Windows Explorer aka File Explorer is the program which displays the desktop, start menu, taskbar, etc. It's what you see when you run Windows. Starting with Desktop Update (September 1997) and Windows 98, Explorer was actually displaying web pages when you navigated through your files. Settings for a folder, such as "show hidden files" were implemented as changes to the underlying web page. So at that point the Windows shell, the part of Windows you see, was implemented as a program for displaying web pages - a web browser. It also got back and forward buttons, etc, at this time. This also introduced Active Desktop, a web page as your desktop (which means your shell must be a browser).
That was all four years before 2001. Over the next few years, there was further convergence.
As far as "proving IE could be removed", you're probably thinking of the Felten testimony. Netscape had Felten testify that Microsoft *could have* built a version of Windows without IE. He based this on Felten "removing" (disabling) the internet functions of Windows, while maintaining minimal non-internet functionality. There are two big things to note about what Felten did. First, parts of IE he simply hid, he didn't remove them. Secondly, he removed system functionality - the most obvious, but not most important, being Active Desktop. Essentially Felten proved that you can hide the desktop and start menu shortcuts for IE. Which is different from actually removing IE.
I'm no fan of Microsoft - I didn't allow any Windows devices on the company network during the years I had the authority to make that decision. (It was a security company). On this point, it's true that IE couldn't be *removed* without significantly affecting the OS.
Historically, how it happened was in the early 1990s, before the web, Microsoft spent a ton of money building a really cool technology. The sudden rise of the web screwed up their plans and they had to scramble to try to salvage some of their investment.
They had something called OLE, Object Linking and Embedding. Basically it let you put one document inside another - a picture inside a spreadsheet, a song in a Word document. Microsoft spent lots of money and time building on this idea, it was their "big new thing", an OS (shell) and programming tools built around this concept. This next generation of OLE was called COM. Just before the release in Windows 95, something interesting happened.
As Microsoft was about to start the big PR blitz showing how not only could your Word documents contain pictures, but even your desktop could contain active programs, along came "IMG src". Even "TD IMG src" - you could have a table with an embedded picture with no proprietary Microsoft technology needed. Microsoft's "big new thing" was suddenly outdated as a overly complex, over-engineered mess just as it was released. Fuck! Literally their were a lot of Fun bombs at Microsoft when they saw the rise of HTML, with its simplicity.
So here's Microsoft with a billion dollars invested in a system for embedding pics in your documents and your desktop, suddenly not needed because HTML does documents with embedded pics and sounds so much simpler. What can Microsoft do to save their investment?
They route they chose was to rename COM to "ActiveX" and pitch it as a web technology. Internet Explorer became the most important ActiveX container. Instead of focusing on an Active Desktop, the sales pitch was to use this on the web, with ActiveX web pages. What was originally supposed to be done by the File Explorer shell now needed to be done by the browser, so the two projects merged to become Explorer. The desktop shell Explorer and the browser Explorer were the same code with a different wrapper.
Over time, the competitive issues you pointed out became more important.
Someone may point out "that was 20 years ago". Yes, it was. This post is a history lesson in how we got here.
Another demonstration of the fact, which Microsoft's execs testified to under oath, that IE hooks into the operating system in ways that other browsers do not. This makes security issues in IE more dangerous.
A bug in Chrome, or even randomly deleting Chrome files, doesn't make Windows unable to boot. No Firefox bug can ever make the system unbootable. Trying to fix IE makes the system unable to boot, because IE has its claws sunk into the operating system.
Therefore security issues in IE are more likely to affect the underlying operating system. Whenever I mention that on Slashdot, people agrue, saying I'm wrong. But here we see that trying to fix a security issue in IE makes the OS unbootable - IE security is tied into the OS. That's one more reason to avoid using Microsoft's browser.
FYI the huns were absorbed into other conquering peoples in the sixth century. Most of their DNA seems to have ended up in Russia, Ukraine, and Romania.
By law tax returns are confidential - yours, mine, and his. Many politicians voluntary choose to release some tax returns many don't. (Similar to how some politicians have a brain, many don't.)
I agree we can anticipate the house will subpoena them and the OOPS illegally leak them.
> 500-word essay, the audience hasn't forgotten what you've said!
My experience on Slashdot and elsewhere is that this is bad advance. Readers DO forget the point, or don't get the point, unless it's stated at the beginning and at the end.
