This is an observational study, not a clinical trial. That is a very weak form of research.
If it was a clinical trial, we would have a control group vs a test group, where the only different is the amount of cholesterol or eggs consumed. Because this is is an observational study, there would be many other differences in diet and lifestyle.
For example: some people are more likely to follow the guidelines for diet and lifestyle than others. One of those guidelines is "eat less eggs", and others would be "eat less of various other unhealthy things" and "get more exercise". As a result, that group would be healthier, but it may be completely unrelated to the eggs consumed. In other words, it is association, not causation. The egg consumption and the CVD percentages may not be causally related to each other, but may be causally linked to another factor "follows mainstream guidelines".
Border security *is* important. But a wall doesn't help that much to stop illegal immigration. Because more of them are arriving by plane and overstaying their visas, than are arriving by foot. Source: http://cmsny.org/publications/...
I want to see the law enforced when it comes to illegal immigrants. But I don't want MY TAX DOLLARS spent on a waste of money like a wall. And by the way it's not 5 billion, it's more than that, eg projected to be at least $21.6 billion over three and a half years (same source).
Also, the number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants declined since 2007. Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... So why this should be the most important issue right now, worth shutting down the government for? Answer: Trump's ego.
And as a final irony, the shutdown itself has resulted in immigration agents being furloughed, so actual number of deportations is down now. Good job Trump.
Hey, great examples of 1. the "tu quoque" fallacy. Latin for “you too,” is also called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn’t solve the problem, or prove one’s point, because even hypocrites can tell the truth. 2. A “red herring” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic.
No doubt they were trying to sow unrest. However, if you're saying they didn't care which candidate won, that is bullshit.
The indictment says the Russians' efforts included "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton,".
It fits too, as it is well known Putin hated Clinton.
Listen, whether you like Trump or not, isn't it important to face facts and protect the COUNTRY from this kind of thing?
I think a scam means it claims one thing, but reality is another.
Madoff was a scam for example, where the claim is that he had some brilliant proprietary method that was generating actual returns on the investments. In reality the new investments were funding the expenditures and withdrawals of the old investments.
What exact claim is being made about bitcoin, that is false?
You might say, the claim that one bitcoin is worth $10000 is a claim, and you don't think it's true. But the definition of price is what someone else will pay for it, and there are people who will pay that right now.
If you mean scam in the broader sense, of something where you might lose money if you invest in it - you could say that about any investment.
> There are tons more fun ones, like: > It's crystal-clear this is just 15k+ random people signing a feel-good petition
It's ok everyone, it's ok! Relax. Turns out not all the 15000 people are climate scientists. Therefore we can all just take it easy, safe in the knowledge that the earth is fine, and we can go back to consuming resources like there no tomorrow.
> It's crystal-clear this is just 15k+ random people signing a feel-good petition. Any claim that these signatories are "scientists" in general, much less ones in appropriate fields to make authoritative comments about the subject matter, is unadulterated horseshit.
I call bullshit on your horseshit. Scanning the list, there's a lot of PHD's, professors - that sounds like scientists to me. Also re field of study, the vast majority of them look like they are natural sciences, which is totally appropriate. Sure there are some that don't list the field or the level, or else list something which is in an unrelated field, but that seems like it's pretty rare in the list actually.
If you did filter the list down to just those with post-graduate qualififations, and also in natural sciences, at rough glance it seems like the list would still have at least 10000 people. Why is the list with extra people any less convincing?
Then again, I'm guessing in your case either list would still not be convincing.
"More than Two Thirds of Millennials Say They'd Rather Own Stocks Than Bitcoin"
but that would imply the opposite idea, rather than the preconceived notion that the authors wanted you to think.
The media is full of that kind of thing: sensationalizing the headline to grab attention, whereas if you really think about the information it's not so interesting.
It would be nice if slashdot editors didn't get sucked in and pass these kinds of things onto us though.
That's ridiculous. By that logic, smaller countries like New Zealand and Australia that have high per-person emissions but low absolute emissions because of low populations, should be given a free ride?
