So, we know, categorically, that less calories and more exercise creates increased hunger.
We "know, categorically" nothing of the sort. Research on the relationship between exercise and appetite suggests it's at least dependent on the type of exercise, and that some exercise actually decreases appetite. See, for example, here and here.
Though this may not have been your intent, your "advice for fat people" comes across as though they should avoid exercise and focus on carb management. That's not sound advice. Though I don't disagree that cutting carbs within reason is a piece of the puzzle, there are many benefits beyond weight management to rational levels of exercise. And THAT is something we "know, categorically."
But the drug users aren't half of the 1005 that died -- they're half of the much larger population that was tased. The 1005 fatalities are almost certainly sub-1% of the total tased population (in the study I linked, 2 people out of 610 died, or 0.3% -- I can't find in the Reuters article the total number of tasings from which they gleaned the 1005, which probably means it was in a similarly low range and thus not helpful to their narrative).
So think of it more like 300,000 total tasings, out of which about 150,000 would have been strung out on drugs and 1005 died. Those numbers in and of themselves aren't even remotely suspicious.
So, what you're saying is that this guy, this parasite, that Trump appointed has been making a nice living by playing both sides of the patent dysfunction.
No, I wasn't saying anything of the sort. I was saying that your position that he doesn't defend companies against patent trolls is utter crap. Your response was to shamelessly jump to another lilypad and come up with some new inflammatory rhetoric.
Your new position might possibly have some merit if he had both represented and defended against patent trolls, but that doesn't appear to be the case and I haven't seen you suggest it.
As it is, this seems to leave you saying that we wouldn't want someone who is well-versed in legitimate companies' interests in both sides of patent disputes, and thus understands all the considerations at play from the various stakeholders, to be in charge of the Patent Office. That makes about as much sense as about anything else I read from you, I suppose.
Does that sound like someone who is "defending against patent trolls to you?
Well, you conveniently snipped your quote to omit the case where he defended eBay again Acacia, for one. Here are some others:
1. Defended LG against Imperium IP Holdings. 2. Defended RIM against Advanced Display Technologies of Texas. 3. Defended RIM against Negotiated Data Solutions. 4. Defended RIM against Unified Messaging Solutions. 5. Defended RIM against Golden Bridge Technology.
Something is almost certainly wrong with the presented figures.
Only if you presume the answer to the very question at hand. I don't know why those figures would be surprising at all when you consider the fact that a significant percentage (in one study, nearly half) of tased people were strung out on drugs.
Citations are appropriate when making outlandish or extraordinary claims
Exactly -- outlandish or extraordinary claims like, "the company has aggressively challenged any medical examiner who determines that a Taser killed someone or contributed to their death."
In this case, a simple Google search for 'Taser challenges medical examiners' turns up - in addition to the Reuters article mentioned in the original post - dozens of cases
I think you mean dozens of hits that all talk about the same handful of cases that I acknowledged in my comment.
The only "dozens of cases" I see out there (actually over a hundred) are the number of times Axon has been sued and had to defend itself in court. Defending oneself when taken to court is, of course, a far different issue than spontaneously challenging every single medical examiner's determination as you claim.
Lots of police departments have dropped tasers because they were paying out so much money for lawsuits because of too many cops abusing their authority.
If that's true, it sounds like our system of checks and balances is working as intended. And other departments, seeing the proverbial heads on the poles, will drop tasers before they too start bleeding cash. That pretty much makes the rest of your comment superfluous.
The first damn step to a fix is to take away immunity. Why is a city (thus the taxpayers) paying out millions in lawsuits when the cop clearly violated the law and written procedures?
That's already how immunity works. I suspect the real reason you're dissatisfied with the current state of affairs is that immunity is determined based on whether or not the officer's conduct "violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), as opposed to post-hoc determinations by the media, activist groups, and hotshot internet commentators that Something Bad Happened and therefore by definition the officer was in the wrong.
So even the most generous reading of these statistics stills leaves you with Tasers being more than six times deadlier than the company has ever admitted.
That's a strange use of the term "most generous." The most generous reading of these statistics is that doctors arbitrarily included the tasers among a laundry list of other factors simply because tasers were used, and the tasers actually caused none of the deaths.