The standard form essay is to state your point, support your point, and then close by restating your point. I've found that when I do that on Slashdot, I get far better replies, fewer replies to unimportant supporting sentences and more that go to the point of the discussion. I also get moderated higher. (Though political viewpoints also greatly affect moderation).
I see that right now the highest rated comment on this page is from Dtmos. Dtmos made a statement, went into further detail, then at the end repeated his thesis statement. That got the highest moderation, so clearly that format works.
In a Slashdot post, we may have the first *sentence* introduce our thesis, then a few sentences of support, closing with a conclusion sentence again stating the thesis we started with. We may even set each off with a line feed, making it a one or two sentence introductory paragraph like this post has.
Again I'm not saying everything needs to be five paragraphs. I'm disagreeing with his aversion to closing by restating the thesis, his argument "they haven't forgotten what you said in a 500 word essay!"
By mentioning the thesis, stating the point, at the beginning and end of a communication you make it clear what the main point is. The reader doesn't get distracted by the supporting sentences, because they know that your main point is the thing you said first and last.
It also occurs to me that sometimes the UK has a draught (comparatively, for the crops they grow), severe storms, or other other issues that cause a growing season to be largely unproductive. The land area devoted to farming in the UK is small enough that a bad season can affect most of it.
> It's better to be inefficient then depending on a foreign power for your food.
Certainly you wouldn't want to be dependent on a single foreign power for the majority of your food. That does NOT mean it's bad to buy bananas from India and coffee from Brazil. The United States imports more food than it exports, we are not self-reliant. We are also not at the mercy of any other nation for our food. Choose any country and we could stop importing food from them and it wouldn't hurt us much - and it would probably hurt them a lot more.
If a country currently does a lot of technology and engineering work, outsourcing farming to poorer countries, reversing that is probably bad. The country that does engineering and technology development is probably better off than the country based on farming.
So while agree you wouldn't want to be dependent on a single foreign power, agricultural economies are frequently third world economies. You don't want to be more like them.
That's interesting. On the other hand, I'd rather be a senior software engineer than a subsistence farmer. Growing your own food is good if and only if it's better than what they had been spending their time and resources on.
You mentioned it's largely because of subsidies - the taxpayer paying them more than the value of the goods produced. That sounds like an inefficiency, a bad thing.
> If we want to see actual results then look at the many smaller lottery winners with 20 year payouts. Does getting an extra 1k or 2k a month cause long term changes in behavior?
That's an interesting idea. That might be worth looking at. I haven't looked at it. I wonder what sample size we could find - winners of $1,000-$2,000 month for which we have long term information from a credible, unbiased source. It's time for me to get my daughter ready for bed, so I can't go hunting for that right now, but that may be a good thing. Without knowing the results, I'd be willing to say that would be an imperfect but useful sample, in order to get some idea of what the effects of UBI might be on recipients. Obviously it doesn't take into account the costs - every dollar of the money would have to be taken from someone else.
Without having seen any studies on people who won long term lottery payouts of $1,000-$2,000 / month, I'll willing to predict / guess that in most cases it didn't profoundly affect their lives. Anyone care to predict that it did?
Of course another limitation is that we don't know how their lives would have gone if they didn't win. We'd have to compare their improvement to the average improvement. As an example, consider of we find that 15% of recipients got a degree while getting the payout. Sounds good. But 20% of people who didn't win got a degree. So people getting the payout were LESS likely to get a degree than if they didn't get the payout.
It would be really interesting if two people who disagree on the likelihood of success could agree on how to measure the success of this experiment.
Anyone have any suggestions on how to measure success of this experiment in a year or two or three, such that those who think it's a good idea AND those who think it won't work can both agree it's a reasonable way to measure success?
Posts above mine claim that all UBI studies have failed, and that UBI proponents always say "the study had to fail because not everyone in the country got it". If that's not true, is there any UBI proponent here who can imagine any way this study could support their position? What outcome of this study would you consider "success"?
Personally, based on history I think UBI is a really bad idea, but I'm open minded enough to look at the results of a study. What positive results should I be looking for? If you make a reasonable suggestion, I might agree that the result you suggest would in fact indicate a degree of success.
