Regulatory overhead was calculated to be 3.7% in recent builds.
Lawsuits are not regulatory overhead. And they can easily cost more than your claimed overhead above. For example, a single year delay in operation of the plant is about as much as your overhead above after the tax write offs.
There was no evidence for your speculation regarding a relationship between malpractice lawsuits and measles diagnosis. I thought so, note how when I cannot provide a reference (e.g. people stopped purposefully spreading) I make an effort to note so.
I didn't say that since you weren't going on about that and I didn't say that measles diagnosis would go up or down. I merely stated that there would be a lot of unnecessary measles testing.
But since you mention it, there's a lot of news about overtesting in US health care (a Google search reveals at least half a dozen distinct stories on this subject). I think this overcautious environment easily explains why there is so much measles testing these days in the absence of actual measles.
If you just claim things then don't back them up, then what is the point of our continued discussion? I was just doing it for anyone who comes across this in the future.
My apologies for interrupting your sanctimonious grandstanding, but I provided links to the particular claim you are grandstanding about. And since we're supposedly arguing for posterity, let me note again the following quote:
Please show me this predictive model. 'Vaccines make diagnoses go down" is not a useful prediction because that evidence is consistent with all sorts of alternative explanations. That is an egregious case of affirming the consequent:
I think this demonstrates the profound unreasonableness of your entire argument. A model with a testable prediction is considered useless when it comes true. There are always alternative explanations, especially when one decides to overlook evidence contrary to the explanations.
From that same post, the intellectual hole gets dug deeper with this assertion:
A prediction needs to be precise to be of any value.
In other words, we can ignore a three orders of magnitude improvement in measles cases because nobody bothered to nail down the next significant digit. It's an absurd argument.
Please share this data "with tens of thousands of participants" regarding the effect of malpractice lawsuits on measles tests/diagnoses. If that is not what you meant you just attempted a bait and switch.
It's not what I meant or said. These were two independent quotes from different posts discussing different things. And it was clear in each post what I was discussing.
Please show me this predictive model. 'Vaccines make diagnoses go down" is not a useful prediction because that evidence is consistent with all sorts of alternative explanations. That is an egregious case of affirming the consequent:
I'll quote your above description of it as a real world example of an adequate "showing" of this model. A model does not become useless just because there are rival models. That's because there are always rival models, no matter how solidly one nails down the evidence.
And let's look at the actual evidence. Supposedly, the model of an effective vaccine for measles, one of the more infectious diseases of the world can be duplicated by a model which has as its basis a combination of changes of human behavior and an unexplained inability of doctors to diagnose measles in the 60s.
But this combination hasn't resulted in other highly infectious diseases becoming less prevalent by orders of magnitude. It hasn't happened with chicken pox, influenza, common colds, or norovirus (the "stomach flu"). We know how they spread and have developed behaviors such as washing hands, covering mouth when coughing or sneezing, and careful food preparation, yet they still spread. Human behavior changes aren't enough to prevent highly infectious diseases from being widely prevalent.
Second, the other major claim is that doctors are somehow misdiagnosing cases of measles to about two orders of magnitude in a way that exaggerates the reduction in measles cases. I don't buy that a developed world country like the US made mistakes in the 60s of that magnitude. And I don't buy that they supposedly are making those mistakes today either.
If attenuvax worked, then measles diagnoses would go down.
Measles diagnoses went down.
Therefore, attenuvax works.
There's a better term for this, "evidence". If measles diagnoses hadn't gone down, then we'd have a falsification of the hypothesis. And it's worth noting here that due to the high infectiousness of measles, if the vaccine didn't work, then measles diagnoses wouldn't have gone down because measles cases wouldn't have gone down.
The problem is, as I keep saying, we have no data on that. The measles researchers have failed to collect the data necessary for us to determine what is going on. Instead, they saw measles diagnoses drop after the vaccines were introduced and did "correlation = causation".
You keep saying things like "no data" when we have studies with tens of thousands of participants. We have plenty of data, you just choose not to recognize it. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it is a necessary component of showing causation. And when you have a predictive model and data showing the necessary correlations at the necessary times that go with that model, you have evidence of causation.
