"In the course of its investigation," they add, "the FBI could get access to the Trump Organization's computer network, meaning FBI agents could possibly find records connected to other investigations." A senior FBI official (now retired) concedes to ABC that "There could be stuff in there that they [the Trump organization] do not want to become part of a separate criminal investigation."
The idea that there is this secret stash of documents that is finally going to reveal Trump's secret identity as Dr. Evil and is going to doom his presidency is wishful thinking. Trump's computers and people around Trump were under surveillance for months under the Obama administration, and Trump has many people in his administration, among Republicans, and in his organization who hate him; if there had been anything substantive, it would have come out by now, either in leaks or in official investigations.
The reason benefits are tied to employers is because government regulations and tax incentives make it so. That's why we now need even more regulations to deal with gig workers, and preexisting conditions, etc. And don't be fooled: people like Mark Warner will use this kind of regulation as yet another opportunity to pay off supporters, lobbyists, and special interests, including the gig economy corporations themselves.
Health insurance, disability insurance, etc. should be like car insurance: tied to the individual, with all the tax breaks and support going to the individual, not his employers. And people who are destitute should get simple financial support, not get caught up in big government-run programs.
Why would the alternatives become more costly? Technology makes the discovery and extraction of fossil fuels cheaper and easier, just like it does for alternative energy sources.
Modern Republicans have been doing a lot to suppress black voting, so you're wrong.
Each party obviously tries to discourage supporters of the opposing party from going to the polls, and supporters of its own party to turn out; that is, parties act based on party affiliation, not based on race.
Of course, many of the claims of "voter suppression" by Democrats are bogus anyway; for example, voter ID laws are not just sensible in any democracy and widely used abroad, they also do not result in "voter suppression".
You might want to check the 1950s and 1960s to see which people were involved in the big change in the legal climate that occurred then.
See, I used to believe that. But in reality, there was no big change: progressives were racist before then 1960's and progressives have been racist since the 1960's, it's just that their racism has changed from "you're inferior, therefore we're going to segregate you" to "you're inferior, therefore we're going to make you welfare dependent wards of the state".
Conservatives, Republicans, and libertarians have simply been consistent: race should not be a factor in government, no matter whether you're advocating enslaving people or whether you're advocating making people welfare dependent.
Are you kidding? Progressives and the American left have been the primary proponents of government treating people differently based on race. Segregation and anti miscegenation laws were progressive policies supposedly intended to help everybody. Today, affirmative action and racial quotas are again favorites of the left.
With the left, it's always good intentions and lousy outcomes.
ALL the genes put together had a total of 5% impact on Intelligence. That means an IQ of 105 vs 100. That is a minor effect.
They aren't asking the question of whether IQ has a strong genetic component, that's already known. They are asking which genes might be responsible for the genetic component that we already know exists.
And they did over 300 tests. So if they are using a 4% significance, that would be 4*3= 12 false positives.
Why don't you read RTFA? Their p-values are 10^-6 to 10^-8. In addition, they seem to be using software and techniques specifically intended for these kinds of analyses. Now, there could still be plenty of things wrong with their analysis, but your criticism is not valid.
Furthermore, they are not asking "are there any genes that influence IQ", they are asking "given that we know that IQ has a strong genetic component, which genes might be responsible".
The fact that they didn't find any strong correlations but a lot of weak correlations is a useful result in itself; you simply seem to misinterpret what the result actually means.
It's hard quantify intelligence and hard to suss how much of it is hereditary and how much of it is environment.
The heritability of IQ is usually quantified as the portion of the variance in IQ accounted for by genetics. That's about 0.75 for adults, making it very strongly genetically determined.
IQ test is an aggregate, a lot of questions testing different aspects of logical thinking and pattern spotting.
That's what IQ tests do, but that's not what they measure. What IQ tests measure is the factor that's common to all those different expressions of intelligence.
Trying to find a single gene for IQ is a bit like trying to find which single screw makes a car engine work
Researchers aren't trying to find "a single gene", they are looking for many genes, each of which individually contributes a little to what we observe as IQ.
Instead, try correlating the genes against results from distinct questions from the IQ test. That way you can get genes responsible for specific aspects of IQ
By definition, there is no such thing as "specific aspects of IQ", so that doesn't make sense.
All true, but not really all that relevant. They weren't trying to show that IQ has a strong genetic component, that's been established for a long time, they were trying to identify genes that actually were responsible for that genetic component. As such, finding many genes, each of which has a small effect, is consistent with what we already know about the genetics of IQ. That is, their paper effectively says "this set of genes (and more like them) could account for the genetics of IQ that we actually observe". If they hadn't found these genes, we'd still believe that IQ was genetically determined, but we'd have to look for more complex genetic explanations (more, even weaker genes, or more complex interactions between genes).
Even if they didn't do anything else, their p-levels are 10^-6 to 10^-8. You're welcome to try to explain how to produce that with "p-hacking" in this study.
In addition, it's clear that intelligence is highly heritable, so why wouldn't the default conclusion be (absent other evidence) that the most strongly correlated markers are the ones that are responsible?