Perhaps I would have been more accurate if I pointed out prognosis is an example of a variable readers might overlook. Obviously there can be many such factors, so any generalisation based on a specific study is fraught with peril.
On a related tangent, I've noticed this effect in the extreme for legal cases. Most Slashdot headlines about legal cases are wrong when they say a court decided an issue, as opposed to deciding a specific case. A court decides a result from the wording of a specific law, as applied to a specific party, given their conduct in a specific case.
For example, in consider a Masterpiece Bakeshop, the Colorado baker who wouldn't design a custom cake for a gay wedding. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The state of Colorado can't prosecute him for that case, the court ruled. People think SCOTUS ruled that it's okay to discriminate against gay people. That's not what happened.
They did NOT rule that people can refuse to do business with gay people. They did not strike down the law. In fact, he's in court again now, for doing the same thing again. The facts of the case were:
The baker said he'd happily sell them anything on the shelf. They wanted him to custom create an artwork celebrating their marriage, and he was unwilling to do that on religious grounds. The state board said it's okay for artists, including bakers, to refuse to create messages they don't agree with - unless the artist is a Christian. The board chair said out loud, on the record in the hearing, that he was coming after the guy for being a &$@%* Christian.
The baker asserted that his First Amendment rights proclude the state from forcing him to make a statement celebrating gay marriage, including a statement in the form of a cake with certain decorations etc.
The court ruled that the state CAN force people to make statements celebrating gay marriage. What they can't do is explicitly target Christians for enforcement, openly going after people because they are Christian. The state has to at least uphold the appearance that they would enforce the law against an atheist who diagreed with gay marriage.
The point is, the generalisation people make from the case is entirely wrong.
Their point was that the results of my medical study very much depend on which patients are selected for the study.
Those who are likely to recover probably won't show much benefit from the treatment, because they were going to be okay anyway. Those who have a really bad prognosis may not show much benefit because they are past the point of no return, beyond help. In other studies, using patients who have a bad prognosis may exaggerate the benefits of the treatment by neglecting to include the fact that most people would be fine without the treatment. That is, the study might seem to indicate "the treatment doubles your chance of survival", but that's not true if the 90% of people with mild cases aren't included in the study.
Here, they used subjects with a very mild case of "jump out airplane". The study showed that parachutes provide no benefit - but only because the study participants had a very mild degree of the problem. One could also do a study of extreme cases and discover parachutes don't work for jumping out of an SR-71 at cruise. The study would need to include participants with varying "a priori" prognosis, and probably run stats for each class - good prognosis, bad prognosis, and in between.
Since she was two or three years old, my daughter has had a "doctor" play set which includes a stethoscope, thermometer, syringe for giving "shots", otoscope for looking in ears, etc. How *exactly* is playing professional harmful to her?
Perhaps this is coming from one of those people who confuses toast with firearms, and apparently also shots with some kind of criminal violence?
The problem is that the founder made a habit of borrowing tons of money to start new companies, and is now unlawfully dodging his creditors. The new investors are (rightfully) concerned that his creditors will come after his Faraday Futures stock, which would have given them near control of the company. The creditors want their money, they don't want to run an electric car start-up (that can't makes cars). Therefore they might well decide to liquidate the company's assets.
Thank you for saying that. I actually get a bit self-conscious about my writing at times, so your post is meaningful to me.
I get self-conscious about errors - I said "things cost 43% in California", missing the word "more". I also often wonder if my logic is clear, if readers will be able to follow my reasoning.
In this instance, I almost posted a follow-up explaining that I meant it's not a moral issue (fault), but an arithmetic issue, a choice. If someone *wanted* to spend a million dollars a year on exotic animals while living in a tent they could certainly do that. I wouldn't *fault* them. I would just be aware that they could have chosen a nice house with no giraffes.
In this case, the story makes it sound like perhaps the person is unhappy with the results of their decisions. In which case, we can only "fix" that by a) educating them about their options or b) forcing them to do what we think is best, taking away their freedom to make "foolish" choices.
Not sure why some are always looking for who to blame, while actively denying the very basic idea of cause and effect.
The ASPCA says the *nationwide* average cost per dog is $1,000-$2,000 / year. Things cost 43% in California, on average, so that's roughly $2,100 / year per dog. Total $15,000 / for the dogs. That's what dogs cost. It's not someone's FAULT, it's just a fact. Dogs need food, vet care, etc. If you spend $15,000/year on dogs, and another $15,000/year on whatever odd choice, you're left with less money to take care of yourself. That's called arithmetic, not fault.
