The comment about "only evidence" was in response to the question about it showing correlation. Since he wanted more info, I gave him more info. That in no way agrees with the "initial response" which stated the link in no way supported my point. Quite the opposite.
Also, your link actually says Sowell is committed to empiricism, among the other opinions of the anonymous wiki writers. You can also tell by the tone of the article that the people writing it don't know anything about economics, for example. You know, the field Sowell got his National Humanities Medal for, as well as his Doctorate in, as well as taught in at major universities for decades. Try arguing with his empirical research, rather than citing someone's anonymous opinion. Oh, that's also you, isn't it?
In summary, please learn basic reading skills. I won't be responding to any more anonymous coward trolls on this thread.
That's only if you assume that article is the only evidence. The link was just a quick google result meant to just show the correlation, because many people who blame the legacy of slavery, or racism, or something inherent with blacks don't realize crime, poverty and single motherhood had already gotten much better 100 years after slavery, before the welfare state war on poverty. None of the "explanations" commonly given in left-wing nor in racist circles even correlate with the timeline of the facts, let alone explain them.
I think there is definitely some room for additional contributory explanations like the "war on drugs" as well, although the timing on that doesn't match up as well for an inflection point. If you think about it, lacking education and career opportunities is silly as an explanation, unless you think those were improving for black women until the 1950s, but with the Civil Rights Act and such in the 60s, suddenly it all started getting much worse? Somehow I don't think that is going to hold much explanatory power. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but you do need at least some correlation in order to consider something for such a dramatic causation. When the same correlations occur in other countries like England and among other races (like whites), the pattern becomes pretty obvious.
The impacts of similar laws are demonstrated as recently as 1999 in Britain. I couldn't find a direct link to the journal article itself, but in news article summary: 'The prestigious Journal of Economics has published "The Effect of In-Work Benefit Reform in Britain on Couples: Theory and Evidence"'showing "the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit has increased the divorce or separation rate by a staggering 160 per cent among women married to or living with a partner who either does not work, or who earns very little because he works part-time."
There is literally a ton of related evidence, not just a single correlation. Most anyone who has honestly researched the various timings, effects and related welfare system laws can see the same thing, it's not a big mystery, although it does tend to quash some people's kneejerk reactions of slavery, racism or some inherent racist characteristic.
What part of "The percentage of children under 18 living with an unmarried mother has increased substantially since the 1960s, with the largest increase seen among blacks" do you think doesn't support my conclusion?
If you look back before the war on poverty (which this article doesn't go back that far), you'll see a decline for decades after the civil war.
Maybe you should say something specific about what you think is incorrect, rather than just accusing someone of lying?
One excellent use case for this feature is to make it much easier to classify the email you want to read from someone's mailbox using it instead of having to dig through all their email to find the juicy bits.
So for Google Mail Administrators, for example, they can focus their reading time on people's confidential mode emails and ignore the rest, which is probably mostly spam anyway. See how useful that is?
They're only looking at the CEOs of the largest companies. Actual Average CEO salary is $162K, not $18.9M, and that doesn't count failed CEOs.
Their comparison is like saying "Average basketball player salaries are $10M/year" by just looking at the salaries of the top players in the NBA. Like sports stars, Hollywood celebrities, famous artists, etc.... there are some occupations which are lottery-like in structure, where only a few of the people who attempt them get paid the big bucks at the top of the professions. If you average in the risks of ending up being just a guy who ran a bankrupt company, or a basketball player who plays for free in the local league, or a "waiter" instead of actor, the occupations don't seem nearly as lucrative.
You're not trying to create a useful wifi connection to use their device as an access point, all you're trying to do is detect any of the frames they're routinely transmitting and check the MAC address against a list of who the manufacturer is.
You aren't having a conversation and you don't need to transmit to detect, so you can just boost what you're receiving enough to get about a 5x increase for detection-only range (depending on other interference on the same channel). If you want to go to something on your roof with multiple higher gain antennaes, you're more likely to get too many false positives because of normal traffic and proximity of cops based on the range than to need to worry your physical range is too short.
Need to know if there are any cops around for your illegal business? Don't worry, you can just setup a wifi scanner on your phone to alert you when a cop's camera comes within range! Effective at least a couple hundred meters and probably up to a km!
Government purchase contracts and decision-making has a poor reputation for a reason. This is just yet another example in a very long list.
Sorry, but most cuban health care facilities don't even have working toilets. Patients are instructed to bring their own supplies from home.