You could define any arbitrary sub-division to support a given position. For example, California total emissions would be way more than Rhode Island, but that is completely meaningless because the populations are so different. Should we apply much stricter reductions to the californians more than the rhode islanders? No one would advocate that, but that is similar to the approach of viewing China vs USA on total emissions.
In terms of managing the effect people have on the environment, it makes much more sense to compare the per capita emissions of those regions (or any regions), because it relates closely to what people *need* to be using and emitting, because requirements are also per person.
If we want to work out how much people should pay for government services (aka taxes), are the rates based on the the total contributions of the two regions, or is it per person?
You're right that nature doesn't care about how we measure. In that sense, the choice to measure in these groupings we call "nations" is completely arbitrary and counter productive. Nature doesn't know about China or USA, it's knows about 7 biliion people that are all contributing to the problem. Just some people are contributing more than others.
What is that hard though, is to understand why your comment got modded insightful.
If you're demanding no less than the full set of ads involved: it's natural to expect the tech firms involved would hold back, because the whole thing is very embarrassing for them.
> and certainly not any journalist's outright lies about this
Aha, herein lies a big part of the problem. Trump has convinced you that "the media" is the enemy, it's all fake news. That is one of the steps that autocrats take, to discredit a free and open press, to remove one of the points of accountability on them.
Why focus on just one individual, who is no longer a lawmaker, nor even a very significant celebrity any more?
There are thousands of rich people with private jets and multiple vacation homes. If you want to encourage them to live more sustainable lives, there is a very direct way to do it: use incentives that they care about, that is: money. AKA Carbon tax.
> When you try to turn this into a "smart" vs "not smart" you are asking for trouble
Actually Nate Silver did some analysis showing Clinton surged in the 50 most educated counties, and collapsed in the 50 least educated counties.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
I think the OP should be given "-1 Pedantic", and I wouldn't normally dignify it with a response, except I notice a symmetry here with the other end of the scale: If particles can be split apart, can each really be called "Atoms"?
Let's look at each of your best attempts at a scary consequence.
"Stores can use information about your Doritos purchases to rearrange their wares" - sounds good to me, helping to make sure the shelf hasn't run out of what I want. Why be so protective of information which is expressed so publicly anyway whenever you shop?
"Google could push coupons via its new Google Offers service" - coupons are an annoying way to create artificial loyalty, but I don't think it started with Google Wallet. What might be new here is how tailored the coupons are to your preferences, but I don't see how that's a problem either.
"your health insurance company might be interested in your sodium intake" - of course their interested. Now consider the two options: (a) they don't get information about your individual health, or (b) they do get information. In (a), the insurance premium has to be the same for everyone, regardless of health. If you happen to unhealthy, you're better off, paying the average instead of above average. BUT if you're healthy you're worse off, effectively subsidizing other people's poor lifestyle. This is unfair on those who are healthy, and bad for the group since it rewards bad health as an individual strategy.
Come on man, let go and be part of the google hive mind. One of us, one of us.
(Not sure whether I was really convincing there... thoughts?)
The article is a "Straw Man" argument, that is to say based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
To my knowledge, no one makes such a statement as "Quantum Theory Explains Consciousness". There are some sceculative attempts to explain consciousness, but none that I know of use Quantum Theory as the be-all and end-all.
What people might be saying is, there are some interesting relationships between Quantum Theory and Consiousness, which merit further exploration. This is hard to dispute, given the seemingly important role of the conscious observer in the act of measurement.
Thus, "Quantum Theory relates to consciousness" has been mistaken for "Quantum Theory explains consiousness". These are two very different ideas, as "relates", and "explains" are two different kinds of relationships. In fact, "explains" is a special case of "relates to", is the meta-relationship, but I digress.
This sounds more like someone wants to work in the field of philosphy of consciousness, but is grizzling about being expected to know the difficult field of Quantum Theory.
What would make you happy? That thinking about Quantum Theory be banned in all discussions about consciousness?
In the middle, there is a clear example of tautology, with the phrase "no apparent causal link", expressed as though it is an observation to use as input. "Consciousness is not explained" because "there is no apparent link", both expressing essentially the same idea, and the latter is just assumed to be true.
Your argument degenerates into terms like "very basic". When you just keep saying how obvious it is, usually it's the result of the argument lacking any real content.