There is a long ugly history of people trying to wrap racism in scientific jargon.
The "ugly history" and the "people" you're talking about are government policies and government agencies saying "because group X is less intelligent on average, we need to adopt policy Y". But the problem there is not with the premise (which may or may not be true), it's with the conclusion. And it's racist and harmful whether policy Y is "anti-miscegenation" or "affirmative action", both (historically) favorites of progressives.
Even so, the inputs decrease steadily for a unit of output, so even it it were a problem (it isn't already), it would eventually cease to be one anyway.
Well, so we don't need government subsidies, tax breaks, or other market interference then: renewables will succeed on their own when prices have come down enough.
We could employ even more people in the renewable energy industry if we generated energy (renewably!) by paying people to run in human hamster wheels coupled to generators! Lots of jobs and green energy! What's not to like?
In the real world the immigration courts are already backlogged [cnn.com] and underfunded.
That would be a relevant statistic if most deportations involved courts and if immigration courts were necessary for due process; neither of those is true. Most deportations already take place without court proceedings, and most of the court cases of illegal immigrants are not required for due process for deportation.
In addition, court costs are simply not a substantial part of deportation costs to begin with, detention is, so increasing funding for immigration courts to allow faster adjudication would greatly decrease the cost of deportations.
Not giving people the opportunity to prove they live here legally is of course an even worse idea.
It's pretty simple: immigration asks you whether you are a (1) natural born citizen, (2) a naturalized citizen, (3) or a non-citizen legal resident. If it's (3), you are legally responsible for carrying the necessary documentation on you at all times. If it's (2) and (3), in addition, the federal government can just look you up in their records. If you're in category (1), in most cases, your case can be disposed of quickly as well.
The due process is different but not nonexistent.
But it's not relevant to the cost of deportation because almost all deportation cases are legally pretty straightforward.
the law does not currently allow for a "streamlined" deportation procedure
Streamlining the deportation process and due process have little to do with one another; your objection is a red herring.
You're proposing a police state on a scale that would make Stalin smile,
No police state needed, just the existing laws, existing agencies, and existing requirements.
Streamlining that process means eliminating due process.
Deportation isn't a criminal punishment and doesn't deprive people of life, liberty, or property, so different "due process" standards apply. That's why legal immigrants like myself are extremely careful to cross all their t's and dot all their i's: simply clerical mistakes can get you excluded from the US with little recourse.
Arguing that the net lifetime output of these people is less than the cost of deporting them is farcical
If "net lifetime output" includes social welfare spending on them, it is absolutely true.
And as a supposed libertarian, how you reconcile this massive expansion of government with your own ideals is painful to imagine.
The social welfare state is intrinsically illiberal, so it's not surprising that as long as we have a massive social welfare state, we need massive immigration enforcement. I'd be happy to get rid of both the massive social welfare state and massive immigration enforcement, but keeping one and getting rid of the other is not a libertarian position.
Heather Metcalf, mathematician, computer scientist, social scientist, and also the director of research for the Association for Women in Science.
Scientists have scientific results and publish them; if you check Metcalf's scientific publication record, it's pretty much non-existent.
Science should "clean up its act" by making it clear that people like that are not scientists, don't speak for scientists, and aren't welcome in the scientific community.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that there is this secret stash of documents that is finally going to reveal Trump's secret identity as Dr. Evil and is going to doom his presidency is wishful thinking. Trump's computers and people around Trump were under surveillance for months under the Obama administration, and Trump has many people in his administration, among Republicans, and in his organization who hate him; if there had been anything substantive, it would have come out by now, either in leaks or in official investigations.
The reason benefits are tied to employers is because government regulations and tax incentives make it so. That's why we now need even more regulations to deal with gig workers, and preexisting conditions, etc. And don't be fooled: people like Mark Warner will use this kind of regulation as yet another opportunity to pay off supporters, lobbyists, and special interests, including the gig economy corporations themselves.
Health insurance, disability insurance, etc. should be like car insurance: tied to the individual, with all the tax breaks and support going to the individual, not his employers. And people who are destitute should get simple financial support, not get caught up in big government-run programs.
Why would the alternatives become more costly? Technology makes the discovery and extraction of fossil fuels cheaper and easier, just like it does for alternative energy sources.
Each party obviously tries to discourage supporters of the opposing party from going to the polls, and supporters of its own party to turn out; that is, parties act based on party affiliation, not based on race.
Of course, many of the claims of "voter suppression" by Democrats are bogus anyway; for example, voter ID laws are not just sensible in any democracy and widely used abroad, they also do not result in "voter suppression".
See, I used to believe that. But in reality, there was no big change: progressives were racist before then 1960's and progressives have been racist since the 1960's, it's just that their racism has changed from "you're inferior, therefore we're going to segregate you" to "you're inferior, therefore we're going to make you welfare dependent wards of the state".
Conservatives, Republicans, and libertarians have simply been consistent: race should not be a factor in government, no matter whether you're advocating enslaving people or whether you're advocating making people welfare dependent.
