(ie A->B, B->A or C->A and C->B, these are the ONLY explanations for statistically significant correlation).....
I'd like to see you try to refute this (without resorting to insults or rhetoric), particularly if you can think of a way for variables to be correlated without some form of causal relationship as I've described.
True, my example is somewhat facetious, but just how far removed is it from the junk studies posted on Slashdot nearly every day? Why is this (apparently quite strong) correlation to be rejected, yet even weaker one accepted in other fields. What is the essential difference here? Do we only accept correlations between variables that our "common sense" tells us should be related? Is that science?
No. You cannot infer or imply causation from correlation. It is a false premise from the outset. Only an experiment, a real experiment can establish causation. Anything else is second or third rate material which cannot and should not be accepted by anyone without further proof.
Correlation is not causation. It does not imply causation. It is a statistical technique that has been consistently abused and misapplied by charlatans for decades and proves exactly nothing. In the hands of many, if not most, who use it correlation is isomorphic to numerology, and should be soundly rejected by any serious scientist.
Therefore, our mantras are just fine, and I see no reason to alter them.
You apparently believe that, on some concrete, meaningful level - concrete enough to form a moral argument upon it - pedophilia is analogous to women's rights. Do you think that's "nuance," or something?
If you think that, then you have either totally misunderstood my (perfectly clear) meaning, or (and I think this is more likely) you do not fully understand, appreciate and/or accept the concept of freedom of speech. This is a common problem.
I understand the point you're trying to make. Just try to pick a better example for counterpoint, okay?
On the contrary. I could not have chosen a better one. Your discomfort at the comparison shows just how fragile support for freedom of speech can be even amongst those who claim to defend it.
I will add that I am a rather stubborn(and some would say foolish) old idealist, who views are no doubt divorced from common sense and reality. I still take the concept of universal rights to mean rights for "everyone", and not just "everyone, except really bad people" or "everyone, except the people we don't like", or indeed "everyone, except paedophiles". I realise that in many people's eyes, this make me a "bad person". Depressing as this is, I've decided to hold those belifs I have that are no longer vgue in the western world in the hopes that someday they might be in vogue again.
Every single scientific article reporting "A linked with B" gets this ridiculous tag.
And rightly so.
Most science stories posted to Slashdot are junk science studies which use the law of large numbers and fuzzy statistics to promote the most dubious of arguments under the pretence of scientific inquiry. Many studies take correlation coefficients of 0.5 to be "significant". What a joke. How long is the scientific community going to continue to call this rigour?
Any reputable scientist and journal will report results of the form "Here is the data. A appears to be statistically linked with B. Here are several hypotheses as to why, however these are speculative and require further study."
Rubbish! Is that what the world construes from their results? Is that what they wish the world to construe from them? No. The vast majority of these studies are putting forward their correlation as proof of causation. That is what they want people to construe from the study. Look at any half baked studies on race, gender, abortion or any topic that sells newspapers. Why do you think people are performing such studies? Because they believe further inquiry is merited? No. It's because they have an opinion, and want to justify it. So they turn to science to legitimise their position. This constant and ongoing abuse of science is sickening.
Slashdotters are right to point out the Correlation is not, and never will be causation. Never, never, never, never, never. If you want to show causation, then you must have a model and you must subject it to experiment. Experiment! Not statistical mumbo-jumbo.
Listen to Zombie Feynman's wisdom."Ideas are tested by experiment. Everything else is bookkeeping". This is bookkeeping, not science. Correlation is not causation, and this story deserves that tag. I don't know how many times I'm going to end up linking to this page, but here it is again. This study is Cargo Cult Science. The form is perfect, but it is only an empty imitation of real scientific inquiry. Stop giving it more credit and credence that it deserves.
That's not the way the Afghan public sees it. And ultimately in today's world, your conviction is heavily determined by the public's or more correctly the media's opinion of your guilt. If the vocal majority think something should be a crime, it will become one.
But, do you think that western society is really any better in this regard? A thought experiment if you will. Replace the women's rights pamphlet with a (non-explicit) circular defending paedophilia. Do you think our society would still protect your freedom of speech if you began circulating that? How long before they beat a confession out of you? Who's going to defend you?
