Typical propaganda and typical Anti-Semetic bullshit.
Anti-Israeli != antisemitic. If you think Israeli = Jewish (ethnically or religiously), you might want to take a look around (assuming you're in Israel). If you think all the non-Jewish Israelis should be kicked out or stripped of their citizenship, you are without exception racist. You would think we would have learned that racism never bodes well for Jews. Hamas is a cancerous organization, yes, but Netanyahu and his Likud buddies are treading on ICC thin ice too. Just because Hamas is worse does not make others better.
And as for support for Palestine, fine, and dandy, but you should know, that they are REALLY not very nice to all kinds of people, who aren't just like them.
Palestinian != Muslim != Jewish hating Muslim. Are you saying that Palestinian Christians and Jews hate Christians and Jews but love Muslim terrorists? Palestine is majority muslim, and Israel is majority Jewish, sure, but, assuming you're Jewish, take a stroll into East Jerusalem and see how many of those Jew-hating non-Israelis in identity limbo treat you like crap. Count them. And count the number of people who treat you like a person. Sure Palestinians have a long way to go on a number of fronts (women, gays, etc. etc.) but don't go throwing stones just yet -- the fully liberated woman and gay pride parades are not welcomed with open arms by everyone in Israel either.
I will NEVER understand why any Jew is a liberal.
It's tough to get out of the box and realize that everyone, including conservatives, is wrong some of the time, I know. Feel free to stay in it and close the lid -- but only if you don't bother the rest of us.
That's part of the problem - the other is that there are too many people who claim to know what they are doing when it comes to privacy and security, too few who actually do, and no one who is hiring can tell the difference. Getting a cert or a degree does not make you an expert.
I agree with respect to all of your points. Fortunately, the number of cases in the US where there are mass emergencies is minuscule. Unfortunately, it fails to address cases such as:
1. You are on-call for emergencies.
2. You are party to an external emergency (loved one in car crash, you are part of an emergency response team which is kind of like being permanently on-call).
3. You use your cell phone as a medical device (e.g., monitoring artificial pancreas function)
I would probably not attend a concert that banned my cell phone for reasons (1) and (2), yet would LOVE to be at an even where no one took their phone out! We should just be allowed to bring wiffle bats and pummel anyone who holds their phone above their chest height. Even I don't need to take the call there -- I just need to know I have to step out of the concert. Back to pagers I guess!
As more phones get validated for medical device usage, it will be interesting to see what happens in all paces that "ban" cell phones. We provide patients in clinical trials with the equivalent of a doctor's note for now.
A: Only if you don't care if everyone in the world sees it and tries to use it against you.
Funny, but largely not true.
All you need to do is count the number of breaches on medical data and you will find a startling fact: On-prem (i.e., non-Cloud) is two orders of magnitude higher risk to you, the patient, than the Cloud. Securing data in AWS / Azure / EMC hosted environments is easier and safer than on-prem.
Is it possible to screw up in the cloud? Yes. Is it possible for the NSA/CIA/FBI/Local law enforcement to get at your data through 3rd parties that are hosting it? Yup, but same with on-prem. Does the NSA/CIA/etc... already have access to all data on the cloud? Nope. Not even close.
The cloud is not a happy safe place, but it is MUCH safer than any of the current alternatives.
Since it says the couple is suing, I'm more interested in knowing how the husband is managing to pull this one off. There's a snapchat trophy for that, right?
The answer is we don't know, and those who say "no way" and those that say "absolutely" have little evidence to support or contradict them, since it's all speculation.
If we "spend" 2-6T of CO2 for a mere 1% chance that if adopted widely it will save emissions from meat production by an ultra-paltry 1 in 10,0000 (300,000T/year), even factoring the risk, it's a really smart investment. So do it. Once you're done, then let's talk about how it will save the world from Global Warming.
You sound convincing... except that you (1) make false statements that are not supported by science and (2) are cherry picking in a dangerous way. For example:
The rate of sea level rise over the last 200 years has remained pretty consistent which argues against human activity having any impact on sea level increases.
Hint: Do a google scholar search on this. Less than 1% of papers agree with your statement, and if you know anything about science, then you know that when you get more than 80% of publications saying A, the chances of not-A are already rapidly approaching 0. There is no balanced skepticism on this matter. Period.
