I'd like to see better statistics. On average, a first heart attack strikes men at age 65; women, 72. A 72 year old is simply more likely to die of a heart attack than a 65 year old one; age matters. There's no surprise that women are more likely to die, and although women are more likely to die of their heart attack, men still, on the average, die earlier of heart attacks.
Except that, given female doctors for both male and female patients, women are not more likely to die. FTA:
I stand by my statement. I want to see better statistics.
...
The difference between male and female doctors is interesting, but note that the difference is actually small: according to the article, a heart attack patient dies in the ER about 11.9 percent of the time, versus 12.4 percent with female patients with male doctors [corrected from error in my original; sorry]-- the difference is one part in two hundred.
Yes, but with a study population of over half a million, that's a statistically significant difference.
No, it's not.
Work it out. They say one doctor in four are women. Half of the patients are women. So the actual study population of women patients treated by women doctors is one eighth of the total-- that's 62,000, not half a million. The deaths in the ER are 12%: 7.5 thousand. Square root of that is 86, for statistical variance (Poisson statistics) of 1.1 percent.
So difference of one in two hundred is NOT statistically significant.
It's actually worse statistics than that, since they have split the data into many tranches. There are four groups (male doctor, male patient; male doctor, female patient; female doctor, male patient; female doctor, female patient). Thus there are four ways to compare one subgroup against the average, plus three ways to compare subsets of data (effect male doctors, effect of female doctors, effect of same-sex doctor)-- seven possible comparisons to check against the null hypothesis. Statistically, that's only four degrees of freedom (because the comparisons have overlap)-- but still, you have four times higher possibility of false positive, and thus need four times higher statistical significance to pull signal out of the noise.
(This xkcd is a primer on why multiple comparisons in a group increase the possibility of false positive: https://xkcd.com/882/ ).
The big confounding effect here is age in doctors, not just patients: on the average, female doctors are younger than male doctors, and thus more recently educated and presumably up to date on the most modern techniques. I'd like to see that effect accounted for.
That would be a really great point, except it runs into the same flaw as your first argument: there was no difference in death rates between male doctors-male patient and female doctor-male patient. If female doctors were more recently educated and up to date on the most modern techniques and that made a difference, you'd expect to see the female doctor-male patient death rate be lower. But it's not.
Both of your arguments have a fundamental flaw that suggest you didn't really read the article summary, much less the article: your first argument requires a premise that women are more likely to die than men regardless of the gender of their doctor; and your second argument requires a premise that female doctors are less likely to have patients die regardless of the gender of their patient. But neither of those are true - this study found an increased death rate only when two variables coincide: female doctor and female patient.
Your point would be interesting if the statistics were convincing, but they're not.
The statistics would have to be much more convincing for your analysis to hold, since if the older patient eff
I'd like to see better statistics. On average, a first heart attack strikes men at age 65; women, 72. A 72 year old is simply more likely to die of a heart attack than a 65 year old one; age matters. There's no surprise that women are more likely to die, and although women are more likely to die of their heart attack, men still, on the average, die earlier of heart attacks.
The difference between male and female doctors is interesting, but note that the difference is actually small: according to the article, a heart attack patient dies in the ER about 11.9 percent of the time, versus 12.4 percent with female doctors-- the difference is one part in two hundred. So I agree with the caution suggested by an outside researcher about this study: "Emergency doctors and cardiologists, however, are wary of jumping to conclusions just yet. It is a little early to say male physicians have trouble treating female heart attack patients based on these data alone, says Michelle O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School who did not work on the new study." Right: let's look at confounding effects first.
The big confounding effect here is age in doctors, not just patients: on the average, female doctors are younger than male doctors, and thus more recently educated and presumably up to date on the most modern techniques. I'd like to see that effect accounted for.
They already did, some time ago. Google "BBC health gap" and prepare to be horrified (it's a series of articles written by some dickless man calling himself a doctor) . Somehow even though women live 8 yrs longer, are healthier, die less at work (93:7), die less from suicide (3:1) there is a health gap, a systematic war against women of which the whole medical profession (where women are the majority) is complicit....
Yes, an interesting point. Men die earlier. How is this effect accounted for?
No. Reagan talked a great game about small government, but what he did was increase the size of government and greatly increase deficit spending.
Wrong. What Reagan did was trust the Democrat controlled congress to abide by their promise lower spending, which they reneged on.
Nope. The reason the deficit increased under Reagan was primarily his huge increase in the military spending implemented simultaneously with tax cuts. The military budget-- at the Reagan peak, about half a trillion dollars a year--is the single largest component of the budget. That wasn't the "Democrats", that was Reagan. You simply can't increase the main portion of spending and at the same time decrease the revenue without going into a lot of debt, there just aren't enough places elsewhere to cut a half trillion dollars out of the budget. It is essentially like saying that you can upgrade the family car from a Volkswagen to a Ferrari, and pay for it by cutting down on your bubble gum spending.