"Blasphemy" as a concept is not restricted to religious matters. There are many things that even supposedly free societies will not allow to be discussed. As George Carlin said, you don't have rights. You have privileges. Privileges that can be revoked at any time.
The researchers and UCLA have applied for a patent covering such devices.
We will not see this technology being used to actually help people for 20+ years. The researchers have already been paid to discover this result in their salaries. Why should they be paid again on the backs of those who actually develop practical uses for this discovery? Of what benefit is it to society for this technology to be hoarded by a small few?
The patenting of scientific phenomena is a shameful institution that needs to be stopped. A university is not supposed to be a for profit institution.
Proctor: "Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!"
American justice has never been renowned for its mercy. Or its justice for that matter.
I would advise everyone not to waste their time on this.
By now, everyone knows or should know that Wikipedia is rotten. There is no point engaging in any debate whatsoever with the cabals, cliques and ultra-bureaucrats who run the place. The rules are rigged, the policies tailored to ensure dissent fails. Look at that page. Notability is not going anywhere. By the time they're done forming committees/groups/cabals to discuss, debate and probably reject all the proposals and opinions on that page, a super-admin is just going to roll in and declare the whole thing moot because it's out of date.
Wikipedia is dirty. The rot set in at the top with Wales. He did not conduct himself, in his personal or private dealings, as the leader of a major project like Wikipedia should. He is out of his depth, and it shows. Instead of offering a semblance of professionalism and implementing safeguards against corruption, he has ignored and in some cases encouraged the bad policies that have brought the site down. The people he has appointed have followed their leader and the whole site has been dragged down by the decay.
The experiment is over; Wikipedia has failed. Its accuracy, trustworthiness and ultimately utility are now all in a steady but real decline. Another poster in this discussion mentioned how a particular pokemon article went from being a feature one on the front page, to being relegated to one paragraph in a merged page. That's an acid test for decline if ever I heard of one. The bureaucrats and deltionists have triumphed and there is no point wasting any more time playing the game they have rigged.
Wikipedia is going to become Encyclopedia Britannica. The world needs to move on.
Why are we so unique? This is the Sagan argument, and it's answered by the Anthropic Principle.
That's not an answer. It's a tautology. It amounts to "We are unique because the universe was tailored to produce us", which itself amounts to "We are unique because the universe exists", which itself amounts to "The universe exists". It's not so much an answer as it is the ultimate expression of vanity.
The Fermi paradox and Drake equations are not predictive tools. They are not predictive because we have no estimations of any of the parameters, and no data on which to test them. They cannot tell us anything without data to back them up, and for that to exist we need to find at least one other "civilisation", if not more.
A lot of the speculation among scientists about extra terrestrial life is pretty substandard, leading to frankly appalling constructs like the Anthropic principle being taken as a valid scientific argument. Nonsense statements like "All Life needs Water to survive" betrays an absolute lack of imagination among those supposedly seriously investigating these matters.
Ultimately from a scientific standpoint, the existence of one life supporting planet allows at least the possibility of more existing. But then again, so too does the existence of one Elvis Presley. Until another is discovered, we must say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and until that time, speculators can stick to science fiction stories, which are not entirely without benefit to society.
I forgot the most important part of that Douglas quote in the context of this discuss. With apologies, I reply to my own post, with the entire quote, with selected parts highlighted
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must pay for all they get. If we ever get free from all the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and, if needs be, by our lives, and the lives of others."
Why is censorship of illegal material bad? If the material is illegal, why shouldn't it be censored?... I'm not defending censorship. I want someone to make a good argument.
So you're ok with child porn then ? Or your bank details appearing on the web ?
At this point, Unequivocally, I say that; Yes I am willing to accept an internet, and a wider world, with child porn, Bank details, terrorists videos or what have you. Let me repeat my point. I would put up with any amount of child porn and pedophiles, any amount, before I would put up with taking one more step down the road that society is taking.
People need to make a stand on this issue. People have to take away the ability for authoritarians and enemies of free society to use certain words, concepts and arguments as unassailable and irrefutable weapons. The Taboo of countering these arguments must end.
It's better that a thousand children be molested than one website blocked. You think this idea is shocking? I think this image is more shocking. And make no mistake, this image is exactly where our society is headed if we allow our honest protests to be silenced with no more than a single word.
