Libertarian First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh has analyzed Kagan's scholarship and predicts that she will be "generally pretty speech-protective," and Fox News legal analyst Megyn Kelly said that "on free speech, Elena Kagan... seems pretty middle of the road."
So, if FN says she is middle of the road, and a libertarian agrees that she is speech-protective, is there a legal expert who agrees with the articles premise?
The p-value interpretation is obviously what the authors in the article want, and the clearer statement. My statement is a half-flip of the confidence interval (CI). The true CI statement is
Pr(CI contains true) = 0.95.
Not
Pr(true in CI) = 0.95.
What I said was
Pr(future-estimated in current-CI) = 0.95.
Which I thought was true, but now I'm not so sure. You said
Pr(estimated >= current estimated | true = 0) = 0.05.
A statement I am sure about, except that its disappointing that it regards the null and not the alternative. To rectify this, I'd prepend, "only" or "just" to "5%".
From the article, "there’s a 5 percent probability that the two types of particles weigh the same." Except, that would require a Bayesian statistical analysis and a prior. The thing to remember about confidence intervals is that the interval is random while the true value is stationary, so if you want to make statements about randomness, you have to make statements about the interval. Example, "An experiment conducted this way would find more muon antineutrinos than muon neutrinos disappear 95% of the time."
How, exactly, would you run a power grid if not using networked computers? I guess you have the option of building your own internet, but why not just secure the one that is already there.
The simple fact of the matter is that until we have crackability performance tests for national security essential services, some big business is just going to wait for the disaster to happen and then take care of it. They would have to be performed by somebody with actual cracking ability, and have fines to back them up. Not saying all business is bad in this way--many will see that prevention is better than cleaning up a mess, but others will just wait for the mess and then try to clean it up.
I imagine the point of the kill switch is not the situations slashdotters are thinking of but more like all-out war with China or Russia, AFTER they have a few huge cyber victories--not sure worm that attacks some server. There is this odd assumption that if the President has the power to use it then they will. Think about all the things the President has the power to do but never does?
It used to be that you could get +5 informative simply by RTA and giving some facts from it, now even quoting something from the summary gets you +5 informative.
The more I see stuff like this moded insightful, the more I think I need to find a new website. As someone who pays for all his content, this is absolutely helpful to me--it means more content can be produced. It's also helpful for the large number of people who work for those large firms--they wouldn't be large firms if they didn't have lots of employees.
But there are other goods like this: transportation once the vehicle is going to make the trip is near zero marginal cost, internet connections once you have the line/base station, text messages.
Plus, who cares what the marginal cost is?
Plus, I think you suspect it is lower than it is. For big music, there is promotion costs that are marginal.
Interesting conspiracy theory, I think you are totally wrong but put your finger on the right idea.
I'll bet that it two years we are back to unlimited data, but the companies didn't build to handle 3G data with people downloading several GB each. What they want you to do for now is do everything but DL movies on their network and then DL movies at home.
Just growing pains of managing these huge networks that grew faster than anyone predicted.
Why exactly would I want to spend, even say $200 (a very low price for a system given the cost of a kill-a-watt), for a system that might save me $10 a year on electricity and sometimes annoy me for hours on end.
Well, the distinction may have been a little silly all along RF can split water, so who knows what is being ionized by non-ionizing radiation in complex systems like a body.
Well, the Sievert does not actually measure energy, that is the Gray. Sieverts are Grays, weighted by how the radiation might cause cancer and (in this case) what part of the body they hit. The going assumption is that the rate or total energy matters approximately linearly for low doses, but obviously when you get up there (well above the CT scans) then things change.
"A chest or abdominal CT scan involves 10 to 20 millisieverts, versus 0.01 to 0.1 for an ordinary chest X-ray, less than 1 for a mammogram, and as little as 0.005 for a dental X-ray. Natural radiation from the sun and soil accounts for about 2 millisieverts a year."
So your 30 x-rays add up to 0.15 mSv--if they were using the latest and greatest instrument and knew how to use it. That is a little more than an ordinary chest x-ray.
But I think that assumes that the person taking the x-ray knows how to position the lead apron properly, and not all mine hygienists have know or done this.
Consider it this way: you publish a list of criteria for a list and then publish the list. Others can do as they see fit. Seems like the damage comes from the others, not the list maker so long as they comply with their rules.
If that is the case, then certainly Firefox + ad blocking add ons should make a reasonable share somewhere and you should be able to point to an example.
I would propose slashdot is such an example, and yet the site lives. It is not a problem. QED.
Slashdot Mirror
From the link:
Libertarian First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh has analyzed Kagan's scholarship and predicts that she will be "generally pretty speech-protective," and Fox News legal analyst Megyn Kelly said that "on free speech, Elena Kagan ... seems pretty middle of the road."
So, if FN says she is middle of the road, and a libertarian agrees that she is speech-protective, is there a legal expert who agrees with the articles premise?
The p-value interpretation is obviously what the authors in the article want, and the clearer statement. My statement is a half-flip of the confidence interval (CI). The true CI statement is
Pr(CI contains true) = 0.95.
Not
Pr(true in CI) = 0.95.