Republicans only talk about how important it is to reduce government spending when they're not in power.
True, but then again, those Republicans are never really in power, even when they technically are in office and have a majority in congress.
Wow, so Republicans aren't to be held to their rhetoric even when they're in power, because they're not "really" in power.
Then in the Reagan years they completely abandoned the idea of cheap, small government,
The annual budget of the US government does not actually support that claim. Cheap, small government was abandoned to a small extent by Clinton, then...
No. Reagan talked a great game about small government, but what he did was increase the size of government and greatly increase deficit spending.
Republicans only talk about how important it is to reduce government spending when they're not in power.
Oh, man, what a horribly stupid idea this is. They want voting on insecure systems to use insecure networks to tally votes onto insecure platforms, and all with no paper trail.
Politicians in West Virginia have never heard of hax0rz? Or are they deliberately trying to make elections hackable?
Everybody from West Virginia: write to WB Secretary of State Mac Warner, and tell him that this is stupid, stupid, stupid.
I would hope that no one would be dumb enough to leak something on a public file sharing platform like dropbox/onedrive/etc without having taken many precautions to insure the account was registered and uploaded to with extreme anonymity.
People screw up all the time.
Most particularly, people think that their info in the "cloud" is private all the time when it isn't.
I don't see anything in that link giving an example where "one expression [is] equivalent to 0 in one case, but the same expression in another equation is not".
My guess is that this indicates you made an error in calculation.
True, at the equator, the sun is only up 50% of the time.
However it makes no difference if that time period is 12h (a typical earth day) or 14*24h (a typical moon 'day')
Huh? If you're running on batteries at night, 12 hours of storage is heavy but doable, 354 hours is pretty much out of the question.
The only person who is able to decide if they need encryption or not is the person doing the browsing.
Right. But google thinks that the person doing the browsing should not be the one who decides if they need encryption, but instead that everything should be encrypted by default.
I'd be very concerned if any site I used for monetary purposes wasn't using HTTPS. On the other hand, sites providing data services like streaming or news probably don't need to encrypt anything.
Yes!
for 90% of the stuff I browse on the web, I don't need https. I really don't care who sees the cat pictures I look at.
https should be saved for pages that actually need encryption
OK, point; I was thinking of the Turkish expansion into Europe. The caliphate's conquest of Spain ("Al-Andalus") was indeed much earlier. But the crusades were not a "response" to Islamic Spain, as the original anonymous coward stated; they were in a different direction and with a different objective.
History fail. The Roman Empire was long, long dead.
Google the phrase "Holy Roman Empire". Yes, Voltaire did say it "was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." Neverhtheless, it called itself the Roman empire.
--and, actually, the Eastern Roman empire was still around at the start of the crusades. So, I'll give your statement a "half" rating on the truthiness scale.
by the time of the Crusades which were a response to Muslim invasions and occupations in Europe which happened precisely because there was no longer a Roman Empire to keep the Muslims in check.
No; indeed there were Muslim invasions and occupations in Europe (mostly eastern Europe, and mostly the Turks)... but these were after the crusades, not before.
Go read some history books and stop getting your "facts" from other incel losers like yourself.
Yes, this bothered me too. What human rights are they talking about, exactly? The right to a trial by jury? Here is the UN declaration on human rights, which ones is Australia proposing to violate? http://www.un.org/en/universal...
The actual article tells me that the rights under discussion are things like the right to not have the government use biometric data (e.g., "face recognition"). I'm not sure that this is widely recognized as one of the fundamental human rights.
Uh, the link you post cites the case of Bo Jiang, who worked for NIA (a contractor that worked for NASA), and who was arrested at Dulles airport on his way to China with a laptop full of information. The papers at the time all said he was accused of "espionage".
Turns out the espionage case against him was withdrawn (link) because he wasn't, as it turned out, carrying any NASA technical information on the computer.
What he was exporting to China on his hard disk was: porn. (Ars Technica article). Turns out, yeah, porn is more valuable in China than mere technical secrets, and is harder to get.
Its due to ITAR restrictions. Take it up with the US Goverment.
Not merely ITAR (although ITAR is always a consideration when working with a foreign entity), but there is actually a law (passed by Congress as part of a spending bill eight years ago) forbidding NASA from working in any way with China: https://www.forbes.com/sites/w...
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see better statistics. On average, a first heart attack strikes men at age 65; women, 72. A 72 year old is simply more likely to die of a heart attack than a 65 year old one; age matters. There's no surprise that women are more likely to die, and although women are more likely to die of their heart attack, men still, on the average, die earlier of heart attacks.
Except that, given female doctors for both male and female patients, women are not more likely to die. FTA:
I stand by my statement. I want to see better statistics.
...
