I'm thinking it might be possible to build a "clear" overlay with a bunch of infra-red LEDs built in in a pattern that is invisible to the naked eye but fuzzes the numbers for any camera that sees in the infra-red (most of them). Put that over your plate and run it all the time, even when the car is parked anywhere except in your garage.
Russia Today sees itself as a champion of a global audience critical of the West. But it is also meant to amplify the self-doubts of Europeans and Americans who have been forced by recent events to wonder if their own countries â" like Russia and China â" are corrupt and in the grip of a pervasive intelligence apparatus.
I find it odd that this role is considered bad. Certainly it would be bad in an authoritarian regime. But in a democracy that is the precise role of the 4th estate - they shouldn't be telling us everything is fine when it isn't and frankly it is never fine, how does that saying go? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
However the government is somewhat more limited than a private-sector employer in how it uses this power.
In that the government as employer is still bound the by constitution while other private employers are not. Public criticism of the government by a government employee falls squarely in the domain of the 1st amendment meaning there is no way in hell they would get fired for that.
If you censor bad speech you only drive it underground where it goes unchallenged.
If we let racists have their say then that gives the rest of us an opportunity to rebut their fallacious arguments. Letting them speak does not mean endorsing their speech.
Look, you can rely on a discredited paper all you want.
I get it now. You think I referenced that website to prove something. I didn't. I referenced that website to explain something.
It is self-evident that ignoring drop-outs from AA biases the results. That's it, you don't need a study understand that. You got a paper which shows that ignoring drop-outs does not bias the results, then we'll talk. Otherwise you've got nothing meaningful to say here.
It never ceases to amaze me when people on slashdot find themself defending an undefendable position they always resort to character attacks.
It shouldn't amaze you at all, after all you did it yourself before anyone else in this thread -- "Obviously you have something against AA."
The studies you keep citing are irrelevant because they do not measure what I am talking about. Your insistence on irrelevancy has become a broken record - you don't bring anything helpful to the discussion so I won't be responding to you any further.
No, I don't. I have basically no interest in AA, they are just one of thousands of cases of misuse of statistics. But given your single-minded determination to defend bad math that favors them I have to think that YOU have internalized criticism of AA as criticism of yourself.
However, they do report the statistic in their information. They just didn't have anything to do with the research that produced it. You can't really fault them for that
Yes, you can 100% fault them for that. It is a way of telling a lie by pointing out a technical truth that does not apply in the context it is cited.
Again, if you don't like the way research is conducted, take it up with the whole medical community, but don't single out AA,
The research is fine, it just doesn't measure what we are talking about. It is kind of like using windspeed to measure the velocity of two different cars while ignoring the baseline windspeed of a stationary object.
The problem is that AA misapplies the research to make unsubstantiated claims. Any organization which does the same deserves the same criticism.
Yes, because in evaluating the efficacy of substance abuse programs the national standard when looking at recidivism is to look at those who have completed the program.
Which is meaningless when comparing program success rates to spontaneous remission rates. I would even go so far as to say it is a bias that enormously skews the comparisons in favor of "doing something."
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that 12-step programs are nothing more than window-dressing. That they take credit for spontaneous remission - the percentage of people who just quit on their own.
For example, alcoholics have a spontaneous remission rate of roughly 5% - so if an AA program has a 5% success rate (including the people who give up on the program - the AA people don't like to count them) then AA is just a no-op.
Here's one of many analyses making the argument that 12-steppers are just bad at math.
> If you start again, you'll overdo it and spiral down the addict path.
That's the problem with these programs - they teach people that they are helpless to their "addiction" which actually encourages addiction. If you are a permanent addict then if you have a drink well you are fucked so in for a penny in for a pound.
Seriously, the only thing at all interesting in your post was the reference to your friend who got "mega busted" but you didn't even tell us what happened.
Or more like it's saying "We have nukes to wipe any country off the face of the earth. But are you seeing us do that? No." Just because the government has the CAPABILITY of doing something does not mean it IS doing that something
It is absolutely not comparable. Nuking another country has serious and immediately obvious consequences. All the threats that NSA poses are clandestine - blackmailing a politician, industrial espionage, etc. Just look at the Special Operations Division at the DEA which laundered NSA-provided intel via "parallel construction" making it impossible for any defendants to have a fair trial.
>> "America is not interested in spying on ordinary people." > > Then why is it?
Practically speaking, I am confident it is simply a matter of collateral damage. Just like the US isn't interested in killing children in Afghanistan and Yemen but they still do it anyway because they really, really, really care about killing people they think are terrorists and if some kids in get in the way, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
Slashdot Mirror
This one is only good for those cameras that use a flash:
http://www.nophoto.com/
I'm thinking it might be possible to build a "clear" overlay with a bunch of infra-red LEDs built in in a pattern that is invisible to the naked eye but fuzzes the numbers for any camera that sees in the infra-red (most of them). Put that over your plate and run it all the time, even when the car is parked anywhere except in your garage.
Russia Today sees itself as a champion of a global audience critical of the West. But it is also meant to amplify the self-doubts of Europeans and Americans who have been forced by recent events to wonder if their own countries â" like Russia and China â" are corrupt and in the grip of a pervasive intelligence apparatus.
