It's still a discovery. Suggesting something is a hypothesis. Testing a novel hypothesis by making observations, and finding that those observations support the hypothesis, is a discovery.
The effect, if there is one, is so small that you would need a prohibitively large number of monkeys over a prohibitively long period of time. Fortunately, ordinary people have been conducting these experiments on themselves.
You also can't "look at how it happened" based on the result. You first have to know how to make it happen, then have an idea about why it happens, then you can look for indications that you are correct. You can't just look at some tumor tissue and say "oh, THAT's how it happened!"
That's not really how it works. Your null hypothesis is dictated for you by the statistical test you're using, not what you think is going to happen, or what the "sensible default position" is. Most statistical tests have the general null hypothesis "there is no effect" or "these things are not different." For example, the normal experiment to test whether people who are given a 2000 calorie per day supplement of pure lard gain more weight than people on a normal control diet would have a null hypothesis that the groups are the same - the 2000 calories of lard has no effect.
Usually a negative result indicates no significant departure from the null hypothesis. That is NOT the same as showing that the null hypothesis is significantly likely. That takes different stats, and most studies are not powered to do so.
It's not difficult to prove a negative, it's impossible. What they did do is show that there is no reason to think cell phones increase the risk of cancer more than a particular (small) amount. From the sound of it, they found a very weak correlation between heavy cell phone users and a particular type of brain tumor on the side nearest the phone. Not significant, and likely a fluke, but enough to make a news story out of.
One of the problems with political surveys is that they are not random samples. Many are much closer to convenience samples: they include people who are at home at a particular time, answer the phone, and are willing to participate in the study.
On the other hand, a decently organized cell phone/cancer study would involve a much better sampling methodology.
Rather than make you feel better, I think the point of the comparison is to point out that your problem lies somewhere other than dangerous offender laws.
"Once you start allowing this sort of action, where's the protection that keeps it from growing into something else?"
Well, you could look at the rest of the world and see if anybody has tried the experiment for you.
Canada, the UK and Denmark all have dangerous offender laws that allow indefinite confinement. None of them has anything like the prison population the US does, or locks up 18 year olds forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than they are (I don't believe that's even mildly illegal in any of the three).
Might want to brush up on the reading comprehension.
First, you're making an assumption about the quotes. You even state yourself that it's an assumption - "Putting a pair of words in quotes generally means...."
Second, your example, George Washington, is irrelevant. The line you quoted specifically says "pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war." Now, Wikipedia says Washington died in 1799. The US civil war started in 1861, so I think it's safe to say Washington was not a Confederate leader during the civil war.
"If you actually were taught your history correctly all our founding fathers were religious men."
"Thomas Jefferson was not religious but he did believe in a Creator."
That's the danger in writing long posts... you contradict yourself.
Even supposing your founding fathers were all religious men (which they weren't), it is perfectly possible for a religious person to realize the importance of governing NOT based on his personal religious beliefs. As you point out in your post. So basically, the post you replied to seems to be saying exactly the same thing about the treaty of Tripoli, and the US founders' intentions, as you, minus the contradictions.
Be careful, you're certainly implying a generalized and non-accurate history, not even supported by the very sources you link.
The "2-15 million Native Americans" is a conservative estimate on the low side, not particularly conservative on the high side. Of those, most were in South America, during the Spanish conquest and administration (you can't really blame the US for that). Of the rest, the vast majority were killed by accidentally spread disease. For example, the Mississippi valley civilization, one of the three great American civilizations at the time of western contact, was virtually wiped out by disease before any organized European group arrived.
Yes, the various European powers and the US government were guilty of some terrible things, but they didn't kill 15 million native Americans through deliberate malice as you suggest.
In that case, use tape. Gaffer's tape is designed to come off without leaving marks.
Really, you specifically mentioned Apple but everyone else does this too. If your computer or router is turned on it should show a light. If it bothers you, tape it, turn it off, don't keep it in your room or put something between it and your head when you're in bed.
Apple and many other manufacturers use indicator lights that are a reasonable brightness for the job and have diffuser panels in front of them. There are certain other manufacturers who seem to pride themselves on picking the brightest, most concentrated LEDs they can find. Those are the ones to complain about.
Airpot Utility, Manual Configuration, AirPort, Options, Status Light: Flash on Activity. All other APs I've had have a lot more than one big green light on them, and they have no configuration options.
MBPs have one white light on them that pulses when they're sleeping. If you don't like that, turn your computer off. I've heard that Apple wires the light sensors to the sleep light so that if you put the computer to sleep in a dark room the sleep light will be dimmed accordingly. However, if you put the computer to sleep by closing the lid, the light sensors are disabled and the sleep light is at full brightness.
Dim your backlight. It's not difficult. If your backlight doesn't dim enough, get a better screen.
The backlight on my MBP dims to the point where, were it a book, a mother would materialize out of the void behind me, turn on a lamp, and tell me not to read in the dark, it's bad for my eyes.
Slashdot Mirror
It's still a discovery. Suggesting something is a hypothesis. Testing a novel hypothesis by making observations, and finding that those observations support the hypothesis, is a discovery.
Ack, informative is even worse. Maybe it's the dry sense of humor. You're not British, are you?
The effect, if there is one, is so small that you would need a prohibitively large number of monkeys over a prohibitively long period of time. Fortunately, ordinary people have been conducting these experiments on themselves.
You also can't "look at how it happened" based on the result. You first have to know how to make it happen, then have an idea about why it happens, then you can look for indications that you are correct. You can't just look at some tumor tissue and say "oh, THAT's how it happened!"