The difference between male and female doctors is interesting, but note that the difference is actually small: according to the article, a heart attack patient dies in the ER about 11.9 percent of the time, versus 12.4 percent with female patients with male doctors [corrected from error in my original; sorry]-- the difference is one part in two hundred.
Yes, but with a study population of over half a million, that's a statistically significant difference.
No, it's not.
Work it out. They say one doctor in four are women. Half of the patients are women. So the actual study population of women patients treated by women doctors is one eighth of the total-- that's 62,000, not half a million. The deaths in the ER are 12%: 7.5 thousand. Square root of that is 86, for statistical variance (Poisson statistics) of 1.1 percent.
So difference of one in two hundred is NOT statistically significant.
It's actually worse statistics than that, since they have split the data into many tranches. There are four groups (male doctor, male patient; male doctor, female patient; female doctor, male patient; female doctor, female patient). Thus there are four ways to compare one subgroup against the average, plus three ways to compare subsets of data (effect male doctors, effect of female doctors, effect of same-sex doctor)-- seven possible comparisons to check against the null hypothesis. Statistically, that's only four degrees of freedom (because the comparisons have overlap)-- but still, you have four times higher possibility of false positive, and thus need four times higher statistical significance to pull signal out of the noise.
(This xkcd is a primer on why multiple comparisons in a group increase the possibility of false positive: https://xkcd.com/882/ ).
The big confounding effect here is age in doctors, not just patients: on the average, female doctors are younger than male doctors, and thus more recently educated and presumably up to date on the most modern techniques. I'd like to see that effect accounted for.
That would be a really great point, except it runs into the same flaw as your first argument: there was no difference in death rates between male doctors-male patient and female doctor-male patient. If female doctors were more recently educated and up to date on the most modern techniques and that made a difference, you'd expect to see the female doctor-male patient death rate be lower. But it's not. Both of your arguments have a fundamental flaw that suggest you didn't really read the article summary, much less the article: your first argument requires a premise that women are more likely to die than men regardless of the gender of their doctor; and your second argument requires a premise that female doctors are less likely to have patients die regardless of the gender of their patient. But neither of those are true - this study found an increased death rate only when two variables coincide: female doctor and female patient.
Your point would be interesting if the statistics were convincing, but they're not.
The statistics would have to be much more convincing for your analysis to hold, since if the older patient eff
I'd like to see better statistics. On average, a first heart attack strikes men at age 65; women, 72. A 72 year old is simply more likely to die of a heart attack than a 65 year old one; age matters. There's no surprise that women are more likely to die, and although women are more likely to die of their heart attack, men still, on the average, die earlier of heart attacks.
The difference between male and female doctors is interesting, but note that the difference is actually small: according to the article, a heart attack patient dies in the ER about 11.9 percent of the time, versus 12.4 percent with female doctors-- the difference is one part in two hundred. So I agree with the caution suggested by an outside researcher about this study: "Emergency doctors and cardiologists, however, are wary of jumping to conclusions just yet. It is a little early to say male physicians have trouble treating female heart attack patients based on these data alone, says Michelle O’Donoghue, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School who did not work on the new study." Right: let's look at confounding effects first.
The big confounding effect here is age in doctors, not just patients: on the average, female doctors are younger than male doctors, and thus more recently educated and presumably up to date on the most modern techniques. I'd like to see that effect accounted for.
They already did, some time ago. Google "BBC health gap" and prepare to be horrified (it's a series of articles written by some dickless man calling himself a doctor) . Somehow even though women live 8 yrs longer, are healthier, die less at work (93:7), die less from suicide (3:1) there is a health gap, a systematic war against women of which the whole medical profession (where women are the majority) is complicit....
Yes, an interesting point. Men die earlier. How is this effect accounted for?
Wrong. What Reagan did was trust the Democrat controlled congress to abide by their promise lower spending, which they reneged on.
Nope. The reason the deficit increased under Reagan was primarily his huge increase in the military spending implemented simultaneously with tax cuts. The military budget-- at the Reagan peak, about half a trillion dollars a year--is the single largest component of the budget. That wasn't the "Democrats", that was Reagan. You simply can't increase the main portion of spending and at the same time decrease the revenue without going into a lot of debt, there just aren't enough places elsewhere to cut a half trillion dollars out of the budget. It is essentially like saying that you can upgrade the family car from a Volkswagen to a Ferrari, and pay for it by cutting down on your bubble gum spending.
True, but then again, those Republicans are never really in power, even when they technically are in office and have a majority in congress.
Wow, so Republicans aren't to be held to their rhetoric even when they're in power, because they're not "really" in power.
In any case, though, the time to check citizenship is during voter registration, not at the polling place.
The annual budget of the US government does not actually support that claim. Cheap, small government was abandoned to a small extent by Clinton, then ...