Contrary to "climate denier"'s (or, if you'd like "human impact on climate change denier") proclamations, no one ever got tenure, ever won a MacArthur Genius grant, or ever received a Nobel Prize by proving everyone else right, so there is a lot of pressure to be different and "novel" or "shocking" when publishing. There is no conspiracy to push a climate change agenda in the scientific community. If anything, disproving General Relativity or human-made climate change will get you a place in history. 80% consensus is hard to get. We essentially have 99.97% agreement that climate change is (1) real and (2) human made. Don't believe me, do a scholarly article search and pull up the last 10,000, or better yet, look at the two most recent publications that did that for you.
[...] the UN report that based the Himalayan glaciers retreat[...]
Either you did not read the report (likely) or you may want to go back and read it if you believe that the 900 pages of document and over 100,000 pages of supplemental material were all based on quoting one news clip. The last report was based on very literally trillions of data points, from thousands of researchers [mostly funded by governments that WANT TO DENY THE ISSUE such as the US, UK, all OPEC and most developing countries], government agencies, and private organizations. You pick one "error" that is immaterial to the conclusion -- that they misquoted an article even though there are several studies showing that all major glaciers, the Himalayan ones included, are retreating.
Your gravity point is a good analogy to what you have done here. We have an essentially infinite number of causative experiments on the effects of gravity and the rules that govern the force, but because we have not found a way to marry it nicely to a grand unified theory of matter and energy, you seem to believe we should be "skeptical". Skeptical of everything because we have not tied one knot out of a 10^30 knots?
I'm not going to go over all of your points since there are too many, but to those who might feel a rekindling of skepticism, remember that there IS NO significant corroborating evidence that suggests climate change is not human-made while there is so much corroborating evidence that suggests that it is that no single human could read it all. If you know that, and are still skeptical, then, yeah, you should be skeptical that a bowling ball dropped from the Eiffel Tower will fall every time, because, you know, we haven't tied up all the loose ends on gravity yet.
No news source or person is perfectly fair and balanced. That's just not possible, I get that. And NPR does on occasion step into the left-trigger-trap and go all-out lefty progressive commando.
However, I watch and read Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and some more fringy left and right leaning news outlets, cycling through them over weeks or months, because they all kinda suck, I can't take any one source for too long. I have to force myself to. But I think it's important to see how others see the world.
One thing that stands out for U.S. based news outlets: NPR is biased, but is also the least biased. I might even argue it might not have enough bias if it wants more viewers/readers/listeners, since trying to be balanced hurts viewership/readership/listenership. Most humans like clickbait, belief-reaffirming, other-side-sucks environments and trying to show both sides they could be wrong never bodes well for a new outlet; and so NPR will remain at single-digit percentages of the population that use it as a main source of news.
All that being said, if NPR went under, that would be a tragedy for all but the big media companies.
Absolutely not! Please delete this post before any more healthcare CIOs see it.
I like the consulting fees I can command when cleaning up the mess (and sometimes cleaning up the house, because let's face it, if you're a CIO who does not understand security risks, you should not be CIO). I can make more in 3 days after the stuff hits the fan than in 6 months of trying to get an organization to turn the fan off, or at least point it out the window.
P.S., CISO are often just as "expert" as CIOs but with more badges, because they're "certified" in security.... he he he. When your CEO or Board of Directors hires me, you should have already resigned.
That difference is after researchers adjust for factors such as age....
No, the 94.6 is after, the 75.9 is before. Read the study.
Also, being a little pedantic, but in the study they say women in the US make 75.9 cents for every dollar a male makes which translates into a 24.1% "Male pay advantage". No it does not. Sure, 100 - 75.9 = 24.1, but the pay advantage is (or should have been defined as) "how much more does a male make as a percentage". That's the percentage you would have to add to a female wage to get to a male wage. Increasing the female wage by 24.1% does not get you to the male wage of $1.00 ($0.759 * 1.241 = $0.942 and not $1.00). It should have been 100/75.9=1.31752305665 or 31.8%.
Slashdot Mirror
And remember when studying for your SATs: the plural of "anecdote" is "data", and the plural of "opinion" is "science".
I have flash cards for sale if you'd like to ace these trick questions.
Typical propaganda and typical Anti-Semetic bullshit.
Anti-Israeli != antisemitic. If you think Israeli = Jewish (ethnically or religiously), you might want to take a look around (assuming you're in Israel). If you think all the non-Jewish Israelis should be kicked out or stripped of their citizenship, you are without exception racist. You would think we would have learned that racism never bodes well for Jews. Hamas is a cancerous organization, yes, but Netanyahu and his Likud buddies are treading on ICC thin ice too. Just because Hamas is worse does not make others better.