After a splashy headline implying a "mounting toll" of death by taser, they strangely enough don't bother to break out the statistics where the taser was actually ruled the cause of death:
In 153 of those cases, or more than a fifth, the Taser was cited as a cause or contributing factor in the death, typically as one of several elements triggering the fatality.
I think we can safely predict the article would have separated out and trumpeted the actual numbers of deaths where the taser was actually ruled the cause had there been very many -- or maybe even any.
Remember the era when eBay commissions were based only on the sales price? Half the products on eBay were a penny plus $14.99 shipping, $49.99 shipping, etc. etc.
This is pretty much the opposite -- "free delivery" for a product overpriced by 40-50%.
That's the blowback from refusing to even hold hearings on a replacement for Scalia until "the right person" could make that appointment.
Well, no. Your very own article points out the fundamental difference: "Democrats are requiring that Republicans check all the procedural boxes on most nominees, even those they intend to eventually support."
So they're not doing it because they think the appointees shouldn't be confirmed, and they have no expectation that their behavior is going to change the outcome. They're doing it purely to delay.
In five years of group lawsuits, we tallied an average of $220 million paid to 6.8 million consumers per year. Yet in the arbitration cases we studied, on average, 16 people per year recovered less than $100,000 total.
Sooo... for lawsuits, 6.8 consumers recovered $220 million -- that's $32.35 per consumer. Lawyers probably get around $100 million.
For arbitration, 16 consumers recovered around $100,000 -- that's over $6,000 per consumer. Lawyers get little to nothing.
I'm sure you can find more if you don't rely on people spoon feeding you common knowledge.
There's no spoon feeding to it, brother -- I'm well aware of all the anecdotal hysteria out there. I'm just of the ever so humble opinion that anecdotal hysteria shouldn't be the basis for social policy. Get back with me when you have some actual data. I won't be holding my breath.
You're clearly confused. Why don't you try carefully rereading what I asked for: "documented death from casual contact with peanuts (as opposed to actually eating them)."
Your 1943 paper says nothing about peanuts. Your Wikipedia article gloms together "ingestion of or exposure to peanuts, wheat, nuts, certain types of seafood like shellfish, milk, and eggs" and thus provides no actual examples of death from casual contact with peanuts. The list of specific deaths in your "no nuts" (if only) article is from people actually eating them.
Contrast that with the article I cited, which actually speaks to the issue I raised (13 U.S. deaths over 10 years, and the linked Forbes article says all 13 were from ingestion, just like your "no nuts" list).
Citing a huffinton post article... that is not even funny.
Says the person who cited Wikipedia and an activist moms website? Come on.
In what damn dream world do you live?
One in which I use precise words in the English language to communicate precise concepts, supported with evidence specifically linked to those concepts. You might try that sometime in place of your knee-jerk histrionics.
Because people who have peanut allergies who aren't exposed to any peanuts have successfully not died from their peanut allergy 100% of the time.
So people who aren't exposed to any peanuts don't die from exposure to peanuts. That's an utter truism and says nothing about the underlying question.
BTW, if anyone tells you their kid will die at the slightest contact with something peanut, they're lying. Nobody is that allergic to peanuts. It's all in their heads.
You're a fucking idiot.
If it's really that clear-cut, why don't you skip the invective and spend a few keystrokes actually providing some evidence of documented death from casual contact with peanuts (as opposed to actually eating them)? It doesn't look particularly good for you from what I can see.
And most likely discovered that instead of $1600 she would have to pay $2500 or more for a decent 1-bedroom apartment in any place that BART serves, or that is otherwise within a 1-hour commute of SF downtown.
I'm breaking my typical rule and responding to an AC post because you just made it too easy.
Using the link I posted above, you can very easily and intuitively end up here, which has one-bedroom apartments for $1400, or TWO-bedroom apartments for $1325-$1900, 58 minutes from her work.
The authors of the article don't understand that "whisky" (from Scotland) is not the same as "whiskey" (from anywhere else.)
The discussion that the water opens the whisky up and makes the guaiacol more aromatic does not apply to whiskey that does not have a lot of this chemical in it, that is to say NOT SCOTCH.
Huh? The article's introduction specifically says that guaiacol "is much more common in Scottish whiskies than in American or Irish ones."
