AC said: > The attack rate of hospital acquired bloodstream infections was 5% > and they speculatae that it would grow to 10% in large hospital. > This is quite a bit lower than the 50% infection rate mentioned in the parent.
Was the nurse speaking about bloodstream infections? No! The nurse said: > > > > The problem is population density. In a 100 bed hospital > > > > your chances of catching something... [numbers]
> BTW the 49.4% number you mention out of context > refers to the data that about half of blood > stream infections occur in the ICU.
I know I was speaking about the upto 10% of patients who get bloodstream infections in large hospitals (a horrendous figure). Now if 49% of these bloodsteam infections occur within the ICU, 51% of bloodstream infections occurs outside the ICU. I specifically meant to disprove what the doctor said in bold below.
The doctor said: > > > And stop worrying about all of the germs.... > > > Where did you get those numbers from? Roland? Fox? > > > The Germ Fairy? They make absolutely no sense. > > > Just try to stay out of the ICU and you'll be fine
The doctor is obviously living in a wishful dreamland - the CDC paper backs the nurse's assertion about population density increasing risk of infection.
The nurse is right -- smaller hospitals are better for patients. I wonder if some doctors subconciously oppose this due to money. I imagine larger hospitals would be more profitable than smaller ones (economies of scale) and would pay better to a doctor in terms of money and career (while working him harder).
As i have no mod points, reposting text of interesting reply by AC:
the OP is correct. (Score:0) ---- by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 26, @07:14PM (#11785905) speaking as a php and java dev...
you can make java do everything PHP does sure, but out of the box java is quite bare. you have to install a bunch of stuff to get it to that point. it does not come out of the box that way.
this is why PHP is so widely deployed and why java languishes. and as another poster pointed out, it is why mysql is more widely deployed than postgresql. if it takes you obscene contortions to install a usable working platform, people are going to look elsewhere
> A Holter only records the data, it does not interpret it.
Yes, I know that. I have a Holter scheduled early next month.:)
> Holter monitors most certainly DO have a place... but again, > they only record the ECG data (not BP) and some give you statistics;
I was surprised to learn it, but the GP who referred me to the cardiac specialists said these Holters record blood pressure too. I asked if this was based on some sort of automated inflation, deflation of some cuff at regular intervals, but my GP said no it wasn't - apparently there is some funky optical mechanism. I hope to find out soon.:) Should be very interesting.
My main points recapped: (1) cheap sensors in the hands of patients are beneficial (2) more data is better than less data (3) machine analysis of data is better than no analysis (as your point about the ICD beautifully illustrates, the ICD must analyse it's data to allow it to act)
Population-based surveillance studies of nosocomial infections in U.S. hospitals indicate a 5% attack rate or incidence of 5 infections per 1,000 patient-days (3-5). With the advent of managed care and incentives for outpatient care, hospitals have a concentrated population of seriously ill patients, so rates of nosocomial infections are probably correspondingly higher (6). For many larger institutions, the nosocomial infection rate may be closer to 10%.
If 35 million patients are admitted each year to the approximately 7,000 acute-care institutions in the United States, the number of nosocomial infections--assuming overall attack rates of 2.5%, 5%, or 10%--would be 875,000, 1.75 million, or 3.5 million, respectively. If 10% of all hospital-acquired infections involve the bloodstream, 87,500, 175,000, or 350,000 patients acquire these life-threatening infections each year.... In SCOPE, 49.4% of all nosocomial bloodstream infections occurred in intensive-care units.
Yes, the article uses suspiciously grand words. But half of Slashdotters would not be able to knock up a unit in a day or even a month. I would like to, but can't. (See my other post - any move towards something like this is a good idea)
But beware the cult of data, particularly as it relates to medicine.
There is a human tendency to focus on the numbers; ... I sometimes see a half-dozen patients a day who present because they got a "high" number on their blood pressure machine.
Hmm, lives *have* been saved due to people being alerted by such home-based diagnosis units - these machines have a place. The correct way to combat the misinterpretation you mentioned of some limited data is to obtain better data and have better understanding all around of such data. As you mentioned, this project seems to be doing that.
