I am mystified by number of commenters saying that you can't draw conclusions because of the small sample size. This is not a small sample size. The results are robust in part because the data set is so large: 83000 observations.
One of the interesting points of TFA is that it pinpoints where in NIH's two-tier process of review black researchers are eliminated. They are more likely to be eliminated in the first round of peer review than in the second "scoring" round. This is not consistent with them submitting, on average, less worthy projects. If that were the case, they should have the same or a higher attrition rate at the second level of review. Black researchers are also less likely to resubmit grants, which could be a simple lack of mentoring or communication from the NIH.
From TFA:
We find it troubling that the typical measures of scientific achievement—NIH training, previous grants, publications, and citations—do not translate to the same level of application success across race and ethnic groups. Our models controlled for demographics, education and training, employer characteristics, NIH experience, and research productivity, yet they did not explain why blacks are 10 percentage points less likely to receive R01 funding compared with whites.
The middle-aged incompetent white managers brought into the startups were dumb enough to say racist things out loud.
And they preface their statements with "I'm not a racist but..." or "Don't take this the wrong way but..." or the ever-popular "Some of my best friends are black, but..."
This is based on a data set with 83000 grant proposals from about 40000 researchers, every application made to the largest NIH program over a 5 year period. This is not a small sample and it is not a single point in time.
If you flipped a coin 83000 times and got heads 49,800 times I'd say the coin is biased in favor of heads, oh, by about 60%.
I certainly agree that the analysis does not say what the cause is, but the data set has 83000 grant applications and 40000 different researchers. That is not a "small sample size." It's every grant submitted the NIH's largest program over a 5 year period.
Yes, you will have a much chance of getting a job interview with a "white-sounding" name. Study cited towards bottom of article.
http://www.economist.com/node/21526320
The core problem with Parenti's position is that it is simply at odds with the statements, testimony, and shared history of the Tibetan people themselves - the people Parenti is supposedly defending. The view of Tibet that Parenti ascribes to has been commonly put forward by Chinese government officials - particularly the ones in the ministry of propaganda. Once upon a time it was a view embraced by a handful of British historians - most of them turn of the century explorers and colonists in their own right. But it has always been an outsider's view, completely divorced from the reality of how Tibetans of all walks of life view their own society and their own history....
For the most part, Parenti and the handful of historians who have adopted the view of old Tibet as a despotic feudal theocracy have had little if no contact with actual Tibetans either in or outside Tibet. Therefore, they have no real way of gauging the sentiments of the Tibetan people....
...the true testament to the fact that Tibetans have been far from content under Chinese rule lie in the actions of the people themselves. Ever since the Chinese invasion and occupation there has been substantial popular resistance to Chinese rule in Tibet. This resistance has taken many forms over the years - leafleting, public demonstration, mass non-cooperation, economic boycott, and armed uprising are all forms of protest have been practiced by Tibetans inside Tibet, at the risk of their own lives.
The Chinese government has faced phenomenal opposition from the Tibetan people, certainly far more opposition than the Lhasa government ever faced from its own population, which does not do much to further the argument that 'old Tibet' was a terribly repressive society. Nor does the fact that Tibetan refugees continue pour out of Tibet at a rate never seen prior to 1959. In a classic case of uninformed conjecture, Parenti supposes that Tibetan refugees never left prior to 1959 because the 'systems of control' were so deep and that Tibetans were 'afraid of amputation'. Any quick glance at a map of Tibet, with its vast, unpatrolable borders, or any basic knowledge of the structure of Tibetan society would quickly reveal that Tibetans - should they have wanted to escape their 'feudal masters' - would have had little problem doing so.
Shakespeare's work has sprites, fairies, wizards, witches, wars, feuding street gangs, feuding royals, treachery, broken alliances, hidden identities, and yes, even a puzzle or two. There's plenty of material to create an interesting world. Then there's the amazing language games that Shakespeare plays.
This is the episode http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/08/08 1006.html that hooked me on ze frank. And I didn't find the interactive bits interesting, except for ze's comments on the comments. I watched it because I think ze frank is really, really funny, particularly when he gets on a roll about politices.
