Law school prepares you for being a lawyer like medical school prepares you for being a doctor. Just as doctors have to work as a resident in a specialty before they really know how to practice medicine, lawyers learn how to practice law in their first job. Before someone can open their own firm and solicit clients they need to first work for another lawyer to learn more than the theory they teach in law schools.
An alternative scenario is that Mann calls their bluff, they do discovery and can't find any fraudulent material or bad research methods, they lose the suit and are forced to pay significant damages and to a publicly admit they were wrong. It's called eating your words.
But Barack Romney told me that they're bringing manufacturing back to the US!!!
Even if true, it doesn't mean that manufacturing will return to the areas it left or employ the same number of people. Sometimes when a manufacturer returns to the US it's in the form of a more automated facility that employs fewer, but higher skilled, people. A lot of areas that lost manufacturing plants had advantages at one time that are no longer relevant. When a decision is made to re-establish manufacturing operations in the US, former rust belt locations are often not in the running because they bring nothing to the table that other areas with better weather don't already offer.
Turned out, the dogs were responding to very subtle cues from their handlers, rather than their own senses. Which renders them completely inappropriate for law-enforcement use.
Please Mod -1000: Utter Bullshit.
Dogs are the absolute best tool we have for the job. There's a reason we use dogs to hunt animals, guard animals, property, and people, track fugitives, search for survivors, bodies, drugs, and explosives, detect cancer or seizures, lead the blind, etc.
They have incredible senses and are very intelligent.
Please link to proof of your "literally unacceptable percentage of false positives" for properly trained canines and handlers.
Seems to me that she wasn't saying anything about properly trained handler and dog teams, but about the likelihood that so many trainers have biases that lead to false positives that dogs cannot be relied upon. She said "the dogs were responding to very subtle cues from their handlers." I don't see anything in that post about well trained dogs paired with unbiased trainers. It is very well documented that handler bias frequently leads to false positives. For example, this article notes that sniffer dogs got it wrong four out of five times in 14,102 searches. This articleclaims that over a three year period only 44 percent of alerts by dogs led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia. A UC Davis study found that if handlers expected their dogs to find drugs they consistently found drugs, even when there weren't any. A little bit of searching will turn up plenty of other examples. In some cases defenders of using dogs claim that the high rate of false positives is due to drug residue being left in a vehicle or on a person. That the mere presence of someone carrying a substance the dog was trained to detect, like marijuana, in a vehicle hours earlier could result in a false positive. Medical marijuana is legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia. Which means that just transporting someone to legally obtain some marijuana for a medical condition could result in being searched and detained.
Most of the environmentalists that I've discussed this with think that population growth rates will decline in countries with high birth rates when the women there have easy access to birth control and the ability to find gainful employment. They don't view it so much as forcing people to make a choice as providing them with an opportunity. Latin America is a great example of what can happen given the right circumstances. In 1960, women in Latin America had almost six children on average. By 2010, the rate had fallen to 2.3 children. Brazil is a notable in that its fertility rate has fallen from 6.15 children per woman in 1960 to less than 1.9 today. This is below the fertility rate of the United States. Mexico, while not at 1.9, has seen its fertility rate decline from 7.3 to 2.4 in the same time period. Can similar reductions happen in countries in Africa and Asia with high birth rates? I don't know, but I think it's worth trying to help foster conditions that lead women in those countries to having fewer children.
Why charge as much as $10k? If car companies could get away with something like a reseller fee it would be low at first. Once one company does it and gets away with it other companies will follow suit. Sort of how airlines introduced all the fees they now charge. At first it would be called something like 'post sale regulatory coverage fee', and be justified as being needed to cover expenses related to government mandated recalls. Once most new cars were covered by a resell fee then the cost of it would start to rise.
>> people dumping bags of trash on our road every week
So where in Alabama do you live?
I don't know if this is a problem in Alabama, but I know people in rural PA and NY who have had a problem with trash being dumped on their property. It's not just back roads on which this happens, either. Any road with a steep embankment and a good shoulder where people can pull over and throw their trash over the edge is susceptible to becoming a dumping ground. I know a local deputy in the sheriff's department, and he says that when they ticket people for disposing of the trash on other people's property they almost always say they thought it was OK because there wasn't a sign saying they couldn't.
You'll still be able to resell the car made in Mexico, you'll just have to pay a reseller fee to the auto company that manufactured and imported the car.
Whether or not bicycles are permitted on interstates is decided on a state by state basis. They're permitted in a number of western states. I've legally ridden interstates in Orego, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and North Dakota.