If doctors can "suspect" 25k measles cases out of which the lab tests "confirm" 100, what was going on before the lab tests?
They were diagnosing without fear of getting second-guessed by the courts. Now, a measles test doesn't mean that the doctor diagnosed a case of measles, it just means that they're covering their asses. There's no downside for the doctor to give a patient a measles test they don't need for a body rash, but there's plenty of malpractice downside to misdiagnosing measles as something more benign.
It's plausibly up to 99% with another elephant in the room (people stopped purposefully spreading measles) that, lets be honest, could also rationally account for 99%.
And as I noted, even if your assertion was correct, you would need to explain 99.9% reduction not just 99% reduction.
I'll note here that your characterization of 99% error in diagnosis comes from a very wrong interpretation of overtesting for measles today. It's silly to claim that just because doctors are sensitive enough today to malpractice risks and the revenue enhancing capabilities of more testing no matter how frivolous, that doctors of the past similarly overdiagnosed measles by two orders of magnitude. You should provide evidence for that assertion (which none of your linked articles provide, let us note) before continuing with your assertions.
The Mongols didn't do that; Tamerlane did, and it was 70,000.
Tamerlane while not ethnically Mongolian was married to Mongolian nobility. But instead, I was thinking of the siege of Zhongdu. Genghis Khan didn't bother to stack the heads of the dead, but he did leave a big pile of corpses behind.
I know this is Slashdot where we don't care about the meaning of words, but in order for Bil to be wrong, he has to be incorrect first. That's the definition of "wrong" more or less.
In addition, I don't think that playing an ISIS execution video actually supports ISIS. Regimes generally do public cruelty when they're acting from a position of overwhelming strength, like the Roman Empire's ritual humiliation of defeated foes or the Mongols piling up a hundred thousand skulls. It's an object lesson: mess with us and bad things happen.
When you don't have that strength, it's an incitement to more powerful foes to destroy you rather than merely defeat you.
Legislators and politicians don't need to be smarter than you, they need to be smarter than the original AC who proposed forcing everyone into a first generation prototype self-driving car. Which I think you'll have to admit is a pretty low bar, even for the crowd we're speaking of.
It's worth remembering that just because Mom and Dad aren't "qualified" to be teachers, doesn't mean that they can't be much better teachers than actual qualified teachers. A big part of this is interest and motivation. If the teacher isn't interested in teaching and isn't motivated, a situation that is too often is the case, then even an unqualified parent with those qualities can do better.
âoeA likely reason for this is that the case may have been misdiagnosed as a non-specific viral illness. Measles has become relatively uncommon in Singapore with two decades of widespread measles vaccination, and especially after the second dose policy was implemented in 1998. Many primary care doctors may not even see a single case of measles in a year. This makes diagnosis more difficult.â
[...]
âoeBefore the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%â"98% of children by age 18 years [1â"4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults.â
This is considered proof that the vaccine might not work? I take it you didn't notice that measles became "relatively uncommon" after introduction of the vaccine?
"âoeIt is evident from Table IV that many children in all three groups were unwell and that the proportion was greatest in the live-vaccine group (61 %), less in the killed/live-vaccine group (54%), and least in the unvaccinated group (38%)...
Table VI shows the cases of measles reported by the parents and those seen and diagnosed by the doctor. Of the total cases reported the doctor saw about 60%, and, of these, confirmed the parents' diagnosis in 93 % in the control group, 64% in the killed/live-vaccine group, and 70% in the live vaccine group."
I think it's remarkably dishonest to quote something like this rather than the more than factor of five reduction in measles infections from children who were immunized against measles in this study.
So? He still had to do it at least once. Most people won't get anywhere near that.
Sunk cost, already happened. With the next president, it'll also be a sunk cost, already happened. It'll still an easy thing for a US president to do.
You're like the guy who complains how easy people richer than him must have it, ignoring what it took for the rich to become rich in the first place. Things which the guy complaining didn't or couldn't do even if he tried.
