The law of unintended consequences perhaps? In any case, it's probably a bit unfortunate that this is the most profitable application of artificial personality research. I'm a bit worried that they expect it to be useful for physical therapy though, since that seems more of an issue of mechanics and akin to building an AI and disk operating system into a fuel deicer. I also wonder where they put the hard reset button. Hopefully there weren't too many anime fans on the development team, otherwise it'd be in a very paradoxic place for a machine built to love.
Well, if the technology standardized on color blocking or polarity orientation then why wouldn't glasses and contacts have it built-in? It'd be kind of odd for people with monovision to see "doublevision" with such things, but I'd imagine it's already similar for those with color blindness. Personally, I have no doubt that it'll catch on. Avatar 3D made people aware that the technology exists, so more movies will follow, and it will probably make its way into the home theater before too long (probably stored on the next incarnation of BluRay). But the main reason is advertising. Can you honestly say that advertisers simply won't use this technology that has the potential to (almost literally) put ads in your face?
IMHO each piece of airport security should be evaluated by number of lives saved VS cost, both monetary and in man-hours for the TSA and passengers. Overall, the TSA has a budget of about $8 Billion, so if it prevents 40 planes from being destroyed per year then it's still $1 Million per life saved (~7 man-years per life as well). Dumping that money into health care, or general law enforcement would probably be a lot more cost-effective.
So no, the morality of the police/military force is worse than any individuals.
Seriously? Surely this statement can be disproven by finding a particularly immoral individual.
It was always my opinion that such organizations were dominated by the selfless type rather than the bully type, although I try to be optimistic. In any case, the rapists mentioned are obviously outliers which would have little effect on the overall morality of the groups. Doubly so since I would assume such immoral individuals act far more moral around their non-complicit peers.
My guess would be the one who had 35-40% (China) of their GDP cut off rather than the ones with 1% (USA) or 1.7% (Japan). The numbers are rough, but by all estimates China would suffer an order of magnitude worse than any of its trade partners from such a move.
Wow, you've restored a bit of my faith in the state of reading comprehension. Very few people pick up on that, despite the book's title and notes that explicitly state it (reminiscent of Orwell's writings). Most people seem to think that a writing is completely about whatever it happens to mention the most.
Antibiotics alone won't get rid of anything, you have to have a (at least partially) functional immune system to get rid of an infection. An antibiotic dose that'll kill every bacterial cell on its own will kill a human as well. So getting antibiotics doesn't harm your immune system at all, since it's still exposed to whatever bug made you sick. Sanitizing the water supply and food is what lowers our exposure to random bacteria and while it saves many lives it does seem to make allergies worse.
But, in any case, getting antibiotics for an infection isn't what's causing most resistance. The real problems are the worried mothers who won't leave without an antibiotic for their child's viral illness, the schmucks that stop their antibiotics early because they feels better, and the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals. Hunter gatherers are a lot better off than most people think they are, but it's our population density and international travel is what puts us at higher risk of disease, so it's not a fair comparison.
I'm a medical student as well (not a doctor though... I'm not sure how you can be both), and I like the idea. The physical exam is unlikely to show much for the type of case this should be applied for, namely borderline subclinical stuff that doesn't warrant a visit. If it's something more serious then the patient will be told to come in. Furthermore, lots of people get iatrogenic infections by coming into a clinic just to be told to drink plenty of fluids and get some rest for their viral cold. For the physician, the time savings on the simple cases should allow more time to be spent on the complicated ones.
That's pretty much on target. UV light is absorbed by DNA, and it causes changes like Thymine-Thymine dimers (ATCG are DNA bases, a T-T dimer is when two adjacent T's on the same strand bind to each other). Cells have DNA repair mechanisms, some of which are accurate, others of which are not. If the repair is inaccurate you have a mutation in a semi-random location (needs something like two adjacent thymines, and it probably needs to not be in it's condensed storage form). A mutation in each of about 8 genes that control the cell cycle will lead to uncontrolled replication and further mutation. Certain types of cells are vulnerable to different things, and require certain genes to be knocked out (or overexpressed) to form certain types of cancer. It's all very random, but there are trends within each type of cancer (hence its behavior).
I'm amazed at how our space technology kinda stalled...
1903 - Wright Brothers
1957 - Sputnik
1961 - Yuri Gagarin (first man in space)
1969 - Apollo 11
1971 - First space station
1972 - Pioneer launched (left the solar system in 1983)
Now it's 37 years later and while we've probed a lot of nearby celestial bodies, where's the self sustaining space station, or manned interplanetary travel? It's like we got bored after 15 years in space and decided it wasn't worth the effort or something. With the recent advances in commercial space flight it wouldn't surprise me if the first large space station more closely resembles an airport or resort hotel than a scientific endeavor.
A lack of transparency is what allows stuff like this to happen. I think you're right about the ethics of it, since it's not all that different from scamming someone. IMHO it'd be nice if one could request an honestly (and recursively) itemized price for anything. Something along the lines of $30 base materials, $30 labor, $40 recouping equipment and development investments, $20 marketing, $20 administrative, $40 profit.