If you think I'm being too radical, I'll leave you with a Frederick Douglas quote to chew on: "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground."
That's what misinterpretation of phrases such as "heavenly body", "images from last night", "multiple exposure", "open truss", "polar mount", "white dwarf", "full moon" and the like can cause."
I don't want to know
Well, I for one am intrigued by these topics and wish to learn more.
The institution where I work has blocked ICMP for years. It's not the only thing they restrict.
Ping (obviously) does not work. SSH does not work. NTP does not work. But. Browsing still works. Outlook still works. Windows shares still work.
They have no intention of changing this state of affairs, and as infuriating as it is for people like myself who use these services, most users are totally and utterly oblivious to the effects of the change.
Say what you will about defective or broken networks. Blocking ICMP continues to be a viable practice whose use only increases as time goes by. The internet of the future will have no pings if people remain complacent about the viability of these lobotomised networks.
Speaking as a non USian, living outside the US, I have to say that the American presidential election is all over the news feeds here as well.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, newsfeeds and syndication. Whatever the American media decides to talk about, the entire anglosphere usually ends up talking about as well. If there's a bus crash or school shooting in the middle of nowhere in, say, Nebraska, its gets on the Irish, and usually English, national 9 o'clock news. This is a symptom of an increasingly monopolised and centralised media in the western world.
Secondly, the US presidential elections are actually very important. I see Slashdotters posting comments to the effect that both parties are equally bad and it doesn't matter which way you vote and excuses, excuses, excuses. I can tell you from the point of view of someone who is very much affected by the results of your national elections, this is a pretty depressing thing to hear. It's clear to anyone who has half a clue that there are very wide and deep differences between the two main candidates, and it's quite irritating to find out just how flippantly many Americans go about voting, or not voting, for their president.
Your election affects me. It affects people around me. My nation's economy, policies, laws, and culture, yes culture, are significantly affected by your selection of a president, through his administration's policies. When the choices made by religious southern fundamentalists end up slowly eroding my way of life because people who should have known better were too apathetic to vote, I get a little irritated. So in my view the more coverage this election gets, the better.
So in short, I would rather these stories on the Slashdot front page rather than have this site ignore or only pay lip service to the issue. This is "Stuff That Matters" to me.
The US Justice department is negotiating a deal with the company that owns the worlds largest information databases. What form do you think their "agreement" is going to take?
To paraphrase Churchill; This is not the end of Google as we know it. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Jefferson wanted us to farm our way to victory. Here's some primary source stuff on the subject for your edification/amusement.
What is "farming"? More to the point, what was farming in the 1770's? In the 1700's the industrial revolution had not yet begun. In those days, wealth was still centered to a large degree around land. Jefferson has no other context in which to suggest goals people should strive for.
But what was "farming"? Did he mean people should be wheat farmers, grain farmers, turnip farmers? Did the specific crop grown effect the desired outcome? No. What was important was the fact that, then as now, a farmer is a self employed individual who makes their own way in the world. It was self employment and independence, not turnip growing, that Jefferson was advocating.
Were he teleported into out modern society, I think Jefferson would promote professions that lend themselves to self employment.
A survey of just 40 people will change the direction of car design...
Surveys of 20 people or less can make headlines all over the world these days. In fact, the less people you survey, the more likely it is that you will be picked up by news feeds and your results broadcast all over the world. I suspect that if you surveyed 5 people who liked bananas, and took the time to run half dozen statistical tests on their five answers, we could have any colour car we wanted as long as it it was yellow.
I prefer a car that gets me from point A to point B; safely, efficiently, and comfortably. In that order. This appears not to be the case for most people.
A neighbor of mine one got ~$1500 off the price of his (new) car because it had a bright yellow paint job. His wife was not pleased. His children were furious. He was happy to have "saved" so much money. Most people would say that the paint job saved him ~$1500 off the price of a perfectly fine car. I say instead that the paint jobs of all others cars of that model cost their owners $1500.