I find it odd that this role is considered bad. Certainly it would be bad in an authoritarian regime. But in a democracy that is the precise role of the 4th estate - they shouldn't be telling us everything is fine when it isn't and frankly it is never fine, how does that saying go? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
However the government is somewhat more limited than a private-sector employer in how it uses this power.
In that the government as employer is still bound the by constitution while other private employers are not. Public criticism of the government by a government employee falls squarely in the domain of the 1st amendment meaning there is no way in hell they would get fired for that.
I love it when they try to make it sound like the ads are there for our benefit. Gosh, I wouldn't want to have a less diverse Internet experience!
Hey, I only watch the superbowl for the advertisements just like I only browse the web for the advertisements!
> With all the fervor you seem to be putting into this debate
Lol. Just look at the word counts of my posts and that other guy's posts and tell me who is fervent about their beliefs.
If you censor bad speech you only drive it underground where it goes unchallenged.
If we let racists have their say then that gives the rest of us an opportunity to rebut their fallacious arguments. Letting them speak does not mean endorsing their speech.
Compared to those who had no treatment at all, those who went to AA had 5x the number of binge drinking incidents.
http://www.thecleanslate.org/alcoholics-anonymous-increases-binge-drinking-brandsma-study/
Here's the deal you get the entire medical community to include dropouts in all of there studies then we'll talk
Yeah, I'll get right on that red herring for you, starting tomorrow morning.
Look, you can rely on a discredited paper all you want.
I get it now. You think I referenced that website to prove something. I didn't. I referenced that website to explain something.
It is self-evident that ignoring drop-outs from AA biases the results. That's it, you don't need a study understand that. You got a paper which shows that ignoring drop-outs does not bias the results, then we'll talk. Otherwise you've got nothing meaningful to say here.
I have a lot of problems with the way they have approached some issues, but in general you don't have to be a baker to know when the bread is stale.
It never ceases to amaze me when people on slashdot find themself defending an undefendable position they always resort to character attacks.
It shouldn't amaze you at all, after all you did it yourself before anyone else in this thread -- "Obviously you have something against AA."
The studies you keep citing are irrelevant because they do not measure what I am talking about. Your insistence on irrelevancy has become a broken record - you don't bring anything helpful to the discussion so I won't be responding to you any further.
Obviously you have something against AA.
No, I don't. I have basically no interest in AA, they are just one of thousands of cases of misuse of statistics. But given your single-minded determination to defend bad math that favors them I have to think that YOU have internalized criticism of AA as criticism of yourself.
However, they do report the statistic in their information. They just didn't have anything to do with the research that produced it. You can't really fault them for that
Yes, you can 100% fault them for that. It is a way of telling a lie by pointing out a technical truth that does not apply in the context it is cited.
Again, if you don't like the way research is conducted, take it up with the whole medical community, but don't single out AA,
The research is fine, it just doesn't measure what we are talking about. It is kind of like using windspeed to measure the velocity of two different cars while ignoring the baseline windspeed of a stationary object.
The problem is that AA misapplies the research to make unsubstantiated claims. Any organization which does the same deserves the same criticism.
Yes, because in evaluating the efficacy of substance abuse programs the national standard when looking at recidivism is to look at those who have completed the program.
Which is meaningless when comparing program success rates to spontaneous remission rates. I would even go so far as to say it is a bias that enormously skews the comparisons in favor of "doing something."
Do you mean this one? Where they didn't count the people who dropped out early on?
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that 12-step programs are nothing more than window-dressing. That they take credit for spontaneous remission - the percentage of people who just quit on their own.
For example, alcoholics have a spontaneous remission rate of roughly 5% - so if an AA program has a 5% success rate (including the people who give up on the program - the AA people don't like to count them) then AA is just a no-op.
Here's one of many analyses making the argument that 12-steppers are just bad at math.
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html
> If you start again, you'll overdo it and spiral down the addict path.
That's the problem with these programs - they teach people that they are helpless to their "addiction" which actually encourages addiction. If you are a permanent addict then if you have a drink well you are fucked so in for a penny in for a pound.
Cool story bro!
Seriously, the only thing at all interesting in your post was the reference to your friend who got "mega busted" but you didn't even tell us what happened.
Also listening in on international aid workers plus phone sex calls of all kinds of people and passing them around for amusement value.
Or more like it's saying "We have nukes to wipe any country off the face of the earth. But are you seeing us do that? No." Just because the government has the CAPABILITY of doing something does not mean it IS doing that something
It is absolutely not comparable. Nuking another country has serious and immediately obvious consequences. All the threats that NSA poses are clandestine - blackmailing a politician, industrial espionage, etc. Just look at the Special Operations Division at the DEA which laundered NSA-provided intel via "parallel construction" making it impossible for any defendants to have a fair trial.
To my knowledge, there haven't really been allegations of people digging into these records for specific unethical and abusive purposes.
Actually, there has.
Someone at the NSA was snooping through Bill Clinton's email.
>> "America is not interested in spying on ordinary people."
>
> Then why is it?
Practically speaking, I am confident it is simply a matter of collateral damage. Just like the US isn't interested in killing children in Afghanistan and Yemen but they still do it anyway because they really, really, really care about killing people they think are terrorists and if some kids in get in the way, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.
> "What you're not seeing is people actually abusing these programs."
That's like saying, it is OK for the government to keep a loaded gun pointed at the head of every citizen because they haven't shot anyone.
Back then they didn't know that. Even today some parts of the world cooking is not so straightforward.