It's funny - just this morning I had a conversation with my daughter, mostly listening to her talk. First she said she wanted all of the toys in the Ryan's Toy Reviews line, now available at Walmart. Next, she said she'd spend ALL of her money on those toys. "But then I couldn't get any other toys", she said. "I want to have money in my gifting cup to buy gifts for my friends", she continued. With me barely saying a word, she quickly reasoned through that she did NOT want to spend all of her money on Ryan toys. Maybe just one, she decided. Maybe one Ryan toy would be good.
My daughter understands the cause and effect of choosing to spend money on one thing means you don't have that money for other things she wants. She's four. Four years old.
The reference DNA they used for American native is people from Mexico, Peru and Colombia. That's native to the Americas (Western hemisphere), not Native American.
The test shows that most likely, one of her 256 great^8 grandparents were from the Western Hemisphere.
The article you linked to says that in two instances, when those people stated they wanted to make sure they didn't have any "n*gger* blood", 23andme truthfully told them that their level of African ancestory was âless than 1%".
They said they did it to those two racists, and their statement was true.
She claimed to be native American, and specifically Cherokee.
The test results show that over 99% of her DNA is European. In other words, she's about as white as they come. Very close to the average UK citizen.
The results further indicate that most likely, she had a single great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent from South America, Central America, or North America. So 6-10 generations back, one Mexican or whatever. That hardly supports her long-held claim "I'm Cherokee". Notably, after the results, the tribe made it a point to come out and say that as far as they are concerned, she's definitely not Cherokee.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows Explorer aka File Explorer is the program which displays the desktop, start menu, taskbar, etc. It's what you see when you run Windows. Starting with Desktop Update (September 1997) and Windows 98, Explorer was actually displaying web pages when you navigated through your files. Settings for a folder, such as "show hidden files" were implemented as changes to the underlying web page. So at that point the Windows shell, the part of Windows you see, was implemented as a program for displaying web pages - a web browser. It also got back and forward buttons, etc, at this time. This also introduced Active Desktop, a web page as your desktop (which means your shell must be a browser).
That was all four years before 2001. Over the next few years, there was further convergence.
As far as "proving IE could be removed", you're probably thinking of the Felten testimony. Netscape had Felten testify that Microsoft *could have* built a version of Windows without IE. He based this on Felten "removing" (disabling) the internet functions of Windows, while maintaining minimal non-internet functionality. There are two big things to note about what Felten did. First, parts of IE he simply hid, he didn't remove them. Secondly, he removed system functionality - the most obvious, but not most important, being Active Desktop. Essentially Felten proved that you can hide the desktop and start menu shortcuts for IE. Which is different from actually removing IE.
I'm no fan of Microsoft - I didn't allow any Windows devices on the company network during the years I had the authority to make that decision. (It was a security company). On this point, it's true that IE couldn't be *removed* without significantly affecting the OS.
That's one bonus for Microsoft.
Historically, how it happened was in the early 1990s, before the web, Microsoft spent a ton of money building a really cool technology. The sudden rise of the web screwed up their plans and they had to scramble to try to salvage some of their investment.
They had something called OLE, Object Linking and Embedding. Basically it let you put one document inside another - a picture inside a spreadsheet, a song in a Word document. Microsoft spent lots of money and time building on this idea, it was their "big new thing", an OS (shell) and programming tools built around this concept. This next generation of OLE was called COM. Just before the release in Windows 95, something interesting happened.
As Microsoft was about to start the big PR blitz showing how not only could your Word documents contain pictures, but even your desktop could contain active programs, along came "IMG src". Even "TD IMG src" - you could have a table with an embedded picture with no proprietary Microsoft technology needed. Microsoft's "big new thing" was suddenly outdated as a overly complex, over-engineered mess just as it was released. Fuck! Literally their were a lot of Fun bombs at Microsoft when they saw the rise of HTML, with its simplicity.
So here's Microsoft with a billion dollars invested in a system for embedding pics in your documents and your desktop, suddenly not needed because HTML does documents with embedded pics and sounds so much simpler. What can Microsoft do to save their investment?