> This system seems like it gathers lots of data... > I just wonder what they're going to do to interpret it. As far as processing huge amounts of data goes, the concept is not new. Holter monitors are used to diagnose cardiac and blood pressure problems - you wear the unit and it records BP and ECG over a day for later analysis. That data give both the doctor and the patient a better appreciate how their numbers normally vary. The only difference here, is that the data is monitored continuously. The doctors probably have set realistic monitoring alerts tailored to the patient - maybe, something like: "If blood pressures crosses, 170/110, raise alert" etc.
I once showed up in ER with a very fast heart rate (trigged by excercise). I had to wait 15 minutes for triage. By this time, my pulse should have come down near normal but when the triage nurse got a chance to do it, it showed up as 125. The nurse was concered, but I only got to see a doctor 2.5 hours later. By then I was back to normal.
I hope one day cheap Holter-style devices that record to a flash disk and interface to a computer (perhaps to retail software that analyses the data) are sold in pharmacies for $15.
Both doctor and patient gain by being better informed about the patient's condition.
After all, doctors appreciate they are fallible, and have limited resources. And patients appreciate how precious a doctor's time is.
Well, your heart and mind is soiled, as is the whole of you.
I am not bothering you. You are bothering me. You replied unsolicited to my reply to "creysoft".
Onto your meat:
> Are you claiming that the only thing that can knock trees down en masse is a flood? No.
> Firestorms and such can't do that, I guess. They can, but there's no record of a worldwide firestorm 5000 years ago.
There are records of a worldwide flood though.
> A sufficiently-sized and long meteor shower can do that job just fine. Yes, but there's no record of a worldwide meteor shower 5000 years ago.
There are records of a worldwide flood though.
> That would also account for the thorium (etc) layer supposedly laid down by the great flood. So 5000 years ago, the entire earth was blasted with huge amounts of metorites that killed all the trees and laid down a worldwide layer of their distinctive metals?
Don't you realize your request to "consume feces" sullies your mouth alone and does nothing to mine?
> What does the oldest tree left standing have to do with the age of the earth?
Didn't you read that thread? The oldest pines are still living... the oldest was cut down (!) a few decades ago. There is no ready reason trees cannot live longer than the mysterious 4800 year mark, other than the global flood the Bible claims took place at that time.
i suppose you've read "the output of the vast majority of so-called 'writers' who submit manuscripts"? or a representative sample thereof?
He probably reads books, which would mean he had read a biased sample of the manuscripts submitted (biased in that publishers think people want to read these manuscripts).
There is also vanity publication. More recently, putting books and manuscripts online has been another low-cost expression of the drive to publish.
No, you may have been mixed up. The term "Aryan" and it's related culture is an integral part of Hinduism.
To accept what you are saying, we must to accept the Vedas aren't Hindu, and neither is the Bhagavad Gita (search for the term aryan in the link), neither are brahmins, etc, etc. In fact, there won't be anything left that generally accepted as part of Hinduism today if we remove "Aryan" thought from Hinduism.
As a side note, I am ethnically Aryan and personally attest this term is used widely in Hindu religion. Europeans are _not_ Aryan - it's a term Indologists borrowed from Indo-Iranian culture - it does not exist in European historical records.
As a former fundie Creationist nut turned atheist,... Creationists tend to come up with very convincing arguments, and - for what it's worth - I'm still not satisfied with the Big Bang,...
Don't get me wrong - there are many things right with Hindu tradition, with wisdom about herbs, medicines, several graceful and beautiful customs, etc. But as a religion, it's just not right.:0)
I'm an Hindu by ethnicity (I have no part in the religion anymore).
Hey again.:) I'm not making claims on behalf of Intel. Just that a lot of people here find it an effective last-mile technology, in a way that Wifi hasn't been able to achieve.
1 Mbps seems about right for the speeds on offer here. Hey, I have 512 Mbps ADSL, and I think _that's_ fast.
Regarding 3G, its an older and more expensive technology compared to Wimax. Here, 3G networks are getting hammered, but Unwired is doing relatively well. In fact, Unwired is planning to trial Voip in April (their modems have a second unused RJ11 port).
