Heck - it's not that far of a stretch to modify pigeon protocol (PP) for high latency space issues. Got a probe on Pluto? Best case you're going to have a latency of 13 hours. Double that for apogee.
Yes - you're talking about the power to detect a significant difference. However, the power to detect is based entirely on the assumption of a normal data set. They did not address this in the article or on Zogby's blog. Also, if they did a CA area code survey, or registered voter of county X, or whatever it is unlikely that they picked random samples representative to the US population as a whole. So much of statistics is based on assumptions - if which they are invalid the "significant results" are equally invalid. You can chalk up the lack of such important information to bad reporting in the article, but Zogby's blog should know better.
I would suggest that there are depictions of killing in a legal manner while there are no depictions of sexual violence in a legal manner. So there's no double standard there. Violence occurs far more often in a child's experience (broken bones, car accidents, etc...) than sexual violence and thus they are earlier prepared for the first.
Case 1: video game telling a WWII story. If accurate it will be (legal) ultraviolent, but also educational in a way that may inspire children to be interested in history and respect the sacrifices made by our fathers and grandfathers. I'd be ok with my child understanding these concepts at a somewhat young age (I suspect she'll be ready by at least 12).
Case 2: video game with a graphic rape scene. If accurately depicted it will be (illegal) sexual violence, educational about the horror of being powerless, and may cause the child to have compassion for those scarred by such violence if it is accurately understood. However, I do not think a child is capable of understanding the nitty gritty details until he or she comes to at least a moderate understanding of their own sexuality - and as such I don't think depictions of sexual violence are appropriate for children. If a parent thinks that a sexually violent video game is the best way to communicate about this issue, then it would still be within their prerogative to purchase the "game" as an educational aid. I for one plan on addressing issues of sexuality and rape with my daughter in a different manner and several different times in her upbringing at a level she is able to understand.
UPDATE: Common Sense Media provided us with a breakdown of the poll's methodology and narrative summary, and thus we pass it on to you. Commissioned by CSM and conducted by Zogby International, the online survey collected the opinions of 2100 adults, with "slight weights" added to region, party, age, race, gender and education "to more accurately reflect the population." The margin of error is +/- 2.2 percentage points and the questions are as follows:
1. Would you support or oppose a law that prohibits minors from purchasing videogames that depict killing, maiming or sexually assaulting an image of a human being? (Support: Adults 72 percent, parents 72 percent; Oppose: Adults 22 percent, parents 24 percent)
2. How concerned are you about the impact of ultra-violent videogames on your child? (Very/Somewhat Concerned: Adults 61 percent, parents 65 percent; Somewhat Unconcerned/Not at all concerned: Adults 28 percent, parents 31 percent)
3. How would you rate the videogame industry when it comes to protecting kids from accessing violent videogames? (Excellent/Good: Adults 12 percent, parents 13 percent; Fair/poor: Adults 76 percent, parents 75 percent)
War (legal ultraviolence) is a lot different from rape (illegal sexual violence). It's bad enough to combine separate questions (loaded enough), but the article doesn't even summarize the fundamental aspects of a statistical study!
There's also the fact that 2,100 people is a very small number to base any sort of national (or even state) law and policy on. What are the survey demographics? What are the statistically significant differences of opinion based on group? What is the study's power to detect (a significant difference 80% of the time)? Was the survey terminology defined to the participants, or if not - were there survey questions to obtain the participants' definitions of the terms?
X% of adults agree to outlaw pictures of "kittens, hamsters, and child porn" 100-X% of adults have been put on the child molestation watch list.
Now I'm going to have to look up the original survey because of bad survey reporting. It's possible that the survey was done well and the reporter dumbed it down, but it's also entirely possible that the survey ignored experimental design and statistical considerations - but in that case the reporter should have publicly ripped the survey to shreds. If a reporter can't understand statistical analysis they have no business reporting survey results!
While walking through security where he could hand the weapons off to anybody else?
It's his plane and he can have the luggage checked into the main compartment where he can throw them to his heart's content after he exits the public zone of the airport.
Why there is an exception to the Second Amendment at 30,000 feet above ground on a domestic flight while participating in interstate commerce is a separate issue since this is an international flight. Although I'm sure shurikens have been defined as firearms in some of the more restrictive domestic jurisdictions.
Yes - but it was government staff of the highest level acting in an official capacity when they asked. Executive requests aren't on the same level as congressional laws - but that's a line I don't want any form of my government toeing.
We non government entities are perfectly capable of plastering our opinions about the dude's "exercise" across the news reels, talk shows, and internet. Besides, when the government steps in there's a certain amount of validation which accompanies that oily slick of not-quite-technically-in-a-court-of-law-sense-with-a-really-expensive-team-of-lawyers-violation of the First Amendment.
If the teen credibly threatened the president then it's another story, but the AC has a point about the First Amendment.
I'd say the reasonableness depends at least in some part where you're located. I'd suggest that it's not very reasonable in certain parts of the Middle East - at least not out loud.
As Pratchett pointed out: there is not a single atom of truth or justice to be found in the universe. Without "belief" there's just a great ball of flaming gas that appears over the horizon - the sun does not rise.