The roads were made for cars and truck to ride on not bikes. How many cyclists do you see on an major interstate?
I don't know about 'major' interstates, but I've ridden on interstates where it's allowed. Aside from the noise, which I suppress with ear plugs, I found interstates better than a lot of local roads I've ridden on. There are, of course, interstates where riding a bike isn't allowed or appropriate, but there are ones where it is, and they make damn fine roads for bicycling.
It's absolutely ridiculous that teachers can make $25,000 a year or more. Without unions, we would see teacher salaries go down to something more commeasurate with their work, and something that local governments can actually afford.
$25,000/year is ridiculours? Are they supposed to get by on minimum wage?
I was addressing the point that the democrats controlled congress for two years, not whether they passed any legislation during the time they had a filibuster proof majority. Obamacare made it through the senate on December 24, 2009, during that 4 month window I mentioned. What is all that other legislation you are referring to? How many bills can you cite that democrats were able to push through despite republican opposition?
The Dems had full control of Congress and the WH for 2 years
Democrats did not control congress for two years. For most of 2009 democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority in the senate and almost everything that the democrats attempted to pass was threatened with a filibuster. 60 seats are needed to defeat a filibuster. In January of 2009, after the 2008 elections, Democrats had 59 seats in their caucus..57 democrats and 2 independents; the republicans 41. On January 20, 2009, after suffering a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, Senator Kennedy’s health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts. Also Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had not been seated because the previous Senator, Norm Coleman, challenged the election results. So at the beginning of February, 2009, democrats had 57 elected senators in their caucus55 democrats and 2 independents. On May 15, 2009 Senator Robert Byrd was admitted to the hospital reducing the number of sitting Senators to 55 democratic members and 2 independents. Still three votes shy of defeating a republican filibuster. On July 7, 2009 Al Franken (D) was sworn in after the election dispute over the Minnesota seat was decided in his favor. Senator Kennedy continued to recuperate at his home in Massachusetts and was unable to cast any more votes; Senator Byrd was still in the hospital. The Senate had 56 sitting Democratic members and 2 Independents. Still 2 short of bypassing a republican filibuster. July 21, 2009 Senator Byrd returned to the Senate making the count 59 seats. No Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy died August 25, 2009. The Kennedy seat was vacant from August 25 - September 24 when Paul G. Kirk was appointed to occupy his seat until the completion of a special election. The swearing-in of Kirk gave the Democrats a 60-seat majority. Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!
This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month. Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days, while the House only labored for 54.
Democrats lost their 60 seat majority when Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts was sworn into office in February of 2010.
Considering that almost every major democratic legislative initiative faced a filibuster, how do you figure the democrats controlled congress for two years? If a party can't get legislation through congress can they be said to control congress?
That's another great example of the close correlation between the introduction of a vaccine and the near eradication of a disease. I'd like to find a single web page that lists various diseases, when vaccines were introduced for those diseases, and how the infection and death rates changed (by year) as the vaccine was adopted.
It's possible that a more virulent variety of polio arose in the mid 19th century. If you look at the stats on the page whose the link I provided, you'll notice that polio didn't start to increase rapidly until around 1943. I'm curious how much migration patterns and changes in population density due to WWII affected the spread of polio around that time. The incidence of polio increased dramatically after 1945, coinciding with the return of soldiers from WWII and the arrival of war refugees from Europe. Perhaps people arriving from areas where a more virulent form of polio was endemic and settling across the US were responsible for the large increase in the incidence of polio in the US post WWII.
Only one large randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine has been conducted among an elderly population. During the 1991-1992 influenza season, a group of Dutch people 60 years of age and older not living in long-term care facilities (e.g., nursing homes) was studied (Govaert et al., 1994). In this study, vaccine efficacy was 58% in preventing clinically-defined influenza with serologic confirmation of infection.
In a four-year randomized, placebo-controlled study of inactivated and live influenza vaccines among children aged 1–15 years, vaccine efficacy was estimated at 77% against influenza A (H3N2) and 91% against influenza A (H1N1) virus infection (Neuzil et al., 2001). A two-year study of children aged 6–24 months found that the vaccine was 66% effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in one year of the study (Hoberman et al., 2003). Only children who were fully vaccinated (i.e., had either two doses if not previously vaccinated, or one dose if previously vaccinated) versus unvaccinated children were included in the analysis. In the other year of this study, few cases of influenza occurred, making it difficult to assess the vaccine's efficacy (Hoberman et al., 2003).