She chose to move 65 miles further away from San Francisco so she could live in a larger place and save $600 a month in rent (on an income of $81,000, keep in mind). FTFA:
Ms. James used to live closer, in Alameda, Calif., about 15 miles across San Francisco Bay from her work. But three years ago, after a developer bought her building and evicted Ms. James and her neighbors, she moved to Stockton.
Stockton has more for the money: Ms. James pays $1,000 a month in rent for her three-bedroom house, compared with $1,600 for the one-bedroom apartment she had in Alameda.
There are plenty of options a lot closer to San Francisco, for less than what she was paying before, and with more space than she had before. And looking at her old rate of $1600/month (which is still less less than 24% of her income) opens up the possibilities even more.
So call it what it is: she made a deliberate lifestyle/money/time tradeoff. We all do that sort of thing all the time, and don't get dramatic write-ups in the Times for it.
So what does this mean? It means any job paying less than approximately $15 per hour is NOT LIVABLE. You will starve, or end up homeless, or some sort of big problem. It's not sustainable.
What a bunch of ivory-tower hogwash. Full time at $15/hr is just above the median per capita income. You're essentially saying that about half the people in this country are destined to starve/end up homeless/whatever "some sort of big problem" means (but surely something ominous given the context).
Tons of people go through their entire lives doing just fine on far less than what you call "starvation wages." You need to get out more.
Even the quote that you provided proves that it's false. The Obama administration request was to provide copies of articles, news stories, etc. that seemed to be inaccurate or questionable.
Read it again: "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
That language absolutely covers individual emails, blog posts, etc., not just "articles and news stories."
Slashdot Mirror
So, we know, categorically, that less calories and more exercise creates increased hunger.
We "know, categorically" nothing of the sort. Research on the relationship between exercise and appetite suggests it's at least dependent on the type of exercise, and that some exercise actually decreases appetite. See, for example, here and here.
Though this may not have been your intent, your "advice for fat people" comes across as though they should avoid exercise and focus on carb management. That's not sound advice. Though I don't disagree that cutting carbs within reason is a piece of the puzzle, there are many benefits beyond weight management to rational levels of exercise. And THAT is something we "know, categorically."
Seriously, you're citing basketball as the origin of this term?
Yeah, if that isn't a sign of the miserable death of Slashdot as we knew it, I'm not sure what is.
But the drug users aren't half of the 1005 that died -- they're half of the much larger population that was tased. The 1005 fatalities are almost certainly sub-1% of the total tased population (in the study I linked, 2 people out of 610 died, or 0.3% -- I can't find in the Reuters article the total number of tasings from which they gleaned the 1005, which probably means it was in a similarly low range and thus not helpful to their narrative).
So think of it more like 300,000 total tasings, out of which about 150,000 would have been strung out on drugs and 1005 died. Those numbers in and of themselves aren't even remotely suspicious.
So, what you're saying is that this guy, this parasite, that Trump appointed has been making a nice living by playing both sides of the patent dysfunction.
No, I wasn't saying anything of the sort. I was saying that your position that he doesn't defend companies against patent trolls is utter crap. Your response was to shamelessly jump to another lilypad and come up with some new inflammatory rhetoric.
Your new position might possibly have some merit if he had both represented and defended against patent trolls, but that doesn't appear to be the case and I haven't seen you suggest it.
As it is, this seems to leave you saying that we wouldn't want someone who is well-versed in legitimate companies' interests in both sides of patent disputes, and thus understands all the considerations at play from the various stakeholders, to be in charge of the Patent Office. That makes about as much sense as about anything else I read from you, I suppose.
Does that sound like someone who is "defending against patent trolls to you?
Well, you conveniently snipped your quote to omit the case where he defended eBay again Acacia, for one. Here are some others:
1. Defended LG against Imperium IP Holdings.
2. Defended RIM against Advanced Display Technologies of Texas.
3. Defended RIM against Negotiated Data Solutions.
4. Defended RIM against Unified Messaging Solutions.
5. Defended RIM against Golden Bridge Technology.
Something is almost certainly wrong with the presented figures.
Only if you presume the answer to the very question at hand. I don't know why those figures would be surprising at all when you consider the fact that a significant percentage (in one study, nearly half) of tased people were strung out on drugs.