When things like a paint job and how "angry" a car looks are determining what cars people buy, you know that the cars themselves are grossly overvalued. If someone can add on 5% to the price of a car because of the shape of its headlights, you have to ask just how much of the original price was based on cosmetics and not on quality. This is important because if its the former, then the modern automobile industry is standing on thin foundations which may end up crumbling when severely undercut by the latest line of cheap Chinese cars, which can be glossed up just as easily as their western counterparts.
There's a simple rule to buying cars. Never buy a new one. You'll invariably be conned out of thousands over silly cosmetic details. Buy used, and put your pocket before your pride. You might need what's in there later on.
Slashdot Mirror
I have decided to respond to your post with the refutation you seek. In short, the Right Ascension of the planet Saturn in the night sky is correllated with the S & P 500 stock market index. The correlation coefficient is 0.88.
True, my example is somewhat facetious, but just how far removed is it from the junk studies posted on Slashdot nearly every day? Why is this (apparently quite strong) correlation to be rejected, yet even weaker one accepted in other fields. What is the essential difference here? Do we only accept correlations between variables that our "common sense" tells us should be related? Is that science?
No. You cannot infer or imply causation from correlation. It is a false premise from the outset. Only an experiment, a real experiment can establish causation. Anything else is second or third rate material which cannot and should not be accepted by anyone without further proof.
Correlation is not causation. It does not imply causation. It is a statistical technique that has been consistently abused and misapplied by charlatans for decades and proves exactly nothing. In the hands of many, if not most, who use it correlation is isomorphic to numerology, and should be soundly rejected by any serious scientist.
Therefore, our mantras are just fine, and I see no reason to alter them.
If you think that, then you have either totally misunderstood my (perfectly clear) meaning, or (and I think this is more likely) you do not fully understand, appreciate and/or accept the concept of freedom of speech. This is a common problem.
On the contrary. I could not have chosen a better one. Your discomfort at the comparison shows just how fragile support for freedom of speech can be even amongst those who claim to defend it.
I will add that I am a rather stubborn(and some would say foolish) old idealist, who views are no doubt divorced from common sense and reality. I still take the concept of universal rights to mean rights for "everyone", and not just "everyone, except really bad people" or "everyone, except the people we don't like", or indeed "everyone, except paedophiles". I realise that in many people's eyes, this make me a "bad person". Depressing as this is, I've decided to hold those belifs I have that are no longer vgue in the western world in the hopes that someday they might be in vogue again.
And rightly so.
Most science stories posted to Slashdot are junk science studies which use the law of large numbers and fuzzy statistics to promote the most dubious of arguments under the pretence of scientific inquiry. Many studies take correlation coefficients of 0.5 to be "significant". What a joke. How long is the scientific community going to continue to call this rigour?
Rubbish! Is that what the world construes from their results? Is that what they wish the world to construe from them? No. The vast majority of these studies are putting forward their correlation as proof of causation. That is what they want people to construe from the study. Look at any half baked studies on race, gender, abortion or any topic that sells newspapers. Why do you think people are performing such studies? Because they believe further inquiry is merited? No. It's because they have an opinion, and want to justify it. So they turn to science to legitimise their position. This constant and ongoing abuse of science is sickening.
Slashdotters are right to point out the Correlation is not, and never will be causation. Never, never, never, never, never. If you want to show causation, then you must have a model and you must subject it to experiment. Experiment! Not statistical mumbo-jumbo.
Listen to Zombie Feynman's wisdom. "Ideas are tested by experiment. Everything else is bookkeeping". This is bookkeeping, not science. Correlation is not causation, and this story deserves that tag. I don't know how many times I'm going to end up linking to this page, but here it is again. This study is Cargo Cult Science. The form is perfect, but it is only an empty imitation of real scientific inquiry. Stop giving it more credit and credence that it deserves.
That's not the way the Afghan public sees it. And ultimately in today's world, your conviction is heavily determined by the public's or more correctly the media's opinion of your guilt. If the vocal majority think something should be a crime, it will become one.
But, do you think that western society is really any better in this regard? A thought experiment if you will. Replace the women's rights pamphlet with a (non-explicit) circular defending paedophilia. Do you think our society would still protect your freedom of speech if you began circulating that? How long before they beat a confession out of you? Who's going to defend you?