Now I don't expect this will serve any purpose, but I will take this criticism and make it constructive. It would advance the cause if Science better for you to say what you think consiousness *might* be explained by, rather than what you think it "probably isn't" caused by.
Or if you really want to help rule it out as a cause (which *would*, I admit, have some benefit), then MAKE A MORE SOLID CASE.
Frankly, the mention of the term "carbon footprint" puts this squarely in the "hype" category.
Why did that get modded 5 insightful? Carbon Footprint is a valid and useful term.
The only reason I can see why some might like the above comment is if they are so conservative on climate change, they reject even the terms used in discussing it.
It would almost qualify as an example of the logical fallacy known as the "Appeal to Ridicule" but it wasn't quite intelligent enough.
So, we just cut the budget on this project from $4billion to $0.5billion.
And in the meantime, we also just gave $700billion to a bunch of banks. To save them from bankruptcy that was of their own making.
WTF !?!?!
Give NASA some funding - like maybe a tenth of what is being spent in fixing the financial crisis? At least then we know it will be spent on achieving something great.
By going on about the lesser known senses beyond the commonly understand five, you have completely missed the point of this demo, which shows a very interesting new technology. You have focused on an entirely unrelated point about number of senses, purely because of the title of the demo. Whether we have 5 or 16 does not change in any way the coolness of this technology. Don't be so pedantic.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an observational study, not a clinical trial. That is a very weak form of research.
If it was a clinical trial, we would have a control group vs a test group, where the only different is the amount of cholesterol or eggs consumed. Because this is is an observational study, there would be many other differences in diet and lifestyle.
For example: some people are more likely to follow the guidelines for diet and lifestyle than others. One of those guidelines is "eat less eggs", and others would be "eat less of various other unhealthy things" and "get more exercise". As a result, that group would be healthier, but it may be completely unrelated to the eggs consumed. In other words, it is association, not causation. The egg consumption and the CVD percentages may not be causally related to each other, but may be causally linked to another factor "follows mainstream guidelines".
Nice speech. Would you have given the same if he had asked for Alpha Centauri by next Tuesday? Because setting foot on Mars by 2020 is about as likely
Border security *is* important. But a wall doesn't help that much to stop illegal immigration. Because more of them are arriving by plane and overstaying their visas, than are arriving by foot. Source: http://cmsny.org/publications/...
I want to see the law enforced when it comes to illegal immigrants. But I don't want MY TAX DOLLARS spent on a waste of money like a wall. And by the way it's not 5 billion, it's more than that, eg projected to be at least $21.6 billion over three and a half years (same source).
Also, the number of Mexican unauthorized immigrants declined since 2007. Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... So why this should be the most important issue right now, worth shutting down the government for? Answer: Trump's ego.
And as a final irony, the shutdown itself has resulted in immigration agents being furloughed, so actual number of deportations is down now. Good job Trump.
Hey, great examples of
1. the "tu quoque" fallacy. Latin for “you too,” is also called the “appeal to hypocrisy” because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn’t solve the problem, or prove one’s point, because even hypocrites can tell the truth.
2. A “red herring” is a distraction from the argument typically with some sentiment that seems to be relevant but isn’t really on-topic.
> Media has been devolving into internet clickbait for some time
And why is that? Because people click on it.
If we want to know who the problem is, we should look in the mirror.
What Rosenstein says: "There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge."
What Rosenstein thinks: "Please don't fire me, please don't fire me, please don't fire me ..."
> "No Americans involved who knew what was going on or that Russians where involved" is the key thing I took away from it.
If you were on the Titanic and heard of the iceberg, I think you would be saying:
"No boats have sunk so far" is the key thing I took away from it.
No doubt they were trying to sow unrest. However, if you're saying they didn't care which candidate won, that is bullshit.
The indictment says the Russians' efforts included "supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaging Hillary Clinton,".
It fits too, as it is well known Putin hated Clinton.
Listen, whether you like Trump or not, isn't it important to face facts and protect the COUNTRY from this kind of thing?
> Yes, of course Bitcoin is a scam.
Why exactly?
I think a scam means it claims one thing, but reality is another.