Of course, many of the successful businesses rely on obscene profits on specific items, so they'd never want this. OTOH, it'd be much easier to simply price according to costs and I don't think many consumers would mind reasonable profit margins. It'd also help companies that make higher quality products because the consumer could tell why the price is higher, and see what they are actually paying for.
Interesting, I am reminded of evolutionary biology and the tragedy of the commons. One well know trait of natural selection is that it does not plan ahead. So that's why you get population explosions such as 30,000 deer on a small island, or cancer/infections committing suicide by killing their "host". Nature is a completely deregulated system and it works, thus indicating that anarchy can as well. Technically speaking, we've never left the free market, we just have groups that will collectively punish members (or outsiders) for certain behaviors. (This is also observed in nature.)
Regulation can just as easily be said to have caused the collapse because the naturally evolving mechanisms that would have prevented it ("invisible hand of the free market") were banned. Of course, since a true free market is completely amoral it is perhaps better that those practices (whatever they are) be banned. OTOH, it's not like it was a complete economic destruction, so it's also possible that a true free market has more variability than we'd like and this is just a natural low. Looking at reality, the free market is the only system that is known to work in all circumstances. All other (successful) strategies are mostly free market with restrictions that attempt to improve it's stability and morality.
I've got a pair of ER-6i canalphones and have the same problem with my cell phone's music player. At volume "1" it's literally louder than a helicopter taking off about 15-20 feet away (I walk past a helipad on my way to class). It's kinda ridiculous how loud most people must listen to music. It's also fairly pointless since hearing loss and acclimation will ensure that the perception of it being loud won't last for long.
Using fake info has a limit. It's fine so long as you remember why you're using Facebook in the first place. It's stupid if you (unintentionally) mislead your friends or keep them from finding you. In the latter case, that's a very round-a-bout way to not use Facebook.
As for verification, I originally registered under a pseudonym with no problems. Realizing how pointless that was I tried to change my name to my real one. Apparently, it wasn't real enough for Facebook though, so they rejected my name change. This is especially amusing since I used my college e-mail address that had a good portion of my real name in it...
I'm nowhere near as paranoid as I once was, but I try to keep my Facebook account usable for my friends while near useless for anyone else. I keep it professional enough that I wouldn't mind future employers looking at it, and keep only the most subtle references to the rest of my online identity (similarly, my username is rarely associated with my real name). I figure it's a good "stopping point" if someone tries to investigate me online. If it didn't exist then I'd suspect that might encourage someone to dig a little deeper.
Not having a Facebook profile also has some privacy concerns. Someone can tag you in an image even if you aren't on Facebook. The only differences are that it's obviously not linked to your profile, and you cannot untag yourself from it.
I've noticed that in my own field statistics and physics are regarded as nearly impossibly difficult for undergraduates. Apparently it's a different mindset, although I never found them to be difficult myself. As my colleges gain credentials, they don't magically become good at math. There's a little instruction on statistics here and there, but nothing too serious. Therefore, there's little surprise when researchers make stupid statistical mistakes.
My stats teacher once made the comment that in the biological sciences, probably about half of published papers have some kind of statistical error. IMHO that's truly worrisome because a Type I error can easily lead to people's deaths (i.e. erroneously finding Drug A to be more effective than the traditional approach). But my own meager statistical background suggests to me that this is probably a true statement. As part of my coursework I recently read a published article (and a prominent one at that) where the author literally reported a negative p value. Some evolution denier pointed out some statistical mistakes in the main experiment of the 40,000 generation E. coli study to the journal it was published in, and the journal's response indicates that they basically didn't care. (His other points were silly, and the p value was probably still quite low, but the reported p value is wrong.)
I can see why a researcher might feel that statistics isn't something a layman can understand because of their own struggles with the subject. I also think he's completely wrong about that since math doesn't care about credentials. If your math is wrong then it doesn't matter if it was a retarded house cat that pointed it out. IMHO open access to data sets is essential, at least where subject privacy isn't an issue. Peer review lets way too much by, and I suspect it's exactly because the reviewers are prone to making the same kind of mistakes their peers are. Some outside scrutiny can only improve research quality.
Our current system contributes to 60% of bankruptcies, is the most expensive in the world, and doesn't come close to providing adequate care to everyone. I do not know whether a more capitalistic or a more socialistic system would be best, but right now we have the benefits of neither and the problems of both.
That said, life expectancy is difficult to compare across cultures. Ours is actually predicted to peak and start declining before long, due to the obesity epidemic. Other countries are about 5-15 years behind us in that regard, so it wouldn't surprise me if that explained some of the disparity. Additionally, as the center of medical training, we have a lot more specialists compared to primary care doctors, which increases costs quite a bit. As the center of medical research we pay something like five times more for many of our drugs as other countries do... cutting into that would have serious effects on Big Pharma's profits, and subsequently slow down research. Then you have confounding factors like prescription drug advertising, defensive medicine, complex legal issues, patent issues, asinine insurance company decisions, vaccine refusal, patient non-compliance, celebrities giving medical "advice", and media fear mongering.