"Blasphemy" as a concept is not restricted to religious matters. There are many things that even supposedly free societies will not allow to be discussed. As George Carlin said, you don't have rights. You have privileges. Privileges that can be revoked at any time.
Only about as incredible as house price inflation over the last 10 years.
We will not see this technology being used to actually help people for 20+ years. The researchers have already been paid to discover this result in their salaries. Why should they be paid again on the backs of those who actually develop practical uses for this discovery? Of what benefit is it to society for this technology to be hoarded by a small few?
The patenting of scientific phenomena is a shameful institution that needs to be stopped. A university is not supposed to be a for profit institution.
American justice has never been renowned for its mercy. Or its justice for that matter.
I would advise everyone not to waste their time on this.
By now, everyone knows or should know that Wikipedia is rotten. There is no point engaging in any debate whatsoever with the cabals, cliques and ultra-bureaucrats who run the place. The rules are rigged, the policies tailored to ensure dissent fails. Look at that page. Notability is not going anywhere. By the time they're done forming committees/groups/cabals to discuss, debate and probably reject all the proposals and opinions on that page, a super-admin is just going to roll in and declare the whole thing moot because it's out of date.
Wikipedia is dirty. The rot set in at the top with Wales. He did not conduct himself, in his personal or private dealings, as the leader of a major project like Wikipedia should. He is out of his depth, and it shows. Instead of offering a semblance of professionalism and implementing safeguards against corruption, he has ignored and in some cases encouraged the bad policies that have brought the site down. The people he has appointed have followed their leader and the whole site has been dragged down by the decay.
The experiment is over; Wikipedia has failed. Its accuracy, trustworthiness and ultimately utility are now all in a steady but real decline. Another poster in this discussion mentioned how a particular pokemon article went from being a feature one on the front page, to being relegated to one paragraph in a merged page. That's an acid test for decline if ever I heard of one. The bureaucrats and deltionists have triumphed and there is no point wasting any more time playing the game they have rigged.
Wikipedia is going to become Encyclopedia Britannica. The world needs to move on.
You haven't heard then?
That's not an answer. It's a tautology. It amounts to "We are unique because the universe was tailored to produce us", which itself amounts to "We are unique because the universe exists", which itself amounts to "The universe exists". It's not so much an answer as it is the ultimate expression of vanity.
The Fermi paradox and Drake equations are not predictive tools. They are not predictive because we have no estimations of any of the parameters, and no data on which to test them. They cannot tell us anything without data to back them up, and for that to exist we need to find at least one other "civilisation", if not more.
A lot of the speculation among scientists about extra terrestrial life is pretty substandard, leading to frankly appalling constructs like the Anthropic principle being taken as a valid scientific argument. Nonsense statements like "All Life needs Water to survive" betrays an absolute lack of imagination among those supposedly seriously investigating these matters.
Ultimately from a scientific standpoint, the existence of one life supporting planet allows at least the possibility of more existing. But then again, so too does the existence of one Elvis Presley. Until another is discovered, we must say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and until that time, speculators can stick to science fiction stories, which are not entirely without benefit to society.
Your statement is a tautology.
I forgot the most important part of that Douglas quote in the context of this discuss. With apologies, I reply to my own post, with the entire quote, with selected parts highlighted
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. Men may not get all they pay for in this world; but they must pay for all they get. If we ever get free from all the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and, if needs be, by our lives, and the lives of others."
- Frederick Douglas - 1857
In China, democracy is illegal.
At this point, Unequivocally, I say that; Yes I am willing to accept an internet, and a wider world, with child porn, Bank details, terrorists videos or what have you. Let me repeat my point. I would put up with any amount of child porn and pedophiles, any amount, before I would put up with taking one more step down the road that society is taking.
People need to make a stand on this issue. People have to take away the ability for authoritarians and enemies of free society to use certain words, concepts and arguments as unassailable and irrefutable weapons. The Taboo of countering these arguments must end.
It's better that a thousand children be molested than one website blocked. You think this idea is shocking? I think this image is more shocking. And make no mistake, this image is exactly where our society is headed if we allow our honest protests to be silenced with no more than a single word.
If you think I'm being too radical, I'll leave you with a Frederick Douglas quote to chew on: "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground."
Well, I for one am intrigued by these topics and wish to learn more.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefor, like it or not, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
What have we become?