Yes, the Navini modems and the Unwired modems are identical.
I found the paragraphs below from this document on their website.
Interference Mitigation and Suppression
With the Navini system, RF power is transmitted in narrow beams that coherently combine at the intended CPE. Other CPEs do not suffer much interference from the signals directed to others. In contrast to conventional omni-directional and sectorized systems where a CPE receives all signals intended for other users, this feature allows each CPE to receive a significantly higher signal-tonoise ratio than conventional systems since it minimizes cross interference. When using adaptive beamforming for the forward link, Navini's system can be configured to avoid radiating energy in any specific direction further mitigating interference. If an interference source is detected in a particular direction, the system can create a null in that direction. This is especially critical in frequency bands where other products may be radiating energy towards the CPE and base station. For the reverse link, when the signal from a certain CPE is to be extracted, spatial filtering or space-time processing is used to suppress the interference from other CPEs. It has been demonstrated that the source signal can be completely covered by an interference source and Navini's system can still compensate and demodulate the signal.
High Maximum Path Loss & Signal Integrity
The biggest challenge to overcome for delivering a zero-install solution is delivering adequate signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for broadband access. The reason old solutions require outside installation and in many cases line-of-sight alignment to the base station is the inadequacy of existing technologies to be able to deliver the necessary SNR to an indoor plug-and-play CPE. Navini solves this problem with MCSB technology: by using a cost-effective, adaptive phased-array smart antenna at the base station, which produces adaptive beamforming, and coherent combining of sub-carriers at a specific CPE location. The adaptive phased-array smart antenna utilizes power more efficiently than conventional methods to deliver significantly increased SNR to the CPE. Beamforming works in much the same way as a flashlight delivers more light at a desired location than a conventional bulb, while utilizing a fraction of overall energy (small batteries vs. high voltage power source). The beamforming gain, combined with diversity antenna gain of the CPE, eliminates the need for separate custom-installed outdoor antenna/transceiver units. Beamforming/coherent combining is also done on the upstream at the base station to allow for the deployment of small low-cost low power CPE.
> if you want to say the court jester shouldn't have bias....
Jon is his own person - he can think what he wants. But who in his right mind will pay attention to unsubstantiated complaints made by an admittedly biased whinger, who then hides behind his funny face persona when a counterpoint is put forward?
Is there something special about droll humor that turns losing arguments around? I think not.
You'll have to get more optimistic soon:-) Here in Australia a company called Unwired is doing quite well (with happy subscribers on a pre-WiMax technology using modems from a company called Navini. They claim their wireless modems are firmware upgradable to WiMax once the spec is finalized. Lots of people are using their service (though I haven't tried it myself), it has been reviewed by local magazines, and from chats with acquiantances who have tried it, the range is at least several miles (they claim their range to be 10 km.)
I saw your explanation, and my electronics engineering skills are too rusty to appraise it critically, but have you considered this?: from what I read, the smart antennae of the type apparently used in WiMax implementations *depend* on multipath, non-LOS propagation. The base station tracks the user constantly and alters phase of the signals among various antennea elements until the multiple signals reinforce each other at the user end.
> This was exactly my point. Let me rephrase. Do you have a bias? I hope not.:)
> Are you a liberal, conservative, libertarian? Librarian? These aren't biases. You've listed political ideologies, and one occupation. Actually, I subscribe to parts of all these ideologies; most compensate for goods points missing in others. In fact most political parties realize this and will freely borrow ideas from ideologies they supposedly oppose.:-)
(Why they don't do so openly, I don't know - it's counterproductive... ).
> "You have an admitted bias, and you refuse to correct it. > But you still assume to attack Jon Stewart for having an admitted bias. > When your hypocrisy was pointed out, you say, in effect, 'I'm not a > journalist!' To which I say, 'EXACTLY!'"
To which I say: What "admitted bias" did I admit to?
This idea of everyone being inextricably bound to biases -- it's just a recent faddish meme that serves no purpose but to confuse.