The publisher of The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald, its Spanish-language sister paper, has resigned, saying he had lost control of his newsrooms over a growing controversy involving payments from the Bush administration to some reporters at El Nuevo Herald for their commentary broadcast on the anti-Castro outlets Radio Marti and TV Marti.
Apparently, at least one editor thinks that the government paying reporters to say what it wants is a "free press."
But Humberto Castello, editor of El Nuevo Herald, said reporters' mission was to serve as advocates for democracy and to inform their Cuban listeners of "what is going on." Those listeners "have no free press," he said. "They have no other opportunity to listen and to be informed."
The similarity of the two groups' results confirms the decades-long practice of using inclined bedrest as a proxy for spaceflight.
Actually, NASA has been doing "bed-rest studies" on the effectiveness of various exercise regimes for some time now: I remember an ad hanging in the cafeteria when I worked at NASA Ames ~ 2001, it said something like "help advance space science without leaving the comfort of a bed." I asked a friend who worked in life support about it, and she tactfully said "it's very uncomfortable" but the more complete description, for example of how your organs start to feel in a day or two after they start moving into different positions, sounded horrific.
old NASA press release
Although conceived of by Kurt Vonnegut as a novel written by mythical SF writer Kilgore Trout, the novel published under the title "Venus on the Half-Shell" was actually written by Philip Jose Farmer.
If we're running out of cheap oil, then we're going to stop releasing it into the atmosphere.
Not if we switch to cheap, dirty coal first. In the long run, price increases will induce people to search for alternatives. But as Keynes famously said, in the long run, both you and I will be dead. How much damage will be caused in the meantime?
Simply relying on the market mechanism to fix this problem won't work, because the costs of pollution are not included in the market price of oil. I get all of the benefits when I drive my car, but I don't pay all of the costs because I don't pay for the effects of the pollution on other people. Multiply that by every car, every airplane, every power plant that burns oil, coal or natural gas, every cow (which produce significant amounts of methane), and so on, and you have a massive market failure.
So what does the Kyoto protocol, or something like it, really accomplish?
It will address the market failure that arises from market externalities like pollution.
There are market-based solutions that use precisely the mechanism you describe; it's called a carbon tax. Tax every carbon-releasing activity, so that the price reflects the true cost, including the release of greenhouse gasses, and suddenly wind power and solar will be economically vible.
Reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses right now makes solid economic sense:
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
1. Becoming a consumer. These people purchase things that have to be manufactured, or want services that can only be met by someone else.
Actually, if you want to stimulate the economy by 1., then you should give tax cuts to poor people, who typically spend all of their available income on consumption.
Tax cuts are a "temporary high" because they must be met by either lower government spending in the future, undoing 1., or higher interests rates and higher interest payments to non-US residents, undoing 2.
If job creation is the goal then it's far wiser to cut payroll taxes (social security, etc.) which raise the cost of hiring people rather than income taxes. Or the payroll taxes could be replaced them with taxes on commodities and other inputsto encourage businesses to substitue labor for natural resources.
He claimed there were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which we know there were. If you interpreted "ties" to mean "Iraq helped Al Qaeda plan 9-11", then you are just an idiot.
Bush's own words, in a letter to both houses of Congress, March 21, 2003
I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is
consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to
take the necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
I would say that including a reference to "nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" in a sentence explaining your reasons for using armed force against Iraq means that Iraq "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001".
And the justification for the war was not "weapons programs" --- they repeatedly asserted the existence of actual weapons which posed an immediate and imminent threat to the United State.
I just looked at the photo --- I couldn't even find Kerry without the caption! He is not "inches away" from Fonda, he's a blurry face in the background a row or two back.
Or did you think that was Kerry with the beard and groovy choker?
Last election, Nader ran under the slogan "vote your hopes, not your fears."
This election, I say "vote with your head and consider the likely impact of your vote on the outcome of the election." What's more important, preserving your "nonconformity and independence" while throwing away your vote on a candidate with no hope of winning to or thinking about your vote in the context of the current political situation and acting accordingly?
When Art Fry, the inventor of Post-It notes, first attempted to pitch the innovation at 3-M he received a lukewarm response. He then distributed samples to some 3-M secretaries who quickly found new uses for them . It's now one of the 5 top-selling office products.