And as for support for Palestine, fine, and dandy, but you should know, that they are REALLY not very nice to all kinds of people, who aren't just like them.
Palestinian != Muslim != Jewish hating Muslim. Are you saying that Palestinian Christians and Jews hate Christians and Jews but love Muslim terrorists? Palestine is majority muslim, and Israel is majority Jewish, sure, but, assuming you're Jewish, take a stroll into East Jerusalem and see how many of those Jew-hating non-Israelis in identity limbo treat you like crap. Count them. And count the number of people who treat you like a person. Sure Palestinians have a long way to go on a number of fronts (women, gays, etc. etc.) but don't go throwing stones just yet -- the fully liberated woman and gay pride parades are not welcomed with open arms by everyone in Israel either.
I will NEVER understand why any Jew is a liberal.
It's tough to get out of the box and realize that everyone, including conservatives, is wrong some of the time, I know. Feel free to stay in it and close the lid -- but only if you don't bother the rest of us.
That's part of the problem - the other is that there are too many people who claim to know what they are doing when it comes to privacy and security, too few who actually do, and no one who is hiring can tell the difference. Getting a cert or a degree does not make you an expert.
I agree with respect to all of your points. Fortunately, the number of cases in the US where there are mass emergencies is minuscule. Unfortunately, it fails to address cases such as:
1. You are on-call for emergencies.
2. You are party to an external emergency (loved one in car crash, you are part of an emergency response team which is kind of like being permanently on-call).
3. You use your cell phone as a medical device (e.g., monitoring artificial pancreas function)
I would probably not attend a concert that banned my cell phone for reasons (1) and (2), yet would LOVE to be at an even where no one took their phone out! We should just be allowed to bring wiffle bats and pummel anyone who holds their phone above their chest height. Even I don't need to take the call there -- I just need to know I have to step out of the concert. Back to pagers I guess!
As more phones get validated for medical device usage, it will be interesting to see what happens in all paces that "ban" cell phones. We provide patients in clinical trials with the equivalent of a doctor's note for now.
Q: Should you store anything in the cloud?
A: Only if you don't care if everyone in the world sees it and tries to use it against you.
Funny, but largely not true.
All you need to do is count the number of breaches on medical data and you will find a startling fact: On-prem (i.e., non-Cloud) is two orders of magnitude higher risk to you, the patient, than the Cloud. Securing data in AWS / Azure / EMC hosted environments is easier and safer than on-prem.
Is it possible to screw up in the cloud? Yes. Is it possible for the NSA/CIA/FBI/Local law enforcement to get at your data through 3rd parties that are hosting it? Yup, but same with on-prem. Does the NSA/CIA/etc... already have access to all data on the cloud? Nope. Not even close.
The cloud is not a happy safe place, but it is MUCH safer than any of the current alternatives.
Anyone see which one is not like the others?
"Printing press will destroy scribe jobs!" -- Scribes
"Loom will destroy textile jobs!" -- Texile workers
"Mechanization will destroy factory jobs!" -- Factory workers
"Robots will destroy factory jobs!" -- Factory workers
"AI will destroy more or less all jobs!" -- The people actually developing the technology
Since it says the couple is suing, I'm more interested in knowing how the husband is managing to pull this one off. There's a snapchat trophy for that, right?
The answer is we don't know, and those who say "no way" and those that say "absolutely" have little evidence to support or contradict them, since it's all speculation.
However, according to the EPA humans have been producing between 5 and 6 GT (billion metric tonnes) or CO2 a year form quite some time. Trying to grow meat in a laboratory and make it scalable like this likely produces less than a few tonnes, so less than 0.0000001% increase. Estimates of the animal agriculturla contribution to this seem to average around 5% (World Resources Institute, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and Pitesky et al. 2009) [NB: I just eyeballed this, didn't actually pull out a spreadsheet].so about 300,000,000T.
If we "spend" 2-6T of CO2 for a mere 1% chance that if adopted widely it will save emissions from meat production by an ultra-paltry 1 in 10,0000 (300,000T/year), even factoring the risk, it's a really smart investment. So do it. Once you're done, then let's talk about how it will save the world from Global Warming.
Women only gyms still employ men as trainers and the like. This proposes to only employ women as drivers. It will be a tough legal sell.
Because whites feel unsafe when driven by non-whites.
For those too lazy to read, it's probably not going to hold in court and these geniuses may be in a world of hurt soon.