A bias is *not* like my ethnic heritage... it isn't something to be accepted and celebrated as an integral part of oneself.
Rather, by definition, a *bias* tends to obscure truth and cloud one's judgement. It is something to be *fought* against.
> Jon Stewart isn't a journalist. He plays one on TV. There's nothing hard and fast about him not being a journalist. In Jon Stewart's case, he mixes entertainment with news and current affairs, and presents with his own bias.
> Your second argument, "So taking his advice about media bias > is taking the advice of an arrogant joker." seems to indicate that > you don't believe comedians can complain about how crappy the news has gotten.
Sure they can! BUT if they can't ditch their own bias when they are complaining, WHY should we believe them? Wouldn't *their* *biases* cloud their viewpoint and tend to invalidate their complaint?
Now if Jon complianed about some *specific* incident, that should be examined irrespective of his bias. But he didn't give anything concrete that could stand by itself -- rather he kept saying unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo about "conspiracy", etc. i.e. When challenged for evidence, he's hiding behind his humor.
If you act like a joker *when, at the same time* complaining about bias, you will be treated as one by other unbiased people. I suppose you caught the subsequent election. As I was saying, honestly and sincerity trump wit.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Whoever you are, you're an arrogant fool.
... [numbers]
...
AC said:
> The attack rate of hospital acquired bloodstream infections was 5%
> and they speculatae that it would grow to 10% in large hospital.
> This is quite a bit lower than the 50% infection rate mentioned in the parent.
Was the nurse speaking about bloodstream infections? No! The nurse said:
> > > > The problem is population density. In a 100 bed hospital
> > > > your chances of catching something
> BTW the 49.4% number you mention out of context
> refers to the data that about half of blood
> stream infections occur in the ICU.
I know I was speaking about the upto 10% of patients who get bloodstream infections in large hospitals (a horrendous figure). Now if 49% of these bloodsteam infections occur within the ICU, 51% of bloodstream infections occurs outside the ICU. I specifically meant to disprove what the doctor said in bold below.
The doctor said:
> > > And stop worrying about all of the germs.
> > > Where did you get those numbers from? Roland? Fox?
> > > The Germ Fairy? They make absolutely no sense.
> > > Just try to stay out of the ICU and you'll be fine
The doctor is obviously living in a wishful dreamland - the CDC paper backs the nurse's assertion about population density increasing risk of infection.
The nurse is right -- smaller hospitals are better for patients. I wonder if some doctors subconciously oppose this due to money. I imagine larger hospitals would be more profitable than smaller ones (economies of scale) and would pay better to a doctor in terms of money and career (while working him harder).
> A Holter only records the data, it does not interpret it.
:)
:) Should be very interesting.
Yes, I know that. I have a Holter scheduled early next month.
> Holter monitors most certainly DO have a place... but again,
> they only record the ECG data (not BP) and some give you statistics;
I was surprised to learn it, but the GP who referred me to the cardiac specialists said these Holters record blood pressure too. I asked if this was based on some sort of automated inflation, deflation of some cuff at regular intervals, but my GP said no it wasn't - apparently there is some funky optical mechanism. I hope to find out soon.
My main points recapped: (1) cheap sensors in the hands of patients are beneficial (2) more data is better than less data (3) machine analysis of data is better than no analysis (as your point about the ICD beautifully illustrates, the ICD must analyse it's data to allow it to act)
> And stop worrying about all of the germs. ...
...
...
> Where did you get those numbers from? Roland? Fox?
BAD doctor! Stop bullying that nurse. Be humble.
The nurse is absolutely right. *Obviously*, increasing the density of sick people increases the risk of infection there. The CDC says as much:
The Impact of Hospital-Acquired Bloodstream Infections
Baseline Data
Population-based surveillance studies of nosocomial infections in U.S. hospitals indicate a 5% attack rate or incidence of 5 infections per 1,000 patient-days (3-5). With the advent of managed care and incentives for outpatient care, hospitals have a concentrated population of seriously ill patients, so rates of nosocomial infections are probably correspondingly higher (6). For many larger institutions, the nosocomial infection rate may be closer to 10%.