Madoff was a scam for example, where the claim is that he had some brilliant proprietary method that was generating actual returns on the investments. In reality the new investments were funding the expenditures and withdrawals of the old investments.
What exact claim is being made about bitcoin, that is false?
You might say, the claim that one bitcoin is worth $10000 is a claim, and you don't think it's true. But the definition of price is what someone else will pay for it, and there are people who will pay that right now.
If you mean scam in the broader sense, of something where you might lose money if you invest in it - you could say that about any investment.
> There are tons more fun ones, like:
> It's crystal-clear this is just 15k+ random people signing a feel-good petition
It's ok everyone, it's ok! Relax. Turns out not all the 15000 people are climate scientists. Therefore we can all just take it easy, safe in the knowledge that the earth is fine, and we can go back to consuming resources like there no tomorrow.
> It's crystal-clear this is just 15k+ random people signing a feel-good petition. Any claim that these signatories are "scientists" in general, much less ones in appropriate fields to make authoritative comments about the subject matter, is unadulterated horseshit.
I call bullshit on your horseshit. Scanning the list, there's a lot of PHD's, professors - that sounds like scientists to me. Also re field of study, the vast majority of them look like they are natural sciences, which is totally appropriate. Sure there are some that don't list the field or the level, or else list something which is in an unrelated field, but that seems like it's pretty rare in the list actually.
If you did filter the list down to just those with post-graduate qualififations, and also in natural sciences, at rough glance it seems like the list would still have at least 10000 people. Why is the list with extra people any less convincing?
Then again, I'm guessing in your case either list would still not be convincing.
"More than Two Thirds of Millennials Say They'd Rather Own Stocks Than Bitcoin"
but that would imply the opposite idea, rather than the preconceived notion that the authors wanted you to think.
The media is full of that kind of thing: sensationalizing the headline to grab attention, whereas if you really think about the information it's not so interesting.
It would be nice if slashdot editors didn't get sucked in and pass these kinds of things onto us though.
That's ridiculous. By that logic, smaller countries like New Zealand and Australia that have high per-person emissions but low absolute emissions because of low populations, should be given a free ride?
You could define any arbitrary sub-division to support a given position. For example, California total emissions would be way more than Rhode Island, but that is completely meaningless because the populations are so different. Should we apply much stricter reductions to the californians more than the rhode islanders? No one would advocate that, but that is similar to the approach of viewing China vs USA on total emissions.
In terms of managing the effect people have on the environment, it makes much more sense to compare the per capita emissions of those regions (or any regions), because it relates closely to what people *need* to be using and emitting, because requirements are also per person.
If we want to work out how much people should pay for government services (aka taxes), are the rates based on the the total contributions of the two regions, or is it per person?
You're right that nature doesn't care about how we measure. In that sense, the choice to measure in these groupings we call "nations" is completely arbitrary and counter productive. Nature doesn't know about China or USA, it's knows about 7 biliion people that are all contributing to the problem. Just some people are contributing more than others.
> Really. Is it that hard?
No, it's not. There are some examples out there. So if you're asking for information, here you go:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
http://www.philly.com/philly/n...
What is that hard though, is to understand why your comment got modded insightful.
If you're demanding no less than the full set of ads involved: it's natural to expect the tech firms involved would hold back, because the whole thing is very embarrassing for them.
> and certainly not any journalist's outright lies about this
Aha, herein lies a big part of the problem. Trump has convinced you that "the media" is the enemy, it's all fake news. That is one of the steps that autocrats take, to discredit a free and open press, to remove one of the points of accountability on them.
There are thousands of rich people with private jets and multiple vacation homes. If you want to encourage them to live more sustainable lives, there is a very direct way to do it: use incentives that they care about, that is: money. AKA Carbon tax.
http://www.investopedia.com/ne...
Seems there are plenty of methods, no more difficult than shorting pretty much anything else.
That got 5 insightful? Slashdot, your standards are dropping
> When you try to turn this into a "smart" vs "not smart" you are asking for trouble
Actually Nate Silver did some analysis showing Clinton surged in the 50 most educated counties, and collapsed in the 50 least educated counties. http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
I think the OP should be given "-1 Pedantic", and I wouldn't normally dignify it with a response, except I notice a symmetry here with the other end of the scale: If particles can be split apart, can each really be called "Atoms"?