They route they chose was to rename COM to "ActiveX" and pitch it as a web technology. Internet Explorer became the most important ActiveX container. Instead of focusing on an Active Desktop, the sales pitch was to use this on the web, with ActiveX web pages. What was originally supposed to be done by the File Explorer shell now needed to be done by the browser, so the two projects merged to become Explorer. The desktop shell Explorer and the browser Explorer were the same code with a different wrapper.
Over time, the competitive issues you pointed out became more important.
Someone may point out "that was 20 years ago". Yes, it was. This post is a history lesson in how we got here.
Another demonstration of the fact, which Microsoft's execs testified to under oath, that IE hooks into the operating system in ways that other browsers do not. This makes security issues in IE more dangerous.
A bug in Chrome, or even randomly deleting Chrome files, doesn't make Windows unable to boot. No Firefox bug can ever make the system unbootable. Trying to fix IE makes the system unable to boot, because IE has its claws sunk into the operating system.
Therefore security issues in IE are more likely to affect the underlying operating system. Whenever I mention that on Slashdot, people agrue, saying I'm wrong. But here we see that trying to fix a security issue in IE makes the OS unbootable - IE security is tied into the OS. That's one more reason to avoid using Microsoft's browser.
> In my experience the shorter the post the better. Sometimes only a 1 liner needs to stated ... [goes on for several paragraphs]
That would have been funny had you not also said:
> Sometimes two paragraphs, sometimes more.
> The problem with bullshit rules like this is that there are ALWAYS exceptions.
True
You were serious?
FYI the huns were absorbed into other conquering peoples in the sixth century. Most of their DNA seems to have ended up in Russia, Ukraine, and Romania.
By law tax returns are confidential - yours, mine, and his.
Many politicians voluntary choose to release some tax returns many don't. (Similar to how some politicians have a brain, many don't.)
I agree we can anticipate the house will subpoena them and the OOPS illegally leak them.
I note it was approved almost unanimously.
https://45daufej2nx1wbya31rbi2... ?
> 500-word essay, the audience hasn't forgotten what you've said!
My experience on Slashdot and elsewhere is that this is bad advance. Readers DO forget the point, or don't get the point, unless it's stated at the beginning and at the end.
The standard form essay is to state your point, support your point, and then close by restating your point. I've found that when I do that on Slashdot, I get far better replies, fewer replies to unimportant supporting sentences and more that go to the point of the discussion. I also get moderated higher. (Though political viewpoints also greatly affect moderation).
I see that right now the highest rated comment on this page is from Dtmos. Dtmos made a statement, went into further detail, then at the end repeated his thesis statement. That got the highest moderation, so clearly that format works.
In a Slashdot post, we may have the first *sentence* introduce our thesis, then a few sentences of support, closing with a conclusion sentence again stating the thesis we started with. We may even set each off with a line feed, making it a one or two sentence introductory paragraph like this post has.
Again I'm not saying everything needs to be five paragraphs. I'm disagreeing with his aversion to closing by restating the thesis, his argument "they haven't forgotten what you said in a 500 word essay!"
By mentioning the thesis, stating the point, at the beginning and end of a communication you make it clear what the main point is. The reader doesn't get distracted by the supporting sentences, because they know that your main point is the thing you said first and last.
I should have worded that differently. I shouldn't have said "by your reasoning". I should have said "by percentage of her income".
Of course you're already aware of the problems with the "as a share of their economy" reasoning.
It also occurs to me that sometimes the UK has a draught (comparatively, for the crops they grow), severe storms, or other other issues that cause a growing season to be largely unproductive. The land area devoted to farming in the UK is small enough that a bad season can affect most of it.
I would much rather have diverse food sources.
> It's better to be inefficient then depending on a foreign power for your food.
Certainly you wouldn't want to be dependent on a single foreign power for the majority of your food. That does NOT mean it's bad to buy bananas from India and coffee from Brazil. The United States imports more food than it exports, we are not self-reliant. We are also not at the mercy of any other nation for our food. Choose any country and we could stop importing food from them and it wouldn't hurt us much - and it would probably hurt them a lot more.
If a country currently does a lot of technology and engineering work, outsourcing farming to poorer countries, reversing that is probably bad. The country that does engineering and technology development is probably better off than the country based on farming.