If 35 million patients are admitted each year to the approximately 7,000 acute-care institutions in the United States, the number of nosocomial infections--assuming overall attack rates of 2.5%, 5%, or 10%--would be 875,000, 1.75 million, or 3.5 million, respectively. If 10% of all hospital-acquired infections involve the bloodstream, 87,500, 175,000, or 350,000 patients acquire these life-threatening infections each year.
In SCOPE, 49.4% of all nosocomial bloodstream infections occurred in intensive-care units.
Yes, the article uses suspiciously grand words. But half of Slashdotters would not be able to knock up a unit in a day or even a month. I would like to, but can't. (See my other post - any move towards something like this is a good idea)
> This system seems like it gathers lots of data...
> I just wonder what they're going to do to interpret it.
As far as processing huge amounts of data goes, the concept is not new. Holter monitors are used to diagnose cardiac and blood pressure problems - you wear the unit and it records BP and ECG over a day for later analysis. That data give both the doctor and the patient a better appreciate how their numbers normally vary. The only difference here, is that the data is monitored continuously. The doctors probably have set realistic monitoring alerts tailored to the patient - maybe, something like: "If blood pressures crosses, 170/110, raise alert" etc.
I once showed up in ER with a very fast heart rate (trigged by excercise). I had to wait 15 minutes for triage. By this time, my pulse should have come down near normal but when the triage nurse got a chance to do it, it showed up as 125. The nurse was concered, but I only got to see a doctor 2.5 hours later. By then I was back to normal.
I hope one day cheap Holter-style devices that record to a flash disk and interface to a computer (perhaps to retail software that analyses the data) are sold in pharmacies for $15.
Both doctor and patient gain by being better informed about the patient's condition.
After all, doctors appreciate they are fallible, and have limited resources. And patients appreciate how precious a doctor's time is.
It would be better if the OS had hooks to transparently use different compression algorithms on different file types.
So it could have gz as default, Flac for audio files, some future super-duper wavelet codec HDTV streams, etc.
Obviously, I am serious. What faults did you find with it?
> Now, yeah, immutable. But genetic engineering is going
> to get there, quite possibly this century.
"We are the Borg. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
Well, your heart and mind is soiled, as is the whole of you.
I am not bothering you. You are bothering me. You replied unsolicited to my reply to "creysoft".
Onto your meat:
> Are you claiming that the only thing that can knock trees down en masse is a flood?
No.
> Firestorms and such can't do that, I guess.
They can, but there's no record of a worldwide firestorm 5000 years ago.
There are records of a worldwide flood though.
> A sufficiently-sized and long meteor shower can do that job just fine.
Yes, but there's no record of a worldwide meteor shower 5000 years ago.
There are records of a worldwide flood though.
> That would also account for the thorium (etc) layer supposedly laid down by the great flood.
So 5000 years ago, the entire earth was blasted with huge amounts of metorites that killed all the trees and laid down a worldwide layer of their distinctive metals?
The data fits a worldwide flood better.
> I guess I am as gifted at speculation as hard creationists!
You are the unchallenged champion.
> Maybe I should start my own religion.
> I'll call it... Martinetics! (I would call it Martinizing, but that's already taken.)
As long as it isn't drinkypooism.
> ...you're coming back for more?
Don't you realize your request to "consume feces" sullies your mouth alone and does nothing to mine?
> What does the oldest tree left standing have to do with the age of the earth?
Didn't you read that thread? The oldest pines are still living... the oldest was cut down (!) a few decades ago. There is no ready reason trees cannot live longer than the mysterious 4800 year mark, other than the global flood the Bible claims took place at that time.
There is also vanity publication. More recently, putting books and manuscripts online has been another low-cost expression of the drive to publish.
No, you may have been mixed up. The term "Aryan" and it's related culture is an integral part of Hinduism.
To accept what you are saying, we must to accept the Vedas aren't Hindu, and neither is the Bhagavad Gita (search for the term aryan in the link), neither are brahmins, etc, etc. In fact, there won't be anything left that generally accepted as part of Hinduism today if we remove "Aryan" thought from Hinduism.