They have a little bit of decent health care, but it's reserved for Communist Party elites and foreign visitors who can pay. Everyone else in the country gets lousy health care where after waiting forever to see someone, they have to hope they washed their hands by bringing in their own soap and water and didn't go near the atrocious conditions of the rooms.
Sure, but that's not what they did here. They made a faked mock-up designed to look similar to the actual site in the resulting html. That's where the resemblance to the real State website ended. The didn't replicate the architecture of the actual sites, it was basically a "If you do this, this happens" demo, then they let the kids play around with what they'd shown them in the demo environment.
Let's just make it a $100,000/hour minimum wage, then people wouldn't have to work more than a few hours a year if they don't want, right? If we aren't going to worry about the other economic consequences, we can just set it to as high as we want and legislate everything into magical free wealth world, right?
So your idea is to give more power and control to the politicians and bureaucrats who screwed it up the first few times, coincidentally benefiting their "friends" in the process.
Yeah, some people never learn, do they? Get back to us when Venezuela's experiment with nationalizing most of their major industries results in something other than destroying them and leaving people to starve.
No, "we" didn't pay the telcos billions to build out the last mile.
Some politicians and government bureaucrats chose to take some people's money and mostly waste it on overhead while benefiting their "friends", the same thing which usually happens when government decides to "fix" something like that. You have to start with the people and the heavily regulated telecom system which make the whole thing possible.
Instead, lots of people will turn around and decide the solution is to give those same people more power and money, 'cause somehow this time it'll be different...
Here in the United States, I also pay $70/month for 1Gbps symmetrical.
The issue is that not every place in the U.S. is the same, nor has the same geography, nor the same population density, nor the same local laws, nor the same local telecom and cable TV history. So what you can get varies by the realities of the specific situation. I have multiple providers for DSL, cable, fixed wireless and fiber. Some other locations, it just isn't worth to pay the money it would take (i.e. the resources it would take) to wire up faster speeds when DSL or mobile phone wireless or satellite or whatever gets them by.
Part of my job is to manage international network circuits, including to places like Antarctica. Yeah, you can't get the same bandwidth and latency to that entire continent that you can get to my house. Duh, there are these laws of physics and supply and demand which dictate that situation.
Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are also basic human rights, yet you advocate for arbitrarily forcibly denying those to people because you don't agree with their choice in vehicles.
The two aren't the same. Shooting someone in the face does predicable and direct harm to them. Driving a slightly less fuel efficient car and spending the difference in cost on something else doesn't.
If the harm is so obvious and direct, then by that argument, you should be suffocated because you release CO2 every time you breathe, which harms everyone on the planet. Obviously as you aren't suffocating yourself, you don't actually believe that every bit of CO2 emitted is a harm to everyone on the planet which must be prevented by the force of government.
So if all the automakers already have the technology and if people want to buy it, then there is no need to create regulations forcing people to do it, right? Automakers would just naturally do it just to compete and sell more cars.
Of course, if that's just B.S. and people don't actually want to pay an ever increasing amount of money to squeeze another tiny amount of fuel efficiency out of their cars, then maybe we should respect their individual choices and let them buy the cars they actually want, in the process benefiting more people with more new cars they like.
You realize that pickups and SUVs already fall under a different, easier to meet classification than cars do, right?
The fact that they are the best selling vehicles right now actually helps prove the argument to stop the ever increasing spiral of tougher to meet regulations which can't be met without expensive new technology which doesn't currently exist in production cars, not make it "shaky".
Slashdot Mirror
The comment about "only evidence" was in response to the question about it showing correlation. Since he wanted more info, I gave him more info. That in no way agrees with the "initial response" which stated the link in no way supported my point. Quite the opposite.
Also, your link actually says Sowell is committed to empiricism, among the other opinions of the anonymous wiki writers. You can also tell by the tone of the article that the people writing it don't know anything about economics, for example. You know, the field Sowell got his National Humanities Medal for, as well as his Doctorate in, as well as taught in at major universities for decades. Try arguing with his empirical research, rather than citing someone's anonymous opinion. Oh, that's also you, isn't it?
In summary, please learn basic reading skills. I won't be responding to any more anonymous coward trolls on this thread.
That's only if you assume that article is the only evidence. The link was just a quick google result meant to just show the correlation, because many people who blame the legacy of slavery, or racism, or something inherent with blacks don't realize crime, poverty and single motherhood had already gotten much better 100 years after slavery, before the welfare state war on poverty. None of the "explanations" commonly given in left-wing nor in racist circles even correlate with the timeline of the facts, let alone explain them.