And then there's the part where the hellmouth opens up and all the orcs get sucked back in, but I think they come back in season 8 of BtVS. S'alright though, Dumbledore knows just what to do.
Here's something I've been wondering about with movie budgets:
I can't find the source right now (probably boxofficemojo) but I recall that the cost of making RotK was listed at around 95 million $, with advertsing costs of 50 million $. I'm amazed by the amount spent on advertising---it's hard to believe that it's cost effective, ie, that box office receipts or even total revenue would have fallen by 10 million if they had only spent 40 million on advertising.
Or is movie attendance so ruled by herding and cascade effects that the effects of advertising are nonlinear?
And who will be held responsible if some catastrophe ensues like the unstable orbit mentioned previously or an uncontrolled reentry into the atmosphere? So they said they would drop it in the Pacific --- what if they screw up?
It seems to me that they should be required to idemnify against potential damage, essentially to take out an insurance policy that would pay off the victims in case of a bad outcome. Something that looks economically viable now may not be at all if the companies involved are forced to pay the full costs of the project including the risks to uninvolved parties.
This has also been suggested in the context of drillling for oil in enviromentally sensitive areas: requiring the oil companies to indemnify against damage caused by accidents would mean that full cost of the project was accounted for, that a third party (the insurance company) would make an estimate of how likely they think damage is to occur, and provide an incentive to prevent accidents in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
"Teach thy necessity to reason thus: There is no virtue like necessity" Richard II, Act I, Scene iii
I am mystified by number of commenters saying that you can't draw conclusions because of the small sample size. This is not a small sample size. The results are robust in part because the data set is so large: 83000 observations.
One of the interesting points of TFA is that it pinpoints where in NIH's two-tier process of review black researchers are eliminated. They are more likely to be eliminated in the first round of peer review than in the second "scoring" round. This is not consistent with them submitting, on average, less worthy projects. If that were the case, they should have the same or a higher attrition rate at the second level of review. Black researchers are also less likely to resubmit grants, which could be a simple lack of mentoring or communication from the NIH.
From TFA:
We find it troubling that the typical measures of scientific achievement—NIH training, previous grants, publications, and citations—do not translate to the same level of application success across race and ethnic groups. Our models controlled for demographics, education and training, employer characteristics, NIH experience, and research productivity, yet they did not explain why blacks are 10 percentage points less likely to receive R01 funding compared with whites.
The middle-aged incompetent white managers brought into the startups were dumb enough to say racist things out loud.
And they preface their statements with "I'm not a racist but..." or "Don't take this the wrong way but..." or the ever-popular "Some of my best friends are black, but..."
This is based on a data set with 83000 grant proposals from about 40000 researchers, every application made to the largest NIH program over a 5 year period. This is not a small sample and it is not a single point in time. If you flipped a coin 83000 times and got heads 49,800 times I'd say the coin is biased in favor of heads, oh, by about 60%.
The NIH paid for the study.
I certainly agree that the analysis does not say what the cause is, but the data set has 83000 grant applications and 40000 different researchers. That is not a "small sample size." It's every grant submitted the NIH's largest program over a 5 year period.
Yes, you will have a much chance of getting a job interview with a "white-sounding" name. Study cited towards bottom of article. http://www.economist.com/node/21526320
one more: U.S. Troops Draw Up Own Exit Strategy
And I can't resist adding (from 2003): 'Well, You Try To Reconstruct Iraq,' Says U.S. Defensive Dept.
This was a failure of imagination, methinks.
This is the episode http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/08/08 1006.html that hooked me on ze frank. And I didn't find the interactive bits interesting, except for ze's comments on the comments. I watched it because I think ze frank is really, really funny, particularly when he gets on a roll about politices.
Wonder no more, breaking news from today:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/04/business/hApparently, at least one editor thinks that the government paying reporters to say what it wants is a "free press."