The introduction of the polio vaccine in 1955 in the US had a dramatic effect on polio. In 1937 there were 9,514 cases of polio, 12,450 in 1943, 33,300 in 1950, 38,476 in 1954. The polio vaccine was introduced in 1955 and in 1956 there were 15,140 cases, 1957 had 5,485 cases. The number of cases dropped through the 1960s. By the early '70s total polio cases were down to single digits. In the last decade most years have 0 or 1 polio cases. Sanitation was introduced well before 1955, and yet we see a rise in polio cases from the mid 1930s until 1955. Did sanitation suddenly get better in 1955? Did immune systems suddenly get better in 1955? The source for the polio statistics is http://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html.
As I asked another poster, which of the coming features of Obamacare are going to increase rates? I hear this sort of thing a lot, but never any specificity as to what's in the ACA that will increase rates.
Don't be coy. What plans are those and how does the ACA facilitate those plans? What will they be able to do under the ACA that they can't do now? Here's what's coming by date. Which of the features are the insurance companies going to use to increase overall rates?
This might vary by area. I know two people in my area (central NY state) who didn't have insurance and tried negotiating prices with doctors and hospitals. No one they contacted would go along with it. They eventually paid full price, almost certainly more than the price insurance companies negotiate. Both of them had to take out large loans to finance their operations. While not offering discounts, the doctors and hospitals were quite willing to steer them to companies that specialized in medical loans.
Unlikely. If there was an easy and cheap way to use solar power, why wouldn't they?
Walmart seems to find solar a worthwhile investment. In regions with high electricity rates and abundant sunshine, like California and Hawaii, solar can be competitive with grid electricity.
Slashdot Mirror
Law school prepares you for being a lawyer like medical school prepares you for being a doctor. Just as doctors have to work as a resident in a specialty before they really know how to practice medicine, lawyers learn how to practice law in their first job. Before someone can open their own firm and solicit clients they need to first work for another lawyer to learn more than the theory they teach in law schools.
An alternative scenario is that Mann calls their bluff, they do discovery and can't find any fraudulent material or bad research methods, they lose the suit and are forced to pay significant damages and to a publicly admit they were wrong. It's called eating your words.
But Barack Romney told me that they're bringing manufacturing back to the US!!!
Even if true, it doesn't mean that manufacturing will return to the areas it left or employ the same number of people. Sometimes when a manufacturer returns to the US it's in the form of a more automated facility that employs fewer, but higher skilled, people. A lot of areas that lost manufacturing plants had advantages at one time that are no longer relevant. When a decision is made to re-establish manufacturing operations in the US, former rust belt locations are often not in the running because they bring nothing to the table that other areas with better weather don't already offer.
No, but they can be trained to point to which suitcases contain iPads.
Turned out, the dogs were responding to very subtle cues from their handlers, rather than their own senses. Which renders them completely inappropriate for law-enforcement use.
Please Mod -1000: Utter Bullshit.
Dogs are the absolute best tool we have for the job. There's a reason we use dogs to hunt animals, guard animals, property, and people, track fugitives, search for survivors, bodies, drugs, and explosives, detect cancer or seizures, lead the blind, etc. They have incredible senses and are very intelligent.
Please link to proof of your "literally unacceptable percentage of false positives" for properly trained canines and handlers.
Seems to me that she wasn't saying anything about properly trained handler and dog teams, but about the likelihood that so many trainers have biases that lead to false positives that dogs cannot be relied upon. She said "the dogs were responding to very subtle cues from their handlers." I don't see anything in that post about well trained dogs paired with unbiased trainers. It is very well documented that handler bias frequently leads to false positives. For example, this article notes that sniffer dogs got it wrong four out of five times in 14,102 searches. This articleclaims that over a three year period only 44 percent of alerts by dogs led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia. A UC Davis study found that if handlers expected their dogs to find drugs they consistently found drugs, even when there weren't any. A little bit of searching will turn up plenty of other examples. In some cases defenders of using dogs claim that the high rate of false positives is due to drug residue being left in a vehicle or on a person. That the mere presence of someone carrying a substance the dog was trained to detect, like marijuana, in a vehicle hours earlier could result in a false positive. Medical marijuana is legal in 17 states and the District of Columbia. Which means that just transporting someone to legally obtain some marijuana for a medical condition could result in being searched and detained.