As a side note, I am ethnically Aryan and personally attest this term is used widely in Hindu religion. Europeans are _not_ Aryan - it's a term Indologists borrowed from Indo-Iranian culture - it does not exist in European historical records.
"Significantly debunked"?
No.
Do _you_ have something significant to debunk those conclusions... perhaps a tree with 500 additional tree rings than these oldest ones?
I remember you drinkypoo. The last I heard from you, you were requesting me to "eat shit". It wasn't wise to say that with a moniker like yours.
As a former fundie Creationist nut turned atheist, ... ...
Creationists tend to come up with very convincing arguments, and - for what it's worth - I'm still not satisfied with the Big Bang,
As a former athiest nut turned creationist Christian, I repeat: science backs the Bible on creationism.
> As he's explained to me, Hindu has yet to find itself in a real conflict with science.
:0)
How can i put this nicely... he's wrong. Witness...
the caste system (theory of racial superiority, google for "Aryan Dasyu"), mythical creation history (giant turtle supporting the world), support for unscientific superstitions make the Indian populations easy prey for charlatans etc.
Don't get me wrong - there are many things right with Hindu tradition, with wisdom about herbs, medicines, several graceful and beautiful customs, etc. But as a religion, it's just not right.
I'm an Hindu by ethnicity (I have no part in the religion anymore).
Hey again. :) I'm not making claims on behalf of Intel. Just that a lot of people here find it an effective last-mile technology, in a way that Wifi hasn't been able to achieve.
1 Mbps seems about right for the speeds on offer here. Hey, I have 512 Mbps ADSL, and I think _that's_ fast.
Regarding 3G, its an older and more expensive technology compared to Wimax. Here, 3G networks are getting hammered, but Unwired is doing relatively well. In fact, Unwired is planning to trial Voip in April (their modems have a second unused RJ11 port).
Yes, the Navini modems and the Unwired modems are identical.
I found the paragraphs below from this document on their website.
Interference Mitigation and Suppression
With the Navini system, RF power is transmitted in narrow beams that coherently combine at the
intended CPE. Other CPEs do not suffer much interference from the signals directed to others. In
contrast to conventional omni-directional and sectorized systems where a CPE receives all signals
intended for other users, this feature allows each CPE to receive a significantly higher signal-tonoise ratio than conventional systems since it minimizes cross interference.
When using adaptive beamforming for the forward link, Navini's system can be configured to avoid
radiating energy in any specific direction further mitigating interference. If an interference source is detected in a particular direction, the system can create a null in that direction. This is especially critical in frequency bands where other products may be radiating energy towards the CPE and base station.
For the reverse link, when the signal from a certain CPE is to be extracted, spatial filtering or
space-time processing is used to suppress the interference from other CPEs. It has been
demonstrated that the source signal can be completely covered by an interference source and
Navini's system can still compensate and demodulate the signal.
High Maximum Path Loss & Signal Integrity
The biggest challenge to overcome for delivering a zero-install solution is delivering adequate
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for broadband access. The reason old solutions require outside
installation and in many cases line-of-sight alignment to the base station is the inadequacy of
existing technologies to be able to deliver the necessary SNR to an indoor plug-and-play CPE.
Navini solves this problem with MCSB technology: by using a cost-effective, adaptive phased-array
smart antenna at the base station, which produces adaptive beamforming, and coherent combining
of sub-carriers at a specific CPE location. The adaptive phased-array smart antenna utilizes power
more efficiently than conventional methods to deliver significantly increased SNR to the CPE.
Beamforming works in much the same way as a flashlight delivers more light at a desired location
than a conventional bulb, while utilizing a fraction of overall energy (small batteries vs. high
voltage power source). The beamforming gain, combined with diversity antenna gain of the CPE,
eliminates the need for separate custom-installed outdoor antenna/transceiver units.
Beamforming/coherent combining is also done on the upstream at the base station to allow for the
deployment of small low-cost low power CPE.
> if you want to say the court jester shouldn't have bias....