No. Reagan talked a great game about small government, but what he did was increase the size of government and greatly increase deficit spending.
Republicans only talk about how important it is to reduce government spending when they're not in power.
Same with voting by mail here in Washington state. Twice my employer has asked for signed blank ballots.
Wow, that is seriously illegal.
Next time it happens, document it and put their ass in jail.
Politicians in West Virginia have never heard of hax0rz? Or are they deliberately trying to make elections hackable?
Everybody from West Virginia: write to WB Secretary of State Mac Warner, and tell him that this is stupid, stupid, stupid.
I would hope that no one would be dumb enough to leak something on a public file sharing platform like dropbox/onedrive/etc without having taken many precautions to insure the account was registered and uploaded to with extreme anonymity.
People screw up all the time. Most particularly, people think that their info in the "cloud" is private all the time when it isn't.
Robocall hellholes get raided and shutdown.
I wish.
And I still get several spam calls per day.
The number of voice calls made on mobile phones in the UK fell for the first time ever in 2017 -- despite the fact we seem hooked on our devices.
Why should this be surprising?
Not surprising at all. Right now, I get about three spam robocalls for every one (voice) phone call that is actually for me.
Most of the people I know don't answer their phone any more. They use their smartphones for data, not voice.
If you are claiming to have read a 667 page textbook on functional calculus within ~3 hours
No.
I'm claiming to have read the link that was given, which was one paragraph long.
Can you give a concrete example?
https://www.springer.com/us/book/9781441969491
I don't see anything in that link giving an example where "one expression [is] equivalent to 0 in one case, but the same expression in another equation is not".
My guess is that this indicates you made an error in calculation.
True, at the equator, the sun is only up 50% of the time. However it makes no difference if that time period is 12h (a typical earth day) or 14*24h (a typical moon 'day')
Huh? If you're running on batteries at night, 12 hours of storage is heavy but doable, 354 hours is pretty much out of the question.
The original paper in Science: http://science.sciencemag.org/...
Space.com: https://www.space.com/41272-ma...
Science News: https://www.sciencenews.org/ar...
CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25...
The only person who is able to decide if they need encryption or not is the person doing the browsing.
Right. But google thinks that the person doing the browsing should not be the one who decides if they need encryption, but instead that everything should be encrypted by default.
I'd be very concerned if any site I used for monetary purposes wasn't using HTTPS. On the other hand, sites providing data services like streaming or news probably don't need to encrypt anything.
Yes!
for 90% of the stuff I browse on the web, I don't need https. I really don't care who sees the cat pictures I look at.
https should be saved for pages that actually need encryption
OK, point; I was thinking of the Turkish expansion into Europe. The caliphate's conquest of Spain ("Al-Andalus") was indeed much earlier. But the crusades were not a "response" to Islamic Spain, as the original anonymous coward stated; they were in a different direction and with a different objective.
Back up frequently, and always.
History fail. The Roman Empire was long, long dead.
Google the phrase "Holy Roman Empire". Yes, Voltaire did say it "was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." Neverhtheless, it called itself the Roman empire.
--and, actually, the Eastern Roman empire was still around at the start of the crusades. So, I'll give your statement a "half" rating on the truthiness scale.
by the time of the Crusades which were a response to Muslim invasions and occupations in Europe which happened precisely because there was no longer a Roman Empire to keep the Muslims in check.
No; indeed there were Muslim invasions and occupations in Europe (mostly eastern Europe, and mostly the Turks)... but these were after the crusades, not before.
Go read some history books and stop getting your "facts" from other incel losers like yourself.
I would say the same to you.
The actual article tells me that the rights under discussion are things like the right to not have the government use biometric data (e.g., "face recognition"). I'm not sure that this is widely recognized as one of the fundamental human rights.
https://www.google.com/amp/www... NASA is a horrible entity for security given it's past failures.
Uh, the link you post cites the case of Bo Jiang, who worked for NIA (a contractor that worked for NASA), and who was arrested at Dulles airport on his way to China with a laptop full of information. The papers at the time all said he was accused of "espionage".
Turns out the espionage case against him was withdrawn (link) because he wasn't, as it turned out, carrying any NASA technical information on the computer.
What he was exporting to China on his hard disk was: porn. (Ars Technica article). Turns out, yeah, porn is more valuable in China than mere technical secrets, and is harder to get.
But Russia already has a hypersonic missile system
Or, at least, Russia says that they already have a hypersonic missile system.
Whether to believe what they say... ah, there's the question.
Its due to ITAR restrictions. Take it up with the US Goverment.
Not merely ITAR (although ITAR is always a consideration when working with a foreign entity), but there is actually a law (passed by Congress as part of a spending bill eight years ago) forbidding NASA from working in any way with China: https://www.forbes.com/sites/w...
Unless Congress changes the law, NASA is banned from working with China in any way.