Most of the environmentalists that I've discussed this with think that population growth rates will decline in countries with high birth rates when the women there have easy access to birth control and the ability to find gainful employment. They don't view it so much as forcing people to make a choice as providing them with an opportunity. Latin America is a great example of what can happen given the right circumstances. In 1960, women in Latin America had almost six children on average. By 2010, the rate had fallen to 2.3 children. Brazil is a notable in that its fertility rate has fallen from 6.15 children per woman in 1960 to less than 1.9 today. This is below the fertility rate of the United States. Mexico, while not at 1.9, has seen its fertility rate decline from 7.3 to 2.4 in the same time period. Can similar reductions happen in countries in Africa and Asia with high birth rates? I don't know, but I think it's worth trying to help foster conditions that lead women in those countries to having fewer children.
Why charge as much as $10k? If car companies could get away with something like a reseller fee it would be low at first. Once one company does it and gets away with it other companies will follow suit. Sort of how airlines introduced all the fees they now charge. At first it would be called something like 'post sale regulatory coverage fee', and be justified as being needed to cover expenses related to government mandated recalls. Once most new cars were covered by a resell fee then the cost of it would start to rise.
>> people dumping bags of trash on our road every week
So where in Alabama do you live?
I don't know if this is a problem in Alabama, but I know people in rural PA and NY who have had a problem with trash being dumped on their property. It's not just back roads on which this happens, either. Any road with a steep embankment and a good shoulder where people can pull over and throw their trash over the edge is susceptible to becoming a dumping ground. I know a local deputy in the sheriff's department, and he says that when they ticket people for disposing of the trash on other people's property they almost always say they thought it was OK because there wasn't a sign saying they couldn't.
You'll still be able to resell the car made in Mexico, you'll just have to pay a reseller fee to the auto company that manufactured and imported the car.
It's not like the masses want it dumped in China, either. http://www.anticcp.org/ten-thousand-riot-over-incinerator-construction-in-china.html , http://www.politicolnews.com/china-riots-over-industrial-waste-pipeline/, http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=14998.0;wap2 .
Whether or not bicycles are permitted on interstates is decided on a state by state basis. They're permitted in a number of western states. I've legally ridden interstates in Orego, Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, and North Dakota.
The roads were made for cars and truck to ride on not bikes. How many cyclists do you see on an major interstate?
I don't know about 'major' interstates, but I've ridden on interstates where it's allowed. Aside from the noise, which I suppress with ear plugs, I found interstates better than a lot of local roads I've ridden on. There are, of course, interstates where riding a bike isn't allowed or appropriate, but there are ones where it is, and they make damn fine roads for bicycling.
My guess would be that while the efficiency is low the reliability is extremely high, due to a lack of moving parts.
You left out the raiding of the company pension plan step that's occasionally done after an LBO.
It's absolutely ridiculous that teachers can make $25,000 a year or more. Without unions, we would see teacher salaries go down to something more commeasurate with their work, and something that local governments can actually afford.
$25,000/year is ridiculours? Are they supposed to get by on minimum wage?
I was addressing the point that the democrats controlled congress for two years, not whether they passed any legislation during the time they had a filibuster proof majority. Obamacare made it through the senate on December 24, 2009, during that 4 month window I mentioned. What is all that other legislation you are referring to? How many bills can you cite that democrats were able to push through despite republican opposition?
The Dems had full control of Congress and the WH for 2 years
Democrats did not control congress for two years. For most of 2009 democrats did not have a filibuster proof majority in the senate and almost everything that the democrats attempted to pass was threatened with a filibuster. 60 seats are needed to defeat a filibuster. In January of 2009, after the 2008 elections, Democrats had 59 seats in their caucus..57 democrats and 2 independents; the republicans 41. On January 20, 2009, after suffering a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, Senator Kennedy’s health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts. Also Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had not been seated because the previous Senator, Norm Coleman, challenged the election results. So at the beginning of February, 2009, democrats had 57 elected senators in their caucus55 democrats and 2 independents. On May 15, 2009 Senator Robert Byrd was admitted to the hospital reducing the number of sitting Senators to 55 democratic members and 2 independents. Still three votes shy of defeating a republican filibuster. On July 7, 2009 Al Franken (D) was sworn in after the election dispute over the Minnesota seat was decided in his favor. Senator Kennedy continued to recuperate at his home in Massachusetts and was unable to cast any more votes; Senator Byrd was still in the hospital. The Senate had 56 sitting Democratic members and 2 Independents. Still 2 short of bypassing a republican filibuster. July 21, 2009 Senator Byrd returned to the Senate making the count 59 seats. No Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy died August 25, 2009. The Kennedy seat was vacant from August 25 - September 24 when Paul G. Kirk was appointed to occupy his seat until the completion of a special election. The swearing-in of Kirk gave the Democrats a 60-seat majority. Democrats had a 60 seat majority from September 24, 2009 thru February 4, 2010. 4 months; not 2 years!!