Are you kidding? Progressives and the American left have been the primary proponents of government treating people differently based on race. Segregation and anti miscegenation laws were progressive policies supposedly intended to help everybody. Today, affirmative action and racial quotas are again favorites of the left.
With the left, it's always good intentions and lousy outcomes.
Other countries do.
Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, democracy isn't supposed to be tyranny of the majority.
I think Trump voters would agree.
So, everybody is happy.
... is full of eels.
What can I say, I get paid what I'm worth.
They aren't asking the question of whether IQ has a strong genetic component, that's already known. They are asking which genes might be responsible for the genetic component that we already know exists.
Why don't you read RTFA? Their p-values are 10^-6 to 10^-8. In addition, they seem to be using software and techniques specifically intended for these kinds of analyses. Now, there could still be plenty of things wrong with their analysis, but your criticism is not valid.
Furthermore, they are not asking "are there any genes that influence IQ", they are asking "given that we know that IQ has a strong genetic component, which genes might be responsible".
The fact that they didn't find any strong correlations but a lot of weak correlations is a useful result in itself; you simply seem to misinterpret what the result actually means.
The heritability of IQ is usually quantified as the portion of the variance in IQ accounted for by genetics. That's about 0.75 for adults, making it very strongly genetically determined.
That's what IQ tests do, but that's not what they measure. What IQ tests measure is the factor that's common to all those different expressions of intelligence.
Researchers aren't trying to find "a single gene", they are looking for many genes, each of which individually contributes a little to what we observe as IQ.
By definition, there is no such thing as "specific aspects of IQ", so that doesn't make sense.
All true, but not really all that relevant. They weren't trying to show that IQ has a strong genetic component, that's been established for a long time, they were trying to identify genes that actually were responsible for that genetic component. As such, finding many genes, each of which has a small effect, is consistent with what we already know about the genetics of IQ. That is, their paper effectively says "this set of genes (and more like them) could account for the genetics of IQ that we actually observe". If they hadn't found these genes, we'd still believe that IQ was genetically determined, but we'd have to look for more complex genetic explanations (more, even weaker genes, or more complex interactions between genes).
True, but the p-values here are 10^-6 to 10^-8.
Even if they didn't do anything else, their p-levels are 10^-6 to 10^-8. You're welcome to try to explain how to produce that with "p-hacking" in this study.
In addition, it's clear that intelligence is highly heritable, so why wouldn't the default conclusion be (absent other evidence) that the most strongly correlated markers are the ones that are responsible?
The "ugly history" and the "people" you're talking about are government policies and government agencies saying "because group X is less intelligent on average, we need to adopt policy Y". But the problem there is not with the premise (which may or may not be true), it's with the conclusion. And it's racist and harmful whether policy Y is "anti-miscegenation" or "affirmative action", both (historically) favorites of progressives.
Well, so we don't need government subsidies, tax breaks, or other market interference then: renewables will succeed on their own when prices have come down enough.
We didn't subsidize the purchase of CPUs.
We could employ even more people in the renewable energy industry if we generated energy (renewably!) by paying people to run in human hamster wheels coupled to generators! Lots of jobs and green energy! What's not to like?
That would be a relevant statistic if most deportations involved courts and if immigration courts were necessary for due process; neither of those is true. Most deportations already take place without court proceedings, and most of the court cases of illegal immigrants are not required for due process for deportation.
In addition, court costs are simply not a substantial part of deportation costs to begin with, detention is, so increasing funding for immigration courts to allow faster adjudication would greatly decrease the cost of deportations.
It's pretty simple: immigration asks you whether you are a (1) natural born citizen, (2) a naturalized citizen, (3) or a non-citizen legal resident. If it's (3), you are legally responsible for carrying the necessary documentation on you at all times. If it's (2) and (3), in addition, the federal government can just look you up in their records. If you're in category (1), in most cases, your case can be disposed of quickly as well.
But it's not relevant to the cost of deportation because almost all deportation cases are legally pretty straightforward.
Streamlining the deportation process and due process have little to do with one another; your objection is a red herring.
No police state needed, just the existing laws, existing agencies, and existing requirements.
Deportation isn't a criminal punishment and doesn't deprive people of life, liberty, or property, so different "due process" standards apply. That's why legal immigrants like myself are extremely careful to cross all their t's and dot all their i's: simply clerical mistakes can get you excluded from the US with little recourse.
If "net lifetime output" includes social welfare spending on them, it is absolutely true.
The social welfare state is intrinsically illiberal, so it's not surprising that as long as we have a massive social welfare state, we need massive immigration enforcement. I'd be happy to get rid of both the massive social welfare state and massive immigration enforcement, but keeping one and getting rid of the other is not a libertarian position.
Scientists have scientific results and publish them; if you check Metcalf's scientific publication record, it's pretty much non-existent.
Science should "clean up its act" by making it clear that people like that are not scientists, don't speak for scientists, and aren't welcome in the scientific community.