Here's a summary from Dr. Thomas Sowell, noted black Harvard educated (pre-affirmative action) economist. Here's a longer, more detailed look at the issue from City Journal. If you want even more detail, including academic studies and citations, the best source is Sowell's books “Wealth, Poverty, and Politics" and “Vision of the Anointed”, but I obviously can't link you to a free to read copy of those. Here's someone who tried to summarize part, including some of the references to other countries which experienced the same issue, making the theory replicable.
I think there is definitely some room for additional contributory explanations like the "war on drugs" as well, although the timing on that doesn't match up as well for an inflection point. If you think about it, lacking education and career opportunities is silly as an explanation, unless you think those were improving for black women until the 1950s, but with the Civil Rights Act and such in the 60s, suddenly it all started getting much worse? Somehow I don't think that is going to hold much explanatory power. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but you do need at least some correlation in order to consider something for such a dramatic causation. When the same correlations occur in other countries like England and among other races (like whites), the pattern becomes pretty obvious.
The impacts of similar laws are demonstrated as recently as 1999 in Britain. I couldn't find a direct link to the journal article itself, but in news article summary: 'The prestigious Journal of Economics has published "The Effect of In-Work Benefit Reform in Britain on Couples: Theory and Evidence"'showing "the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit has increased the divorce or separation rate by a staggering 160 per cent among women married to or living with a partner who either does not work, or who earns very little because he works part-time."
There is literally a ton of related evidence, not just a single correlation. Most anyone who has honestly researched the various timings, effects and related welfare system laws can see the same thing, it's not a big mystery, although it does tend to quash some people's kneejerk reactions of slavery, racism or some inherent racist characteristic.
What part of "The percentage of children under 18 living with an unmarried mother has increased substantially since the 1960s, with the largest increase seen among blacks" do you think doesn't support my conclusion?
If you look back before the war on poverty (which this article doesn't go back that far), you'll see a decline for decades after the civil war.
Maybe you should say something specific about what you think is incorrect, rather than just accusing someone of lying?
One excellent use case for this feature is to make it much easier to classify the email you want to read from someone's mailbox using it instead of having to dig through all their email to find the juicy bits.
So for Google Mail Administrators, for example, they can focus their reading time on people's confidential mode emails and ignore the rest, which is probably mostly spam anyway. See how useful that is?
Blacks in the U.S. had a much lower rate of fatherless homes and crime before the "War on Poverty" started in 1964 and the government took over as the "Dad" in families, incentivizing single motherhood. In 1950, the single motherhood rate for blacks was under 20%. Now it's over 70%.
When you pay trillions of dollars per year for something over decades, you shouldn't be surprised when you end up with more of it.
They're only looking at the CEOs of the largest companies. Actual Average CEO salary is $162K, not $18.9M, and that doesn't count failed CEOs.
Their comparison is like saying "Average basketball player salaries are $10M/year" by just looking at the salaries of the top players in the NBA. Like sports stars, Hollywood celebrities, famous artists, etc.... there are some occupations which are lottery-like in structure, where only a few of the people who attempt them get paid the big bucks at the top of the professions. If you average in the risks of ending up being just a guy who ran a bankrupt company, or a basketball player who plays for free in the local league, or a "waiter" instead of actor, the occupations don't seem nearly as lucrative.
You're not trying to create a useful wifi connection to use their device as an access point, all you're trying to do is detect any of the frames they're routinely transmitting and check the MAC address against a list of who the manufacturer is.
You aren't having a conversation and you don't need to transmit to detect, so you can just boost what you're receiving enough to get about a 5x increase for detection-only range (depending on other interference on the same channel). If you want to go to something on your roof with multiple higher gain antennaes, you're more likely to get too many false positives because of normal traffic and proximity of cops based on the range than to need to worry your physical range is too short.
Need to know if there are any cops around for your illegal business? Don't worry, you can just setup a wifi scanner on your phone to alert you when a cop's camera comes within range! Effective at least a couple hundred meters and probably up to a km!
Government purchase contracts and decision-making has a poor reputation for a reason. This is just yet another example in a very long list.
Sorry, but most cuban health care facilities don't even have working toilets. Patients are instructed to bring their own supplies from home.