You sound convincing... except that you (1) make false statements that are not supported by science and (2) are cherry picking in a dangerous way. For example:
The rate of sea level rise over the last 200 years has remained pretty consistent which argues against human activity having any impact on sea level increases.
Hint: Do a google scholar search on this. Less than 1% of papers agree with your statement, and if you know anything about science, then you know that when you get more than 80% of publications saying A, the chances of not-A are already rapidly approaching 0. There is no balanced skepticism on this matter. Period.
Contrary to "climate denier"'s (or, if you'd like "human impact on climate change denier") proclamations, no one ever got tenure, ever won a MacArthur Genius grant, or ever received a Nobel Prize by proving everyone else right, so there is a lot of pressure to be different and "novel" or "shocking" when publishing. There is no conspiracy to push a climate change agenda in the scientific community. If anything, disproving General Relativity or human-made climate change will get you a place in history. 80% consensus is hard to get. We essentially have 99.97% agreement that climate change is (1) real and (2) human made. Don't believe me, do a scholarly article search and pull up the last 10,000, or better yet, look at the two most recent publications that did that for you.
[...] the UN report that based the Himalayan glaciers retreat[...]
Either you did not read the report (likely) or you may want to go back and read it if you believe that the 900 pages of document and over 100,000 pages of supplemental material were all based on quoting one news clip. The last report was based on very literally trillions of data points, from thousands of researchers [mostly funded by governments that WANT TO DENY THE ISSUE such as the US, UK, all OPEC and most developing countries], government agencies, and private organizations. You pick one "error" that is immaterial to the conclusion -- that they misquoted an article even though there are several studies showing that all major glaciers, the Himalayan ones included, are retreating.
Your gravity point is a good analogy to what you have done here. We have an essentially infinite number of causative experiments on the effects of gravity and the rules that govern the force, but because we have not found a way to marry it nicely to a grand unified theory of matter and energy, you seem to believe we should be "skeptical". Skeptical of everything because we have not tied one knot out of a 10^30 knots?
I'm not going to go over all of your points since there are too many, but to those who might feel a rekindling of skepticism, remember that there IS NO significant corroborating evidence that suggests climate change is not human-made while there is so much corroborating evidence that suggests that it is that no single human could read it all. If you know that, and are still skeptical, then, yeah, you should be skeptical that a bowling ball dropped from the Eiffel Tower will fall every time, because, you know, we haven't tied up all the loose ends on gravity yet.
No news source or person is perfectly fair and balanced. That's just not possible, I get that. And NPR does on occasion step into the left-trigger-trap and go all-out lefty progressive commando.
However, I watch and read Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and some more fringy left and right leaning news outlets, cycling through them over weeks or months, because they all kinda suck, I can't take any one source for too long. I have to force myself to. But I think it's important to see how others see the world.
One thing that stands out for U.S. based news outlets: NPR is biased, but is also the least biased. I might even argue it might not have enough bias if it wants more viewers/readers/listeners, since trying to be balanced hurts viewership/readership/listenership. Most humans like clickbait, belief-reaffirming, other-side-sucks environments and trying to show both sides they could be wrong never bodes well for a new outlet; and so NPR will remain at single-digit percentages of the population that use it as a main source of news.
All that being said, if NPR went under, that would be a tragedy for all but the big media companies.
Absolutely not! Please delete this post before any more healthcare CIOs see it.
I like the consulting fees I can command when cleaning up the mess (and sometimes cleaning up the house, because let's face it, if you're a CIO who does not understand security risks, you should not be CIO). I can make more in 3 days after the stuff hits the fan than in 6 months of trying to get an organization to turn the fan off, or at least point it out the window.
P.S., CISO are often just as "expert" as CIOs but with more badges, because they're "certified" in security.... he he he. When your CEO or Board of Directors hires me, you should have already resigned.
That difference is after researchers adjust for factors such as age ....
No, the 94.6 is after, the 75.9 is before. Read the study.
Also, being a little pedantic, but in the study they say women in the US make 75.9 cents for every dollar a male makes which translates into a 24.1% "Male pay advantage". No it does not. Sure, 100 - 75.9 = 24.1, but the pay advantage is (or should have been defined as) "how much more does a male make as a percentage". That's the percentage you would have to add to a female wage to get to a male wage. Increasing the female wage by 24.1% does not get you to the male wage of $1.00 ($0.759 * 1.241 = $0.942 and not $1.00). It should have been 100/75.9=1.31752305665 or 31.8%.