What I said was
Pr(future-estimated in current-CI) = 0.95.
Which I thought was true, but now I'm not so sure. You said
Pr(estimated >= current estimated | true = 0) = 0.05.
A statement I am sure about, except that its disappointing that it regards the null and not the alternative. To rectify this, I'd prepend, "only" or "just" to "5%".
That's the p-value interpretation, I gave the confidence interval interpretation. Both are valid.
From the article, "there’s a 5 percent probability that the two types of particles weigh the same." Except, that would require a Bayesian statistical analysis and a prior. The thing to remember about confidence intervals is that the interval is random while the true value is stationary, so if you want to make statements about randomness, you have to make statements about the interval. Example, "An experiment conducted this way would find more muon antineutrinos than muon neutrinos disappear 95% of the time."
How, exactly, would you run a power grid if not using networked computers? I guess you have the option of building your own internet, but why not just secure the one that is already there.
The simple fact of the matter is that until we have crackability performance tests for national security essential services, some big business is just going to wait for the disaster to happen and then take care of it. They would have to be performed by somebody with actual cracking ability, and have fines to back them up. Not saying all business is bad in this way--many will see that prevention is better than cleaning up a mess, but others will just wait for the mess and then try to clean it up.
I imagine the point of the kill switch is not the situations slashdotters are thinking of but more like all-out war with China or Russia, AFTER they have a few huge cyber victories--not sure worm that attacks some server. There is this odd assumption that if the President has the power to use it then they will. Think about all the things the President has the power to do but never does?
It used to be that you could get +5 informative simply by RTA and giving some facts from it, now even quoting something from the summary gets you +5 informative.
Isn't it a beowulf cluster, how long have you been here?
If you want to go raid, how would RAID 5 work with these?
This is pretty much true of all law in the US. You have to follow the law as the SCOTUS will rule it is without being able to know that beforehand.
I think Canada requires this for north-slope wells. Not a bad idea.
The more I see stuff like this moded insightful, the more I think I need to find a new website. As someone who pays for all his content, this is absolutely helpful to me--it means more content can be produced. It's also helpful for the large number of people who work for those large firms--they wouldn't be large firms if they didn't have lots of employees.
I think there ought to be a mod "+1 ditto".
But there are other goods like this: transportation once the vehicle is going to make the trip is near zero marginal cost, internet connections once you have the line/base station, text messages.
Plus, who cares what the marginal cost is?
Plus, I think you suspect it is lower than it is. For big music, there is promotion costs that are marginal.
I pay 2.1 cents in and out per text. Maybe you should switch to a new provider?
Interesting conspiracy theory, I think you are totally wrong but put your finger on the right idea.
I'll bet that it two years we are back to unlimited data, but the companies didn't build to handle 3G data with people downloading several GB each. What they want you to do for now is do everything but DL movies on their network and then DL movies at home.
Just growing pains of managing these huge networks that grew faster than anyone predicted.
"Here in the UK...The government has set a policy for monitoring..." they are in to that there, aren't they.
Yes, but it produces large amounts of greenhouse gases.
Why exactly would I want to spend, even say $200 (a very low price for a system given the cost of a kill-a-watt), for a system that might save me $10 a year on electricity and sometimes annoy me for hours on end.
Yes read the section titled, "What are the health effects of microwave radiation?", second para It starts, "Some biological effects cannot be explained by a temperature rise in the body or in any one part."
Well, the distinction may have been a little silly all along RF can split water, so who knows what is being ionized by non-ionizing radiation in complex systems like a body.
Well, the Sievert does not actually measure energy, that is the Gray. Sieverts are Grays, weighted by how the radiation might cause cancer and (in this case) what part of the body they hit. The going assumption is that the rate or total energy matters approximately linearly for low doses, but obviously when you get up there (well above the CT scans) then things change.
So you really don't see the difference between torrents and RBLs?
Hint: one helps people perpetrate a crime, the other helps people slow the rate of another crime.
From the article:
"A chest or abdominal CT scan involves 10 to 20 millisieverts, versus 0.01 to 0.1 for an ordinary chest X-ray, less than 1 for a mammogram, and as little as 0.005 for a dental X-ray. Natural radiation from the sun and soil accounts for about 2 millisieverts a year."
So your 30 x-rays add up to 0.15 mSv--if they were using the latest and greatest instrument and knew how to use it. That is a little more than an ordinary chest x-ray.
But I think that assumes that the person taking the x-ray knows how to position the lead apron properly, and not all mine hygienists have know or done this.
Check the related stories...
"Judge In e360 Vs. Comcast Rules e360 a Spammer "
http://it.slashdot.org/story/08/04/11/1511255/Judge-In-e360-Vs-Comcast-Rules-e360-a-Spammer
Consider it this way: you publish a list of criteria for a list and then publish the list. Others can do as they see fit. Seems like the damage comes from the others, not the list maker so long as they comply with their rules.
If that is the case, then certainly Firefox + ad blocking add ons should make a reasonable share somewhere and you should be able to point to an example.
I would propose slashdot is such an example, and yet the site lives. It is not a problem. QED.
Yeah, that made me laugh too. How does he think his email gets to him, anyway?