Most people I know don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, but very few people I know believe there are no invisible pink unicorns.
The first part is about no active action or consideration of the subject, the second part mentions an active denial of a subject.
For most atheists, you don't believe in it, instead of believing something is not....
How many atheists have you met which have taken no active action or consideration of their ah... philosophy? Especially in today's climate, declaring oneself to be an atheist is a pretty active stance in and of itself. Most declared atheists I've known have put a lot of thought and or "soul-searching" before coming to the conclusion which seems right to themselves. True, I've met the rare cavalier atheist - but most of those were younger and it seemed to be their style of youthful-rebellion.
I'd posit that it's a fairly common human trait to (at some point in one's life) put active consideration into the question: "is this all there is, or is there something more than just what I can touch and see?"
So if "no active consideration" of the numinous is part of what it means to be an atheist, I don't think we have very many of them - including (especially?) those who declare themselves to be atheist. I think we'll have to find another definition, or rather set of definitions. Atheism is a broad non-centralized philosophy which likely means several different things to the various "adherents." I would suggest that when someone claims themselves to be an atheist that we believe them because they are in a far better position to determine that than we are.
I've worked with a number of great scientists I wouldn't want to talk to media - probably none without coaching. Do you have any idea what kind of damage a 10 second soundbite can do to the objective truth? (Likely taken from several hours of video and interview footage). PR people make their money by not getting excited or passionate about their work and making a comment which can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misused - and they never ever forget that that camera is rolling and audio recording even if it's pointed somewhere else.
Some of the tele viewed (from watched far away) programs could be informational and thus lead to a well informed population, including the poor, for a more effective democracy.
Who are we kidding here, even if we could make such a thing happen people would probably choose to watch random people off the streets being made fun of for singing songs they didn't write instead of a live broadcast of the Senate floor.
Call me Mr. Pessimistic, but my guess is that we'll go for the expensive option and people will still choose to watch something like cat's playing the piano poorly instead of live net-casts of shuttle launches and House Committee discussions.
There may always be barriers for the poor in wallet from being a perfectly well informed citizen, but they are negligible compared to the barriers for the poor in mind.
PS - I actually have no problem with a felid trying to improve him or herself in the musical arts or of people studying said felid's progress thus far. It's the exclusivity that gets on my nerves.
My office mate and I have had separate Google site implementations before. Our IP is usually within about 5 of each other. We were both logged out at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck - it's not that far of a stretch to modify pigeon protocol (PP) for high latency space issues. Got a probe on Pluto? Best case you're going to have a latency of 13 hours. Double that for apogee.
DDT
Yes - you're talking about the power to detect a significant difference. However, the power to detect is based entirely on the assumption of a normal data set. They did not address this in the article or on Zogby's blog. Also, if they did a CA area code survey, or registered voter of county X, or whatever it is unlikely that they picked random samples representative to the US population as a whole. So much of statistics is based on assumptions - if which they are invalid the "significant results" are equally invalid. You can chalk up the lack of such important information to bad reporting in the article, but Zogby's blog should know better.
Oh sorry. My apologies to those involved in Normandy and Antietam for overestimating what they went through.
I would suggest that there are depictions of killing in a legal manner while there are no depictions of sexual violence in a legal manner. So there's no double standard there. Violence occurs far more often in a child's experience (broken bones, car accidents, etc...) than sexual violence and thus they are earlier prepared for the first.
Case 1: video game telling a WWII story. If accurate it will be (legal) ultraviolent, but also educational in a way that may inspire children to be interested in history and respect the sacrifices made by our fathers and grandfathers. I'd be ok with my child understanding these concepts at a somewhat young age (I suspect she'll be ready by at least 12).
Case 2: video game with a graphic rape scene. If accurately depicted it will be (illegal) sexual violence, educational about the horror of being powerless, and may cause the child to have compassion for those scarred by such violence if it is accurately understood. However, I do not think a child is capable of understanding the nitty gritty details until he or she comes to at least a moderate understanding of their own sexuality - and as such I don't think depictions of sexual violence are appropriate for children. If a parent thinks that a sexually violent video game is the best way to communicate about this issue, then it would still be within their prerogative to purchase the "game" as an educational aid. I for one plan on addressing issues of sexuality and rape with my daughter in a different manner and several different times in her upbringing at a level she is able to understand.
And how many parents use their children for tech support?
Zogby's website has a little more information, but not as much as we'd like:
War (legal ultraviolence) is a lot different from rape (illegal sexual violence). It's bad enough to combine separate questions (loaded enough), but the article doesn't even summarize the fundamental aspects of a statistical study!
There's also the fact that 2,100 people is a very small number to base any sort of national (or even state) law and policy on. What are the survey demographics? What are the statistically significant differences of opinion based on group? What is the study's power to detect (a significant difference 80% of the time)? Was the survey terminology defined to the participants, or if not - were there survey questions to obtain the participants' definitions of the terms?
X% of adults agree to outlaw pictures of "kittens, hamsters, and child porn" 100-X% of adults have been put on the child molestation watch list.