So while agree you wouldn't want to be dependent on a single foreign power, agricultural economies are frequently third world economies. You don't want to be more like them.
That's interesting. On the other hand, I'd rather be a senior software engineer than a subsistence farmer. Growing your own food is good if and only if it's better than what they had been spending their time and resources on.
You mentioned it's largely because of subsidies - the taxpayer paying them more than the value of the goods produced. That sounds like an inefficiency, a bad thing.
> If we want to see actual results then look at the many smaller lottery winners with 20 year payouts. Does getting an extra 1k or 2k a month cause long term changes in behavior?
That's an interesting idea. That might be worth looking at. I haven't looked at it. I wonder what sample size we could find - winners of $1,000-$2,000 month for which we have long term information from a credible, unbiased source. It's time for me to get my daughter ready for bed, so I can't go hunting for that right now, but that may be a good thing. Without knowing the results, I'd be willing to say that would be an imperfect but useful sample, in order to get some idea of what the effects of UBI might be on recipients. Obviously it doesn't take into account the costs - every dollar of the money would have to be taken from someone else.
Without having seen any studies on people who won long term lottery payouts of $1,000-$2,000 / month, I'll willing to predict / guess that in most cases it didn't profoundly affect their lives. Anyone care to predict that it did?
Of course another limitation is that we don't know how their lives would have gone if they didn't win. We'd have to compare their improvement to the average improvement. As an example, consider of we find that 15% of recipients got a degree while getting the payout. Sounds good. But 20% of people who didn't win got a degree. So people getting the payout were LESS likely to get a degree than if they didn't get the payout.
Taking care of my four-year-old daughter costs about $25,000/year.
I spend about 25% of my salary on stuff for her ($25,000).
She spends 100% of her $12 income on herself.
By your reasoning, I'm not supporting her, she's supporting herself.
It would be really interesting if two people who disagree on the likelihood of success could agree on how to measure the success of this experiment.
Anyone have any suggestions on how to measure success of this experiment in a year or two or three, such that those who think it's a good idea AND those who think it won't work can both agree it's a reasonable way to measure success?
Posts above mine claim that all UBI studies have failed, and that UBI proponents always say "the study had to fail because not everyone in the country got it". If that's not true, is there any UBI proponent here who can imagine any way this study could support their position? What outcome of this study would you consider "success"?
Personally, based on history I think UBI is a really bad idea, but I'm open minded enough to look at the results of a study. What positive results should I be looking for? If you make a reasonable suggestion, I might agree that the result you suggest would in fact indicate a degree of success.
Perhaps I would have been more accurate if I pointed out prognosis is an example of a variable readers might overlook. Obviously there can be many such factors, so any generalisation based on a specific study is fraught with peril.
On a related tangent, I've noticed this effect in the extreme for legal cases. Most Slashdot headlines about legal cases are wrong when they say a court decided an issue, as opposed to deciding a specific case. A court decides a result from the wording of a specific law, as applied to a specific party, given their conduct in a specific case.
For example, in consider a Masterpiece Bakeshop, the Colorado baker who wouldn't design a custom cake for a gay wedding. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The state of Colorado can't prosecute him for that case, the court ruled.
People think SCOTUS ruled that it's okay to discriminate against gay people. That's not what happened.
They did NOT rule that people can refuse to do business with gay people. They did not strike down the law. In fact, he's in court again now, for doing the same thing again. The facts of the case were:
The baker said he'd happily sell them anything on the shelf.
They wanted him to custom create an artwork celebrating their marriage, and he was unwilling to do that on religious grounds.
The state board said it's okay for artists, including bakers, to refuse to create messages they don't agree with - unless the artist is a Christian. The board chair said out loud, on the record in the hearing, that he was coming after the guy for being a &$@%* Christian.
The baker asserted that his First Amendment rights proclude the state from forcing him to make a statement celebrating gay marriage, including a statement in the form of a cake with certain decorations etc.
The court ruled that the state CAN force people to make statements celebrating gay marriage. What they can't do is explicitly target Christians for enforcement, openly going after people because they are Christian. The state has to at least uphold the appearance that they would enforce the law against an atheist who diagreed with gay marriage.
The point is, the generalisation people make from the case is entirely wrong.
Their point was that the results of my medical study very much depend on which patients are selected for the study.