This does not account for the number of days Congress was not even in session during that time. If one subtracts the number of days Congress was out, the time that President Obama had a Democratic majority in Congress is further reduced by more than 30 days, or another full month. Of a possible 94 legislative days during that period, the Senate was only in session for 67 days, while the House only labored for 54.
Democrats lost their 60 seat majority when Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts was sworn into office in February of 2010.
Considering that almost every major democratic legislative initiative faced a filibuster, how do you figure the democrats controlled congress for two years? If a party can't get legislation through congress can they be said to control congress?
That's another great example of the close correlation between the introduction of a vaccine and the near eradication of a disease. I'd like to find a single web page that lists various diseases, when vaccines were introduced for those diseases, and how the infection and death rates changed (by year) as the vaccine was adopted.
It's possible that a more virulent variety of polio arose in the mid 19th century. If you look at the stats on the page whose the link I provided, you'll notice that polio didn't start to increase rapidly until around 1943. I'm curious how much migration patterns and changes in population density due to WWII affected the spread of polio around that time. The incidence of polio increased dramatically after 1945, coinciding with the return of soldiers from WWII and the arrival of war refugees from Europe. Perhaps people arriving from areas where a more virulent form of polio was endemic and settling across the US were responsible for the large increase in the incidence of polio in the US post WWII.
The flu vaccine does not really prevent the flu (20% effective). Instead, it prevents serious complications of the flu (80% effective)..
This claims much higher rates of effectiveness.
Only one large randomized, controlled trial of influenza vaccine has been conducted among an elderly population. During the 1991-1992 influenza season, a group of Dutch people 60 years of age and older not living in long-term care facilities (e.g., nursing homes) was studied (Govaert et al., 1994). In this study, vaccine efficacy was 58% in preventing clinically-defined influenza with serologic confirmation of infection.
In a four-year randomized, placebo-controlled study of inactivated and live influenza vaccines among children aged 1–15 years, vaccine efficacy was estimated at 77% against influenza A (H3N2) and 91% against influenza A (H1N1) virus infection (Neuzil et al., 2001). A two-year study of children aged 6–24 months found that the vaccine was 66% effective in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza in one year of the study (Hoberman et al., 2003). Only children who were fully vaccinated (i.e., had either two doses if not previously vaccinated, or one dose if previously vaccinated) versus unvaccinated children were included in the analysis. In the other year of this study, few cases of influenza occurred, making it difficult to assess the vaccine's efficacy (Hoberman et al., 2003).
The introduction of the polio vaccine in 1955 in the US had a dramatic effect on polio. In 1937 there were 9,514 cases of polio, 12,450 in 1943, 33,300 in 1950, 38,476 in 1954. The polio vaccine was introduced in 1955 and in 1956 there were 15,140 cases, 1957 had 5,485 cases. The number of cases dropped through the 1960s. By the early '70s total polio cases were down to single digits. In the last decade most years have 0 or 1 polio cases. Sanitation was introduced well before 1955, and yet we see a rise in polio cases from the mid 1930s until 1955. Did sanitation suddenly get better in 1955? Did immune systems suddenly get better in 1955? The source for the polio statistics is http://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html.
As I asked another poster, which of the coming features of Obamacare are going to increase rates? I hear this sort of thing a lot, but never any specificity as to what's in the ACA that will increase rates.
Don't be coy. What plans are those and how does the ACA facilitate those plans? What will they be able to do under the ACA that they can't do now? Here's what's coming by date. Which of the features are the insurance companies going to use to increase overall rates?
This might vary by area. I know two people in my area (central NY state) who didn't have insurance and tried negotiating prices with doctors and hospitals. No one they contacted would go along with it. They eventually paid full price, almost certainly more than the price insurance companies negotiate. Both of them had to take out large loans to finance their operations. While not offering discounts, the doctors and hospitals were quite willing to steer them to companies that specialized in medical loans.
Unlikely. If there was an easy and cheap way to use solar power, why wouldn't they?
Walmart seems to find solar a worthwhile investment. In regions with high electricity rates and abundant sunshine, like California and Hawaii, solar can be competitive with grid electricity.