We need to see this in Celestia!
Does the internet accept the challenge?
(Ok Devil's advocate here, just for fun.)
Who cares?
Let's look at each of your best attempts at a scary consequence.
"Stores can use information about your Doritos purchases to rearrange their wares" - sounds good to me, helping to make sure the shelf hasn't run out of what I want. Why be so protective of information which is expressed so publicly anyway whenever you shop?
"Google could push coupons via its new Google Offers service" - coupons are an annoying way to create artificial loyalty, but I don't think it started with Google Wallet. What might be new here is how tailored the coupons are to your preferences, but I don't see how that's a problem either.
"your health insurance company might be interested in your sodium intake" - of course their interested. Now consider the two options: (a) they don't get information about your individual health, or (b) they do get information. In (a), the insurance premium has to be the same for everyone, regardless of health. If you happen to unhealthy, you're better off, paying the average instead of above average. BUT if you're healthy you're worse off, effectively subsidizing other people's poor lifestyle. This is unfair on those who are healthy, and bad for the group since it rewards bad health as an individual strategy.
Come on man, let go and be part of the google hive mind. One of us, one of us.
(Not sure whether I was really convincing there ... thoughts?)
The article is a "Straw Man" argument, that is to say based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
To my knowledge, no one makes such a statement as "Quantum Theory Explains Consciousness". There are some sceculative attempts to explain consciousness, but none that I know of use Quantum Theory as the be-all and end-all.
What people might be saying is, there are some interesting relationships between Quantum Theory and Consiousness, which merit further exploration. This is hard to dispute, given the seemingly important role of the conscious observer in the act of measurement.
Thus, "Quantum Theory relates to consciousness" has been mistaken for "Quantum Theory explains consiousness". These are two very different ideas, as "relates", and "explains" are two different kinds of relationships. In fact, "explains" is a special case of "relates to", is the meta-relationship, but I digress.
This sounds more like someone wants to work in the field of philosphy of consciousness, but is grizzling about being expected to know the difficult field of Quantum Theory.
What would make you happy? That thinking about Quantum Theory be banned in all discussions about consciousness?
In the middle, there is a clear example of tautology, with the phrase "no apparent causal link", expressed as though it is an observation to use as input. "Consciousness is not explained" because "there is no apparent link", both expressing essentially the same idea, and the latter is just assumed to be true.
Your argument degenerates into terms like "very basic". When you just keep saying how obvious it is, usually it's the result of the argument lacking any real content.
Now I don't expect this will serve any purpose, but I will take this criticism and make it constructive. It would advance the cause if Science better for you to say what you think consiousness *might* be explained by, rather than what you think it "probably isn't" caused by.
Or if you really want to help rule it out as a cause (which *would*, I admit, have some benefit), then MAKE A MORE SOLID CASE.
* Someone that have not read a book in their entire life.
Someone that like to criticize other despite have not much good grammar?
I am amazed and inspired. To think, some people go on boat trips with their work colleagues. Awesome!
Frankly, the mention of the term "carbon footprint" puts this squarely in the "hype" category.
Why did that get modded 5 insightful? Carbon Footprint is a valid and useful term.
The only reason I can see why some might like the above comment is if they are so conservative on climate change, they reject even the terms used in discussing it.
It would almost qualify as an example of the logical fallacy known as the "Appeal to Ridicule" but it wasn't quite intelligent enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
So, we just cut the budget on this project from $4billion to $0.5billion.
And in the meantime, we also just gave $700billion to a bunch of banks. To save them from bankruptcy that was of their own making.
WTF !?!?!
Give NASA some funding - like maybe a tenth of what is being spent in fixing the financial crisis? At least then we know it will be spent on achieving something great.
By going on about the lesser known senses beyond the commonly understand five, you have completely missed the point of this demo, which shows a very interesting new technology. You have focused on an entirely unrelated point about number of senses, purely because of the title of the demo. Whether we have 5 or 16 does not change in any way the coolness of this technology. Don't be so pedantic.