Jon is his own person - he can think what he wants. But who in his right mind will pay attention to unsubstantiated complaints made by an admittedly biased whinger, who then hides behind his funny face persona when a counterpoint is put forward?
Is there something special about droll humor that turns losing arguments around? I think not.
You'll have to get more optimistic soon :-) Here in Australia a company called Unwired is doing quite well (with happy subscribers on a pre-WiMax technology using modems from a company called Navini. They claim their wireless modems are firmware upgradable to WiMax once the spec is finalized. Lots of people are using their service (though I haven't tried it myself), it has been reviewed by local magazines, and from chats with acquiantances who have tried it, the range is at least several miles (they claim their range to be 10 km.)
I saw your explanation, and my electronics engineering skills are too rusty to appraise it critically, but have you considered this?: from what I read, the smart antennae of the type apparently used in WiMax implementations *depend* on multipath, non-LOS propagation. The base station tracks the user constantly and alters phase of the signals among various antennea elements until the multiple signals reinforce each other at the user end.
> Your bias does not matter.
Then what you say also doesn't matter. Goodbye.
> I suggest, when you get to college, a Logic 101 course.
A course you flunked? Read again what I wrote above.
> Here's a clue: EVERYONE has a bias.
That may well be, but do you know mine?
See my response above.
> This was exactly my point. Let me rephrase. Do you have a bias? :)
:-)
:-)
I hope not.
> Are you a liberal, conservative, libertarian? Librarian?
These aren't biases. You've listed political ideologies, and one occupation. Actually, I subscribe to parts of all these ideologies; most compensate for goods points missing in others. In fact most political parties realize this and will freely borrow ideas from ideologies they supposedly oppose.
(Why they don't do so openly, I don't know - it's counterproductive... ).
> "You have an admitted bias, and you refuse to correct it.
> But you still assume to attack Jon Stewart for having an admitted bias.
> When your hypocrisy was pointed out, you say, in effect, 'I'm not a
> journalist!' To which I say, 'EXACTLY!'"
To which I say: What "admitted bias" did I admit to?
This idea of everyone being inextricably bound to biases -- it's just a recent faddish meme that serves no purpose but to confuse.
A bias is *not* like my ethnic heritage... it isn't something to be accepted and celebrated as an integral part of oneself.
Rather, by definition, a *bias* tends to obscure truth and cloud one's judgement. It is something to be *fought* against.
> Jon Stewart isn't a journalist. He plays one on TV.
There's nothing hard and fast about him not being a journalist. In Jon Stewart's case, he mixes entertainment with news and current affairs, and presents with his own bias.
> Your second argument, "So taking his advice about media bias
> is taking the advice of an arrogant joker." seems to indicate that
> you don't believe comedians can complain about how crappy the news has gotten.
Sure they can! BUT if they can't ditch their own bias when they are complaining, WHY should we believe them? Wouldn't *their* *biases* cloud their viewpoint and tend to invalidate their complaint?
Now if Jon complianed about some *specific* incident, that should be examined irrespective of his bias. But he didn't give anything concrete that could stand by itself -- rather he kept saying unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo about "conspiracy", etc. i.e. When challenged for evidence, he's hiding behind his humor.
If you act like a joker *when, at the same time* complaining about bias, you will be treated as one by other unbiased people. I suppose you caught the subsequent election. As I was saying, honestly and sincerity trump wit.
Jon admits to a bias and refuses to correct it - see for example his interview on Crossfire where he agreed he eats Kerry's shit (his phrasing).
[Video online at http://askmen.com/video/current/ - search for "Jon" when the video display opens]
But he wants to still correct all sorts of faults he detects in the mainstream media.
When his hypocracy was pointed out, he said, in effect... "But I'm just a joker".
So taking his advice about media bias is taking the advice of an arrogant joker. People would rather take advice from someone fair.
This is the problem Mike Moore had too. Sincerity and honesty triumph over arrogance, not matter how sophisticated it is.
Well, pity about his language, but he's got very valid points.
Why, didn't your parents ever punish you when you did something wrong?