They have a little bit of decent health care, but it's reserved for Communist Party elites and foreign visitors who can pay. Everyone else in the country gets lousy health care where after waiting forever to see someone, they have to hope they washed their hands by bringing in their own soap and water and didn't go near the atrocious conditions of the rooms.
See also:
http://blog.acton.org/archives...
https://www.therealcuba.com/?p...
https://www.nationalreview.com...
https://www.washingtonexaminer...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
and many, many others with photos and videos documenting the real care there.
Sure, but that's not what they did here. They made a faked mock-up designed to look similar to the actual site in the resulting html. That's where the resemblance to the real State website ended. The didn't replicate the architecture of the actual sites, it was basically a "If you do this, this happens" demo, then they let the kids play around with what they'd shown them in the demo environment.
should actually be:
Unsupported by facts? You mean, facts like those contained in the study being cited?
Maybe you'd have more credibility if you weren't making a totally unsupported statement in opposition to a reference to actual facts...
Or push them to to drive drunk, thus killing people. But hey, why worry about all those other unintended consequences, right?
Let's just make it a $100,000/hour minimum wage, then people wouldn't have to work more than a few hours a year if they don't want, right? If we aren't going to worry about the other economic consequences, we can just set it to as high as we want and legislate everything into magical free wealth world, right?
They could get five times the service level if they partnered with Curtis Jackson instead of that outfight not even worth two bits.
They filed an appeal to an ongoing court cause which they are a party to. This is bog-standard lawyering.
How does that have anything to do with dictatorship, or dictating anything?
At most, the Supreme Court might decide to take the appeal and dictate an opinion to give their results.
So your idea is to give more power and control to the politicians and bureaucrats who screwed it up the first few times, coincidentally benefiting their "friends" in the process.
Yeah, some people never learn, do they? Get back to us when Venezuela's experiment with nationalizing most of their major industries results in something other than destroying them and leaving people to starve.
No, "we" didn't pay the telcos billions to build out the last mile.
Some politicians and government bureaucrats chose to take some people's money and mostly waste it on overhead while benefiting their "friends", the same thing which usually happens when government decides to "fix" something like that. You have to start with the people and the heavily regulated telecom system which make the whole thing possible.
Instead, lots of people will turn around and decide the solution is to give those same people more power and money, 'cause somehow this time it'll be different...
Here in the United States, I also pay $70/month for 1Gbps symmetrical.
The issue is that not every place in the U.S. is the same, nor has the same geography, nor the same population density, nor the same local laws, nor the same local telecom and cable TV history. So what you can get varies by the realities of the specific situation. I have multiple providers for DSL, cable, fixed wireless and fiber. Some other locations, it just isn't worth to pay the money it would take (i.e. the resources it would take) to wire up faster speeds when DSL or mobile phone wireless or satellite or whatever gets them by.
Part of my job is to manage international network circuits, including to places like Antarctica. Yeah, you can't get the same bandwidth and latency to that entire continent that you can get to my house. Duh, there are these laws of physics and supply and demand which dictate that situation.
Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are also basic human rights, yet you advocate for arbitrarily forcibly denying those to people because you don't agree with their choice in vehicles.
Nobody who doesn't live there in that exact spot would know or use any of those. They look like housing development or apartment complex names.
The two aren't the same. Shooting someone in the face does predicable and direct harm to them. Driving a slightly less fuel efficient car and spending the difference in cost on something else doesn't.
If the harm is so obvious and direct, then by that argument, you should be suffocated because you release CO2 every time you breathe, which harms everyone on the planet. Obviously as you aren't suffocating yourself, you don't actually believe that every bit of CO2 emitted is a harm to everyone on the planet which must be prevented by the force of government.
So if all the automakers already have the technology and if people want to buy it, then there is no need to create regulations forcing people to do it, right? Automakers would just naturally do it just to compete and sell more cars.
Of course, if that's just B.S. and people don't actually want to pay an ever increasing amount of money to squeeze another tiny amount of fuel efficiency out of their cars, then maybe we should respect their individual choices and let them buy the cars they actually want, in the process benefiting more people with more new cars they like.
You realize that pickups and SUVs already fall under a different, easier to meet classification than cars do, right?
The fact that they are the best selling vehicles right now actually helps prove the argument to stop the ever increasing spiral of tougher to meet regulations which can't be met without expensive new technology which doesn't currently exist in production cars, not make it "shaky".
Yeah, NK was straight communist, similar to the East/West Germany experiment.