device that does something" - that is the real problem of software patents, but please don't confuse the patent-trolls with people who worked on a novel idea and want to make money off of it. Not everyone who is not open-source is EVIL. IMHO.
Sorry to be the partypooper, but actually, you can't use MRI to model your skull, because MRI doesn't image bones (they show up as black areas). MRI is very good at imaging soft tissue, e.g "The Brain". If you want to model your skull, I would recommend going to the nearest CT and you'll have one in no time.
According to your definition (at least the first half, which I take was still serious), mules aren't alive, since they cannot reproduce, correct?