Actually, NASA has been doing "bed-rest studies" on the effectiveness of various exercise regimes for some time now: I remember an ad hanging in the cafeteria when I worked at NASA Ames ~ 2001, it said something like "help advance space science without leaving the comfort of a bed." I asked a friend who worked in life support about it, and she tactfully said "it's very uncomfortable" but the more complete description, for example of how your organs start to feel in a day or two after they start moving into different positions, sounded horrific. old NASA press release
Although conceived of by Kurt Vonnegut as a novel written by mythical SF writer Kilgore Trout, the novel published under the title "Venus on the Half-Shell" was actually written by Philip Jose Farmer.
Not if we switch to cheap, dirty coal first. In the long run, price increases will induce people to search for alternatives. But as Keynes famously said, in the long run, both you and I will be dead. How much damage will be caused in the meantime?
Simply relying on the market mechanism to fix this problem won't work, because the costs of pollution are not included in the market price of oil. I get all of the benefits when I drive my car, but I don't pay all of the costs because I don't pay for the effects of the pollution on other people. Multiply that by every car, every airplane, every power plant that burns oil, coal or natural gas, every cow (which produce significant amounts of methane), and so on, and you have a massive market failure.
So what does the Kyoto protocol, or something like it, really accomplish?
It will address the market failure that arises from market externalities like pollution.
There are market-based solutions that use precisely the mechanism you describe; it's called a carbon tax. Tax every carbon-releasing activity, so that the price reflects the true cost, including the release of greenhouse gasses, and suddenly wind power and solar will be economically vible.
Reducing the emission of greenhouse gasses right now makes solid economic sense:
United States Needs Incentive Based Policy to Reduce Carbon Emissions
Economists' Statement on Climate Change
Actually, if you want to stimulate the economy by 1., then you should give tax cuts to poor people, who typically spend all of their available income on consumption.
Tax cuts are a "temporary high" because they must be met by either lower government spending in the future, undoing 1., or higher interests rates and higher interest payments to non-US residents, undoing 2.
If job creation is the goal then it's far wiser to cut payroll taxes (social security, etc.) which raise the cost of hiring people rather than income taxes. Or the payroll taxes could be replaced them with taxes on commodities and other inputsto encourage businesses to substitue labor for natural resources.
Bush's own words, in a letter to both houses of Congress, March 21, 2003
I would say that including a reference to "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" in a sentence explaining your reasons for using armed force against Iraq means that Iraq "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001".
And the justification for the war was not "weapons programs" --- they repeatedly asserted the existence of actual weapons which posed an immediate and imminent threat to the United State.
.
bIHe'jIropchoH'e'translation: Your smell makes me sick.
Rojqoq
Klingon Rock, mp3 & lyrics.
Or did you think that was Kerry with the beard and groovy choker?
Last election, Nader ran under the slogan "vote your hopes, not your fears."
This election, I say "vote with your head and consider the likely impact of your vote on the outcome of the election." What's more important, preserving your "nonconformity and independence" while throwing away your vote on a candidate with no hope of winning to or thinking about your vote in the context of the current political situation and acting accordingly?
When Art Fry, the inventor of Post-It notes, first attempted to pitch the innovation at 3-M he received a lukewarm response. He then distributed samples to some 3-M secretaries who quickly found new uses for them . It's now one of the 5 top-selling office products.
the history of the post-it note
And then there's the part where the hellmouth opens up and all the orcs get sucked back in, but I think they come back in season 8 of BtVS. S'alright though, Dumbledore knows just what to do.
I can't find the source right now (probably boxofficemojo) but I recall that the cost of making RotK was listed at around 95 million $, with advertsing costs of 50 million $. I'm amazed by the amount spent on advertising---it's hard to believe that it's cost effective, ie, that box office receipts or even total revenue would have fallen by 10 million if they had only spent 40 million on advertising.
Or is movie attendance so ruled by herding and cascade effects that the effects of advertising are nonlinear?
It seems to me that they should be required to idemnify against potential damage, essentially to take out an insurance policy that would pay off the victims in case of a bad outcome. Something that looks economically viable now may not be at all if the companies involved are forced to pay the full costs of the project including the risks to uninvolved parties.
This has also been suggested in the context of drillling for oil in enviromentally sensitive areas: requiring the oil companies to indemnify against damage caused by accidents would mean that full cost of the project was accounted for, that a third party (the insurance company) would make an estimate of how likely they think damage is to occur, and provide an incentive to prevent accidents in the first place.