That's not really how it works. Your null hypothesis is dictated for you by the statistical test you're using, not what you think is going to happen, or what the "sensible default position" is. Most statistical tests have the general null hypothesis "there is no effect" or "these things are not different." For example, the normal experiment to test whether people who are given a 2000 calorie per day supplement of pure lard gain more weight than people on a normal control diet would have a null hypothesis that the groups are the same - the 2000 calories of lard has no effect.
Usually a negative result indicates no significant departure from the null hypothesis. That is NOT the same as showing that the null hypothesis is significantly likely. That takes different stats, and most studies are not powered to do so.
Fortunately neither microwave radiation nor plastic cell phones is causing an epidemic of brain cancer so you don't need to worry about either one.
It's not difficult to prove a negative, it's impossible. What they did do is show that there is no reason to think cell phones increase the risk of cancer more than a particular (small) amount. From the sound of it, they found a very weak correlation between heavy cell phone users and a particular type of brain tumor on the side nearest the phone. Not significant, and likely a fluke, but enough to make a news story out of.
One of the problems with political surveys is that they are not random samples. Many are much closer to convenience samples: they include people who are at home at a particular time, answer the phone, and are willing to participate in the study.
On the other hand, a decently organized cell phone/cancer study would involve a much better sampling methodology.
Rather than make you feel better, I think the point of the comparison is to point out that your problem lies somewhere other than dangerous offender laws.
Combine 2 and 3.
Come on mods, this is funny, not insightful. Someone might take it seriously with the insightful mod.
"If you're concerned about your exposure to terahertz radiation, you'd better hide in a cave because it's everywhere."
Not going to help. Everything that won't freeze you to death emits terahertz radiation. Including your own body.
"Once you start allowing this sort of action, where's the protection that keeps it from growing into something else?"
Well, you could look at the rest of the world and see if anybody has tried the experiment for you.
Canada, the UK and Denmark all have dangerous offender laws that allow indefinite confinement. None of them has anything like the prison population the US does, or locks up 18 year olds forever because they had sex with a girl a few months younger than they are (I don't believe that's even mildly illegal in any of the three).
The number of passengers you can cram into an airplane is not dictated by the volume. Yet.
Having flown both... don't fly Air Canada. I guess it's better than an American carrier, but still.
Might want to brush up on the reading comprehension.
First, you're making an assumption about the quotes. You even state yourself that it's an assumption - "Putting a pair of words in quotes generally means...."
Second, your example, George Washington, is irrelevant. The line you quoted specifically says "pro-slavery Confederate leaders during the civil war." Now, Wikipedia says Washington died in 1799. The US civil war started in 1861, so I think it's safe to say Washington was not a Confederate leader during the civil war.
"If you actually were taught your history correctly all our founding fathers were religious men."
"Thomas Jefferson was not religious but he did believe in a Creator."
That's the danger in writing long posts... you contradict yourself.
Even supposing your founding fathers were all religious men (which they weren't), it is perfectly possible for a religious person to realize the importance of governing NOT based on his personal religious beliefs. As you point out in your post. So basically, the post you replied to seems to be saying exactly the same thing about the treaty of Tripoli, and the US founders' intentions, as you, minus the contradictions.
Did you maybe reply to the wrong AC?
Be careful, you're certainly implying a generalized and non-accurate history, not even supported by the very sources you link.
The "2-15 million Native Americans" is a conservative estimate on the low side, not particularly conservative on the high side. Of those, most were in South America, during the Spanish conquest and administration (you can't really blame the US for that). Of the rest, the vast majority were killed by accidentally spread disease. For example, the Mississippi valley civilization, one of the three great American civilizations at the time of western contact, was virtually wiped out by disease before any organized European group arrived.
Yes, the various European powers and the US government were guilty of some terrible things, but they didn't kill 15 million native Americans through deliberate malice as you suggest.
In that case, use tape. Gaffer's tape is designed to come off without leaving marks.
Really, you specifically mentioned Apple but everyone else does this too. If your computer or router is turned on it should show a light. If it bothers you, tape it, turn it off, don't keep it in your room or put something between it and your head when you're in bed.
Apple and many other manufacturers use indicator lights that are a reasonable brightness for the job and have diffuser panels in front of them. There are certain other manufacturers who seem to pride themselves on picking the brightest, most concentrated LEDs they can find. Those are the ones to complain about.
Airpot Utility, Manual Configuration, AirPort, Options, Status Light: Flash on Activity. All other APs I've had have a lot more than one big green light on them, and they have no configuration options.
MBPs have one white light on them that pulses when they're sleeping. If you don't like that, turn your computer off. I've heard that Apple wires the light sensors to the sleep light so that if you put the computer to sleep in a dark room the sleep light will be dimmed accordingly. However, if you put the computer to sleep by closing the lid, the light sensors are disabled and the sleep light is at full brightness.
Dim your backlight. It's not difficult. If your backlight doesn't dim enough, get a better screen.
The backlight on my MBP dims to the point where, were it a book, a mother would materialize out of the void behind me, turn on a lamp, and tell me not to read in the dark, it's bad for my eyes.
And hope nothing happens to the power supply to that electric motor while you're driving.
I suppose you could use another of these things to get an unpowered neutral, but then you've got twice the complication.
Very good... I didn't even think of that meaning of a quarter. That's what you get at a quarter to seven in the morning on a Saturday.
"at least 1/quarter"
1 / (1/4) = 4? You've had four times as many drives fail as you've used? That is rather high....
There's a difference between the you-can't-use-this-unless-you-pay-me-IP and giving credit where credit is due "IP."
The idea of not claiming someone else's work as your own is a lot older than the profit motive style IP.
"So what do you call it when smart-assedness turns into a mass-advertisement of your ignorance ?"
Dramatic irony?
From dictionary.com:
irony that is inherent in speeches or a situation of a drama and is understood by the audience but not grasped by the characters in the play.
He he.