Even if this were true, and it's not, it would be a completely irrelevant observation. No matter what juvenile straw men you accuse me of, it remains that it's pretty damn easy for a US president to insert such stories and will remain so for a long time to come.
Nothing special about these mineral constituents. Lots of foods supply this in similar or greater amounts. And I'll note the obvious, that lemons don't provide very much of these minerals, unless you consume a lot of lemon juice (on the order of liters of the stuff per day).
Missing the forest the trees. Becoming POTUS, or anyone with that level of political and financial connections, is not easy.
Your observation is completely irrelevant. Obama doesn't have to redo the effort of becoming president every time he wants to shove a story like this into the news.
As an aside, "corporation" is a poor choice of words to use. In addition to businesses, which are the usual grouping described by corporations, there's also charity non-profits, various government agencies and organizations, various religious groups, and individuals. These have very different feels to them, just from the different sorts of people who are part of these corporations.
Quite hard actually. The politically and/or financially connected have easy access to pet reporters.
So in other words, pretty damn easy. After all, it's not Joe Anonymous Coward saying this thing, but the President of the US, who just so happens to be very connected politically and financially.
Slashdot Mirror
The freezing point of methane is -182C so there's not a big spread between freezing and melting.
Apparently, methane with dissolved nitrogen has a wider spread between freezing and boiling, but I don't know how much it helps.
Look at this particular trove; except for the camera it's all just junk. Even the camera is no big deal unless you need to take one to the moon.
Used facial tissue that was found in Armstrong's Moon stash, $50 easy,
Solar's production curve does not match the peak user curve of electrical power.
Solar with some base load does a better job of matching peak user curve than base load alone does. Even if you're in Chicago in winter.
Regulatory overhead was calculated to be 3.7% in recent builds.
Lawsuits are not regulatory overhead. And they can easily cost more than your claimed overhead above. For example, a single year delay in operation of the plant is about as much as your overhead above after the tax write offs.
There was no evidence for your speculation regarding a relationship between malpractice lawsuits and measles diagnosis. I thought so, note how when I cannot provide a reference (e.g. people stopped purposefully spreading) I make an effort to note so.
I didn't say that since you weren't going on about that and I didn't say that measles diagnosis would go up or down. I merely stated that there would be a lot of unnecessary measles testing.
But since you mention it, there's a lot of news about overtesting in US health care (a Google search reveals at least half a dozen distinct stories on this subject). I think this overcautious environment easily explains why there is so much measles testing these days in the absence of actual measles.
If you just claim things then don't back them up, then what is the point of our continued discussion? I was just doing it for anyone who comes across this in the future.
My apologies for interrupting your sanctimonious grandstanding, but I provided links to the particular claim you are grandstanding about. And since we're supposedly arguing for posterity, let me note again the following quote:
Please show me this predictive model. 'Vaccines make diagnoses go down" is not a useful prediction because that evidence is consistent with all sorts of alternative explanations. That is an egregious case of affirming the consequent:
I think this demonstrates the profound unreasonableness of your entire argument. A model with a testable prediction is considered useless when it comes true. There are always alternative explanations, especially when one decides to overlook evidence contrary to the explanations.
From that same post, the intellectual hole gets dug deeper with this assertion:
A prediction needs to be precise to be of any value.
In other words, we can ignore a three orders of magnitude improvement in measles cases because nobody bothered to nail down the next significant digit. It's an absurd argument.
Please share this data "with tens of thousands of participants" regarding the effect of malpractice lawsuits on measles tests/diagnoses. If that is not what you meant you just attempted a bait and switch.
It's not what I meant or said. These were two independent quotes from different posts discussing different things. And it was clear in each post what I was discussing.
Please show me this predictive model. 'Vaccines make diagnoses go down" is not a useful prediction because that evidence is consistent with all sorts of alternative explanations. That is an egregious case of affirming the consequent:
I'll quote your above description of it as a real world example of an adequate "showing" of this model. A model does not become useless just because there are rival models. That's because there are always rival models, no matter how solidly one nails down the evidence.