It doesn't leave any visible marks of course!
I'm not sure I understand the question... .
The institution where I work has blocked ICMP for years. It's not the only thing they restrict.
Ping (obviously) does not work. SSH does not work. NTP does not work.
But. Browsing still works. Outlook still works. Windows shares still work.
They have no intention of changing this state of affairs, and as infuriating as it is for people like myself who use these services, most users are totally and utterly oblivious to the effects of the change.
Say what you will about defective or broken networks. Blocking ICMP continues to be a viable practice whose use only increases as time goes by. The internet of the future will have no pings if people remain complacent about the viability of these lobotomised networks.
Speaking as a non USian, living outside the US, I have to say that the American presidential election is all over the news feeds here as well.
There are two reasons for this. Firstly, newsfeeds and syndication. Whatever the American media decides to talk about, the entire anglosphere usually ends up talking about as well. If there's a bus crash or school shooting in the middle of nowhere in, say, Nebraska, its gets on the Irish, and usually English, national 9 o'clock news. This is a symptom of an increasingly monopolised and centralised media in the western world.
Secondly, the US presidential elections are actually very important. I see Slashdotters posting comments to the effect that both parties are equally bad and it doesn't matter which way you vote and excuses, excuses, excuses. I can tell you from the point of view of someone who is very much affected by the results of your national elections, this is a pretty depressing thing to hear. It's clear to anyone who has half a clue that there are very wide and deep differences between the two main candidates, and it's quite irritating to find out just how flippantly many Americans go about voting, or not voting, for their president.
Your election affects me. It affects people around me. My nation's economy, policies, laws, and culture, yes culture, are significantly affected by your selection of a president, through his administration's policies. When the choices made by religious southern fundamentalists end up slowly eroding my way of life because people who should have known better were too apathetic to vote, I get a little irritated. So in my view the more coverage this election gets, the better.
So in short, I would rather these stories on the Slashdot front page rather than have this site ignore or only pay lip service to the issue. This is "Stuff That Matters" to me.
The US Justice department is negotiating a deal with the company that owns the worlds largest information databases. What form do you think their "agreement" is going to take?
To paraphrase Churchill; This is not the end of Google as we know it. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
What is "farming"? More to the point, what was farming in the 1770's? In the 1700's the industrial revolution had not yet begun. In those days, wealth was still centered to a large degree around land. Jefferson has no other context in which to suggest goals people should strive for.
But what was "farming"? Did he mean people should be wheat farmers, grain farmers, turnip farmers? Did the specific crop grown effect the desired outcome? No. What was important was the fact that, then as now, a farmer is a self employed individual who makes their own way in the world. It was self employment and independence, not turnip growing, that Jefferson was advocating.
Were he teleported into out modern society, I think Jefferson would promote professions that lend themselves to self employment.
Surveys of 20 people or less can make headlines all over the world these days. In fact, the less people you survey, the more likely it is that you will be picked up by news feeds and your results broadcast all over the world. I suspect that if you surveyed 5 people who liked bananas, and took the time to run half dozen statistical tests on their five answers, we could have any colour car we wanted as long as it it was yellow.
I prefer a car that gets me from point A to point B; safely, efficiently, and comfortably. In that order. This appears not to be the case for most people.
A neighbor of mine one got ~$1500 off the price of his (new) car because it had a bright yellow paint job. His wife was not pleased. His children were furious. He was happy to have "saved" so much money. Most people would say that the paint job saved him ~$1500 off the price of a perfectly fine car. I say instead that the paint jobs of all others cars of that model cost their owners $1500.
When things like a paint job and how "angry" a car looks are determining what cars people buy, you know that the cars themselves are grossly overvalued. If someone can add on 5% to the price of a car because of the shape of its headlights, you have to ask just how much of the original price was based on cosmetics and not on quality. This is important because if its the former, then the modern automobile industry is standing on thin foundations which may end up crumbling when severely undercut by the latest line of cheap Chinese cars, which can be glossed up just as easily as their western counterparts.
There's a simple rule to buying cars. Never buy a new one. You'll invariably be conned out of thousands over silly cosmetic details. Buy used, and put your pocket before your pride. You might need what's in there later on.