Now I'm going to have to look up the original survey because of bad survey reporting. It's possible that the survey was done well and the reporter dumbed it down, but it's also entirely possible that the survey ignored experimental design and statistical considerations - but in that case the reporter should have publicly ripped the survey to shreds. If a reporter can't understand statistical analysis they have no business reporting survey results!
While walking through security where he could hand the weapons off to anybody else?
It's his plane and he can have the luggage checked into the main compartment where he can throw them to his heart's content after he exits the public zone of the airport.
Why there is an exception to the Second Amendment at 30,000 feet above ground on a domestic flight while participating in interstate commerce is a separate issue since this is an international flight. Although I'm sure shurikens have been defined as firearms in some of the more restrictive domestic jurisdictions.
Faint rumors of Jobs's ill health are a pox on Apple's share value. There - fixed that for you.
1: Get Steve Jobs to demo a product - thus making international headlines
2: Call it iShurikens and TM it, regardless of other products already bearing the same name
3: ???
4: Profit!
Yes, but did he have an iPhone, iPad, or iLaptop with a battery?
Those things can be worse than any Ninja weapon
But he'll market it to US.
Yes - but it was government staff of the highest level acting in an official capacity when they asked. Executive requests aren't on the same level as congressional laws - but that's a line I don't want any form of my government toeing.
We non government entities are perfectly capable of plastering our opinions about the dude's "exercise" across the news reels, talk shows, and internet. Besides, when the government steps in there's a certain amount of validation which accompanies that oily slick of not-quite-technically-in-a-court-of-law-sense-with-a-really-expensive-team-of-lawyers-violation of the First Amendment.
If the teen credibly threatened the president then it's another story, but the AC has a point about the First Amendment.
I'd say the reasonableness depends at least in some part where you're located. I'd suggest that it's not very reasonable in certain parts of the Middle East - at least not out loud.
And those are just the "little lies."
As Pratchett pointed out: there is not a single atom of truth or justice to be found in the universe. Without "belief" there's just a great ball of flaming gas that appears over the horizon - the sun does not rise.
Mod parent up please. This definition is consistent with the atheists and agnostics which I have met (and have explained their philosophy to me).
Most people I know don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, but very few people I know believe there are no invisible pink unicorns. The first part is about no active action or consideration of the subject, the second part mentions an active denial of a subject.
For most atheists, you don't believe in it, instead of believing something is not....
How many atheists have you met which have taken no active action or consideration of their ah... philosophy? Especially in today's climate, declaring oneself to be an atheist is a pretty active stance in and of itself. Most declared atheists I've known have put a lot of thought and or "soul-searching" before coming to the conclusion which seems right to themselves. True, I've met the rare cavalier atheist - but most of those were younger and it seemed to be their style of youthful-rebellion.
I'd posit that it's a fairly common human trait to (at some point in one's life) put active consideration into the question: "is this all there is, or is there something more than just what I can touch and see?"
So if "no active consideration" of the numinous is part of what it means to be an atheist, I don't think we have very many of them - including (especially?) those who declare themselves to be atheist. I think we'll have to find another definition, or rather set of definitions. Atheism is a broad non-centralized philosophy which likely means several different things to the various "adherents." I would suggest that when someone claims themselves to be an atheist that we believe them because they are in a far better position to determine that than we are.
I've worked with a number of great scientists I wouldn't want to talk to media - probably none without coaching. Do you have any idea what kind of damage a 10 second soundbite can do to the objective truth? (Likely taken from several hours of video and interview footage). PR people make their money by not getting excited or passionate about their work and making a comment which can be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misused - and they never ever forget that that camera is rolling and audio recording even if it's pointed somewhere else.
...Even the poor could partake.
Some of the tele viewed (from watched far away) programs could be informational and thus lead to a well informed population, including the poor, for a more effective democracy.
Who are we kidding here, even if we could make such a thing happen people would probably choose to watch random people off the streets being made fun of for singing songs they didn't write instead of a live broadcast of the Senate floor.
Call me Mr. Pessimistic, but my guess is that we'll go for the expensive option and people will still choose to watch something like cat's playing the piano poorly instead of live net-casts of shuttle launches and House Committee discussions.
There may always be barriers for the poor in wallet from being a perfectly well informed citizen, but they are negligible compared to the barriers for the poor in mind.
PS - I actually have no problem with a felid trying to improve him or herself in the musical arts or of people studying said felid's progress thus far. It's the exclusivity that gets on my nerves.
Oh yes he could! Because he has the moral superiority to never miss (he would have waited for Greedo to shoot first)!
My office mate and I have had separate Google site implementations before. Our IP is usually within about 5 of each other. We were both logged out at the time.
Obviously we need to protect it as thoroughly as we protect the First Amendment. Or perhaps the Fourth. One of them thingies anyway.
Flamebait?
A little culture and reading would have illuminated the irony and kept me from being piqued enough to overuse italics.
Meh - you can't mod them all.
Encryption means you have something to hide. Probably a description of what nasty thing you saw in the woodshed.