And let's look at the actual evidence. Supposedly, the model of an effective vaccine for measles, one of the more infectious diseases of the world can be duplicated by a model which has as its basis a combination of changes of human behavior and an unexplained inability of doctors to diagnose measles in the 60s.
But this combination hasn't resulted in other highly infectious diseases becoming less prevalent by orders of magnitude. It hasn't happened with chicken pox, influenza, common colds, or norovirus (the "stomach flu"). We know how they spread and have developed behaviors such as washing hands, covering mouth when coughing or sneezing, and careful food preparation, yet they still spread. Human behavior changes aren't enough to prevent highly infectious diseases from being widely prevalent.
Second, the other major claim is that doctors are somehow misdiagnosing cases of measles to about two orders of magnitude in a way that exaggerates the reduction in measles cases. I don't buy that a developed world country like the US made mistakes in the 60s of that magnitude. And I don't buy that they supposedly are making those mistakes today either.
If attenuvax worked, then measles diagnoses would go down. Measles diagnoses went down. Therefore, attenuvax works.
There's a better term for this, "evidence". If measles diagnoses hadn't gone down, then we'd have a falsification of the hypothesis. And it's worth noting here that due to the high infectiousness of measles, if the vaccine didn't work, then measles diagnoses wouldn't have gone down because measles cases wouldn't have gone down.
The problem is, as I keep saying, we have no data on that. The measles researchers have failed to collect the data necessary for us to determine what is going on. Instead, they saw measles diagnoses drop after the vaccines were introduced and did "correlation = causation".
You keep saying things like "no data" when we have studies with tens of thousands of participants. We have plenty of data, you just choose not to recognize it. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it is a necessary component of showing causation. And when you have a predictive model and data showing the necessary correlations at the necessary times that go with that model, you have evidence of causation.
If doctors can "suspect" 25k measles cases out of which the lab tests "confirm" 100, what was going on before the lab tests?
They were diagnosing without fear of getting second-guessed by the courts. Now, a measles test doesn't mean that the doctor diagnosed a case of measles, it just means that they're covering their asses. There's no downside for the doctor to give a patient a measles test they don't need for a body rash, but there's plenty of malpractice downside to misdiagnosing measles as something more benign.
Or rather that Beijing is where Zhongdu used to be.
It's plausibly up to 99% with another elephant in the room (people stopped purposefully spreading measles) that, lets be honest, could also rationally account for 99%.
And as I noted, even if your assertion was correct, you would need to explain 99.9% reduction not just 99% reduction.
I'll note here that your characterization of 99% error in diagnosis comes from a very wrong interpretation of overtesting for measles today. It's silly to claim that just because doctors are sensitive enough today to malpractice risks and the revenue enhancing capabilities of more testing no matter how frivolous, that doctors of the past similarly overdiagnosed measles by two orders of magnitude. You should provide evidence for that assertion (which none of your linked articles provide, let us note) before continuing with your assertions.
The Mongols didn't do that; Tamerlane did, and it was 70,000.
Tamerlane while not ethnically Mongolian was married to Mongolian nobility. But instead, I was thinking of the siege of Zhongdu. Genghis Khan didn't bother to stack the heads of the dead, but he did leave a big pile of corpses behind.
if we deployed self-driving cars tomorrow we'd see a huge drop in overall accident rates ...
Wrong yet again, Bill.
I know this is Slashdot where we don't care about the meaning of words, but in order for Bil to be wrong, he has to be incorrect first. That's the definition of "wrong" more or less.
In addition, I don't think that playing an ISIS execution video actually supports ISIS. Regimes generally do public cruelty when they're acting from a position of overwhelming strength, like the Roman Empire's ritual humiliation of defeated foes or the Mongols piling up a hundred thousand skulls. It's an object lesson: mess with us and bad things happen.
When you don't have that strength, it's an incitement to more powerful foes to destroy you rather than merely defeat you.