Those who are likely to recover probably won't show much benefit from the treatment, because they were going to be okay anyway. Those who have a really bad prognosis may not show much benefit because they are past the point of no return, beyond help. In other studies, using patients who have a bad prognosis may exaggerate the benefits of the treatment by neglecting to include the fact that most people would be fine without the treatment. That is, the study might seem to indicate "the treatment doubles your chance of survival", but that's not true if the 90% of people with mild cases aren't included in the study.
Here, they used subjects with a very mild case of "jump out airplane". The study showed that parachutes provide no benefit - but only because the study participants had a very mild degree of the problem. One could also do a study of extreme cases and discover parachutes don't work for jumping out of an SR-71 at cruise. The study would need to include participants with varying "a priori" prognosis, and probably run stats for each class - good prognosis, bad prognosis, and in between.
Since she was two or three years old, my daughter has had a "doctor" play set which includes a stethoscope, thermometer, syringe for giving "shots", otoscope for looking in ears, etc. How *exactly* is playing professional harmful to her?
Perhaps this is coming from one of those people who confuses toast with firearms, and apparently also shots with some kind of criminal violence?
The problem is that the founder made a habit of borrowing tons of money to start new companies, and is now unlawfully dodging his creditors. The new investors are (rightfully) concerned that his creditors will come after his Faraday Futures stock, which would have given them near control of the company. The creditors want their money, they don't want to run an electric car start-up (that can't makes cars). Therefore they might well decide to liquidate the company's assets.
Thank you for saying that. I actually get a bit self-conscious about my writing at times, so your post is meaningful to me.
I get self-conscious about errors - I said "things cost 43% in California", missing the word "more". I also often wonder if my logic is clear, if readers will be able to follow my reasoning.
In this instance, I almost posted a follow-up explaining that I meant it's not a moral issue (fault), but an arithmetic issue, a choice. If someone *wanted* to spend a million dollars a year on exotic animals while living in a tent they could certainly do that. I wouldn't *fault* them. I would just be aware that they could have chosen a nice house with no giraffes.
In this case, the story makes it sound like perhaps the person is unhappy with the results of their decisions. In which case, we can only "fix" that by a) educating them about their options or b) forcing them to do what we think is best, taking away their freedom to make "foolish" choices.
Not sure why some are always looking for who to blame, while actively denying the very basic idea of cause and effect.
The ASPCA says the *nationwide* average cost per dog is $1,000-$2,000 / year. Things cost 43% in California, on average, so that's roughly $2,100 / year per dog. Total $15,000 / for the dogs. That's what dogs cost. It's not someone's FAULT, it's just a fact. Dogs need food, vet care, etc. If you spend $15,000/year on dogs, and another $15,000/year on whatever odd choice, you're left with less money to take care of yourself. That's called arithmetic, not fault.
It's funny - just this morning I had a conversation with my daughter, mostly listening to her talk. First she said she wanted all of the toys in the Ryan's Toy Reviews line, now available at Walmart. Next, she said she'd spend ALL of her money on those toys. "But then I couldn't get any other toys", she said. "I want to have money in my gifting cup to buy gifts for my friends", she continued. With me barely saying a word, she quickly reasoned through that she did NOT want to spend all of her money on Ryan toys. Maybe just one, she decided. Maybe one Ryan toy would be good.
My daughter understands the cause and effect of choosing to spend money on one thing means you don't have that money for other things she wants. She's four. Four years old.
The reference DNA they used for American native is people from Mexico, Peru and Colombia. That's native to the Americas (Western hemisphere), not Native American.
The test shows that most likely, one of her 256 great^8 grandparents were from the Western Hemisphere.
The article you linked to says that in two instances, when those people stated they wanted to make sure they didn't have any "n*gger* blood", 23andme truthfully told them that their level of African ancestory was âless than 1%".
They said they did it to those two racists, and their statement was true.
She claimed to be native American, and specifically Cherokee.
The test results show that over 99% of her DNA is European. In other words, she's about as white as they come. Very close to the average UK citizen.
The results further indicate that most likely, she had a single great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparent from South America, Central America, or North America.
So 6-10 generations back, one Mexican or whatever. That hardly supports her long-held claim "I'm Cherokee". Notably, after the results, the tribe made it a point to come out and say that as far as they are concerned, she's definitely not Cherokee.