Citations are appropriate when making outlandish or extraordinary claims
Exactly -- outlandish or extraordinary claims like, "the company has aggressively challenged any medical examiner who determines that a Taser killed someone or contributed to their death."
In this case, a simple Google search for 'Taser challenges medical examiners' turns up - in addition to the Reuters article mentioned in the original post - dozens of cases
I think you mean dozens of hits that all talk about the same handful of cases that I acknowledged in my comment.
The only "dozens of cases" I see out there (actually over a hundred) are the number of times Axon has been sued and had to defend itself in court. Defending oneself when taken to court is, of course, a far different issue than spontaneously challenging every single medical examiner's determination as you claim.
How tiresome.
Agreed. Put up or shut up.
Lots of police departments have dropped tasers because they were paying out so much money for lawsuits because of too many cops abusing their authority.
If that's true, it sounds like our system of checks and balances is working as intended. And other departments, seeing the proverbial heads on the poles, will drop tasers before they too start bleeding cash. That pretty much makes the rest of your comment superfluous.
The first damn step to a fix is to take away immunity. Why is a city (thus the taxpayers) paying out millions in lawsuits when the cop clearly violated the law and written procedures?
That's already how immunity works. I suspect the real reason you're dissatisfied with the current state of affairs is that immunity is determined based on whether or not the officer's conduct "violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), as opposed to post-hoc determinations by the media, activist groups, and hotshot internet commentators that Something Bad Happened and therefore by definition the officer was in the wrong.
Higher price plus "free" delivery is identical to how "free" shipping works on any ecommerce site.
Except for the inconvenient fact that you pay an annual membership fee for Amazon Prime. Keep rubbing those brain cells.
So even the most generous reading of these statistics stills leaves you with Tasers being more than six times deadlier than the company has ever admitted.
That's a strange use of the term "most generous." The most generous reading of these statistics is that doctors arbitrarily included the tasers among a laundry list of other factors simply because tasers were used, and the tasers actually caused none of the deaths.
the company has aggressively challenged any medical examiner who determines that a Taser killed someone or contributed to their death
Citation needed. Even the hit pieces are only claiming a low-single-digit number of challenges.
After a splashy headline implying a "mounting toll" of death by taser, they strangely enough don't bother to break out the statistics where the taser was actually ruled the cause of death:
In 153 of those cases, or more than a fifth, the Taser was cited as a cause or contributing factor in the death, typically as one of several elements triggering the fatality.
I think we can safely predict the article would have separated out and trumpeted the actual numbers of deaths where the taser was actually ruled the cause had there been very many -- or maybe even any.
Remember the era when eBay commissions were based only on the sales price? Half the products on eBay were a penny plus $14.99 shipping, $49.99 shipping, etc. etc.
This is pretty much the opposite -- "free delivery" for a product overpriced by 40-50%.
that the Chinese government finally appreciates the benefit of communication free of surveillance.
That's the blowback from refusing to even hold hearings on a replacement for Scalia until "the right person" could make that appointment.
Well, no. Your very own article points out the fundamental difference: "Democrats are requiring that Republicans check all the procedural boxes on most nominees, even those they intend to eventually support ."
So they're not doing it because they think the appointees shouldn't be confirmed, and they have no expectation that their behavior is going to change the outcome. They're doing it purely to delay.
Another great way to deal with paranoia is not to create something massively illegal in the first place.
In five years of group lawsuits, we tallied an average of $220 million paid to 6.8 million consumers per year. Yet in the arbitration cases we studied, on average, 16 people per year recovered less than $100,000 total.
Sooo... for lawsuits, 6.8 consumers recovered $220 million -- that's $32.35 per consumer. Lawyers probably get around $100 million.
For arbitration, 16 consumers recovered around $100,000 -- that's over $6,000 per consumer. Lawyers get little to nothing.
Let's not be naive -- this is a push by a long-time, high-flying lawyer to increase the volume of class action lawsuits that are generally easy money for law firms and, as shown by his very own data, don't award meaningful money to consumers.
I'm sure you can find more if you don't rely on people spoon feeding you common knowledge.