Legislators and politicians don't need to be smarter than you, they need to be smarter than the original AC who proposed forcing everyone into a first generation prototype self-driving car. Which I think you'll have to admit is a pretty low bar, even for the crowd we're speaking of.
Hi, this is a bomb with the evil bit set to off. So no worries!
It's worth remembering that just because Mom and Dad aren't "qualified" to be teachers, doesn't mean that they can't be much better teachers than actual qualified teachers. A big part of this is interest and motivation. If the teacher isn't interested in teaching and isn't motivated, a situation that is too often is the case, then even an unqualified parent with those qualities can do better.
Yeah, well.. WATER is "one molecule away from being plastic." Just swap each H2O molecule for a C8H8 molecule...
LOL. That's a good one.
There is confounded observational evidence, that data shows that the rate of measles diagnosis dropped by a large percentage from 1950 to today.
And the obvious rebuttal is that the degree of confounding doesn't explain the effect.
âoeA likely reason for this is that the case may have been misdiagnosed as a non-specific viral illness. Measles has become relatively uncommon in Singapore with two decades of widespread measles vaccination, and especially after the second dose policy was implemented in 1998. Many primary care doctors may not even see a single case of measles in a year. This makes diagnosis more difficult.â
[...]
âoeBefore the introduction of measles vaccines, measles virus infected 95%â"98% of children by age 18 years [1â"4], and measles was considered an inevitable rite of passage. Exposure was often actively sought for children in early school years because of the greater severity of measles in adults.â
This is considered proof that the vaccine might not work? I take it you didn't notice that measles became "relatively uncommon" after introduction of the vaccine?
"âoeIt is evident from Table IV that many children in all three groups were unwell and that the proportion was greatest in the live-vaccine group (61 %), less in the killed/live-vaccine group (54%), and least in the unvaccinated group (38%)...
Table VI shows the cases of measles reported by the parents and those seen and diagnosed by the doctor. Of the total cases reported the doctor saw about 60%, and, of these, confirmed the parents' diagnosis in 93 % in the control group, 64% in the killed/live-vaccine group, and 70% in the live vaccine group."
I think it's remarkably dishonest to quote something like this rather than the more than factor of five reduction in measles infections from children who were immunized against measles in this study.
So? He still had to do it at least once. Most people won't get anywhere near that.
Sunk cost, already happened. With the next president, it'll also be a sunk cost, already happened. It'll still an easy thing for a US president to do.
You're like the guy who complains how easy people richer than him must have it, ignoring what it took for the rich to become rich in the first place. Things which the guy complaining didn't or couldn't do even if he tried.
Even if this were true, and it's not, it would be a completely irrelevant observation. No matter what juvenile straw men you accuse me of, it remains that it's pretty damn easy for a US president to insert such stories and will remain so for a long time to come.
Calcium (3%) 26 mg
Iron (5%) 0.6 mg
Magnesium (2%) 8 mg Manganese (1%) 0.03 mg
Phosphorus (2%) 16 mg
Potassium (3%) 138 mg
Zinc (1%) 0.06 mg
Nothing special about these mineral constituents. Lots of foods supply this in similar or greater amounts. And I'll note the obvious, that lemons don't provide very much of these minerals, unless you consume a lot of lemon juice (on the order of liters of the stuff per day).
Thank you, I agree entirely.
Missing the forest the trees. Becoming POTUS, or anyone with that level of political and financial connections, is not easy.
Your observation is completely irrelevant. Obama doesn't have to redo the effort of becoming president every time he wants to shove a story like this into the news.
Have you worked at a corporation?
As an aside, "corporation" is a poor choice of words to use. In addition to businesses, which are the usual grouping described by corporations, there's also charity non-profits, various government agencies and organizations, various religious groups, and individuals. These have very different feels to them, just from the different sorts of people who are part of these corporations.
Quite hard actually. The politically and/or financially connected have easy access to pet reporters.
So in other words, pretty damn easy. After all, it's not Joe Anonymous Coward saying this thing, but the President of the US, who just so happens to be very connected politically and financially.