There's no spoon feeding to it, brother -- I'm well aware of all the anecdotal hysteria out there. I'm just of the ever so humble opinion that anecdotal hysteria shouldn't be the basis for social policy. Get back with me when you have some actual data. I won't be holding my breath.
You're clearly confused. Why don't you try carefully rereading what I asked for: " documented death from casual contact with peanuts (as opposed to actually eating them) ."
Your 1943 paper says nothing about peanuts. Your Wikipedia article gloms together "ingestion of or exposure to peanuts, wheat, nuts, certain types of seafood like shellfish, milk, and eggs" and thus provides no actual examples of death from casual contact with peanuts. The list of specific deaths in your "no nuts" (if only) article is from people actually eating them.
Contrast that with the article I cited, which actually speaks to the issue I raised (13 U.S. deaths over 10 years, and the linked Forbes article says all 13 were from ingestion, just like your "no nuts" list).
Citing a huffinton post article ... that is not even funny.
Says the person who cited Wikipedia and an activist moms website? Come on.
In what damn dream world do you live?
One in which I use precise words in the English language to communicate precise concepts, supported with evidence specifically linked to those concepts. You might try that sometime in place of your knee-jerk histrionics.
Because people who have peanut allergies who aren't exposed to any peanuts have successfully not died from their peanut allergy 100% of the time.
So people who aren't exposed to any peanuts don't die from exposure to peanuts. That's an utter truism and says nothing about the underlying question.
BTW, if anyone tells you their kid will die at the slightest contact with something peanut, they're lying. Nobody is that allergic to peanuts. It's all in their heads.
You're a fucking idiot.
If it's really that clear-cut, why don't you skip the invective and spend a few keystrokes actually providing some evidence of documented death from casual contact with peanuts (as opposed to actually eating them)? It doesn't look particularly good for you from what I can see.
And most likely discovered that instead of $1600 she would have to pay $2500 or more for a decent 1-bedroom apartment in any place that BART serves, or that is otherwise within a 1-hour commute of SF downtown.
I'm breaking my typical rule and responding to an AC post because you just made it too easy.
Using the link I posted above, you can very easily and intuitively end up here, which has one-bedroom apartments for $1400, or TWO-bedroom apartments for $1325-$1900, 58 minutes from her work.
You clearly didn't even look.
The authors of the article don't understand that "whisky" (from Scotland) is not the same as "whiskey" (from anywhere else.)
The discussion that the water opens the whisky up and makes the guaiacol more aromatic does not apply to whiskey that does not have a lot of this chemical in it, that is to say NOT SCOTCH.
Huh? The article's introduction specifically says that guaiacol "is much more common in Scottish whiskies than in American or Irish ones."
She chose to move 65 miles further away from San Francisco so she could live in a larger place and save $600 a month in rent (on an income of $81,000, keep in mind). FTFA:
Ms. James used to live closer, in Alameda, Calif., about 15 miles across San Francisco Bay from her work. But three years ago, after a developer bought her building and evicted Ms. James and her neighbors, she moved to Stockton.
Stockton has more for the money: Ms. James pays $1,000 a month in rent for her three-bedroom house, compared with $1,600 for the one-bedroom apartment she had in Alameda.
There are plenty of options a lot closer to San Francisco, for less than what she was paying before, and with more space than she had before. And looking at her old rate of $1600/month (which is still less less than 24% of her income) opens up the possibilities even more.
So call it what it is: she made a deliberate lifestyle/money/time tradeoff. We all do that sort of thing all the time, and don't get dramatic write-ups in the Times for it.
So what does this mean? It means any job paying less than approximately $15 per hour is NOT LIVABLE. You will starve, or end up homeless, or some sort of big problem. It's not sustainable.
What a bunch of ivory-tower hogwash. Full time at $15/hr is just above the median per capita income. You're essentially saying that about half the people in this country are destined to starve/end up homeless/whatever "some sort of big problem" means (but surely something ominous given the context).
Tons of people go through their entire lives doing just fine on far less than what you call "starvation wages." You need to get out more.
Even the quote that you provided proves that it's false. The Obama administration request was to provide copies of articles, news stories, etc. that seemed to be inaccurate or questionable.
Read it again: "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation . Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
That language absolutely covers individual emails, blog posts, etc., not just "articles and news stories."