This is a complex issue and cloning another country's system (or an amalgamation of several) isn't necessarily the best solution. It's actually not even entirely possible since America differs in culture, size, population distribution, patient expectations, and in a plethora of other ways from any other country. Sadly, I fear that most Americans are having their opinion told to them about this matter (and most others), exemplified by stuff like this facebook quiz.
My understanding was that it was the difference of applications having access to your name, gender, and such, as well as being able to contact you, compared to applications not being able to tell that you exist at all.
Changing my privacy settings reminded me to double check my Application privacy settings. Is it just me being unobservant, or has the "Do not share any information about me through the Facebook API" option been stealthily removed?
I would think it would be more worth it to get someone else's fingerprints, if you could.
Swapping one's own finger pads is bound to be painful and you'd lose your sense of touch for quite a while (perhaps some of it permanently). Graphing on someone else's would mean that you'd need to take immunosuppressants to make rejection less likely. Taking those drugs is better than dying, but they're certainly no walk in the park, and expensive to boot. You'd basically be sacrificing years of your life and the health of your remaining years. I could see a suicide bomber doing it in a heartbeat, but not someone trying to fool immigration.
Well, since we don't exactly have a secret police here in the US anyone who tried and got caught would be known regardless of what a business wants. We aren't that much of a corporate-ocracy yet. And there is money in fear mongering, so I'm not exactly sure our corporate overlords would really want to keep it quiet.
we cannot risk the entire cell ecosystem on a phone that can be completely modified to do anything.
So, if it's possible to bring down the cell ecosystem using a cell phone, then why isn't anyone doing it? I'm sure there are plenty of anti-social types that would get a kick out of it, so motivation isn't a factor. And it's not all that difficult to send any arbitrary radio signal, so that's not an issue. So there's both the means and the desire, yet the towers have withstood the test of time. Something doesn't quite add up here.
True, although you could slide the tabs around and almost replicate the feature. Haiku has improved in this area and has a feature called Stack and Tile.
Latency and susceptibility to jamming will always be an issue for drones. This can be lessened by making them semi-autonomous, but it'll always exist. So a piloted craft has those advantages. The UAVs still have cost (thus numbers), weight, and their unmanned nature as advantages. Since they have different advantages their roles will just become differentiated over time. IMHO it's likely that it'll go to having 2-3 manned fighters with the gunners controlling a dozen drones or so.
There is far, far too much politics in science. I don't know why Dr. Jones decided to step down, but I'm inclined to believe (after reading the Nature editorial) that the reasons were almost entirely political.
I think most everyone agrees on that. There was actually a best selling book about that very topic a few years ago. It used global warming as the example, and, ironically, wound up further politicizing the issue. I'm appalled by the overall lack of reading comprehension in America, and find it interesting that the book was prominently "rebutted" point by point by one of the people tangentially involved in the e-mails. While it's wrong to assume guilt by association, it does seem to me that the people suffering because of the leak appear to adamantly disagree with the book and it's premise that science should be separate from politics.
Slashdot Mirror
The law of unintended consequences perhaps? In any case, it's probably a bit unfortunate that this is the most profitable application of artificial personality research. I'm a bit worried that they expect it to be useful for physical therapy though, since that seems more of an issue of mechanics and akin to building an AI and disk operating system into a fuel deicer. I also wonder where they put the hard reset button. Hopefully there weren't too many anime fans on the development team, otherwise it'd be in a very paradoxic place for a machine built to love.
Well, if the technology standardized on color blocking or polarity orientation then why wouldn't glasses and contacts have it built-in? It'd be kind of odd for people with monovision to see "doublevision" with such things, but I'd imagine it's already similar for those with color blindness. Personally, I have no doubt that it'll catch on. Avatar 3D made people aware that the technology exists, so more movies will follow, and it will probably make its way into the home theater before too long (probably stored on the next incarnation of BluRay). But the main reason is advertising. Can you honestly say that advertisers simply won't use this technology that has the potential to (almost literally) put ads in your face?
IMHO each piece of airport security should be evaluated by number of lives saved VS cost, both monetary and in man-hours for the TSA and passengers. Overall, the TSA has a budget of about $8 Billion, so if it prevents 40 planes from being destroyed per year then it's still $1 Million per life saved (~7 man-years per life as well). Dumping that money into health care, or general law enforcement would probably be a lot more cost-effective.
So no, the morality of the police/military force is worse than any individuals.
Seriously? Surely this statement can be disproven by finding a particularly immoral individual.
It was always my opinion that such organizations were dominated by the selfless type rather than the bully type, although I try to be optimistic. In any case, the rapists mentioned are obviously outliers which would have little effect on the overall morality of the groups. Doubly so since I would assume such immoral individuals act far more moral around their non-complicit peers.
My guess would be the one who had 35-40% (China) of their GDP cut off rather than the ones with 1% (USA) or 1.7% (Japan). The numbers are rough, but by all estimates China would suffer an order of magnitude worse than any of its trade partners from such a move.
Wow, you've restored a bit of my faith in the state of reading comprehension. Very few people pick up on that, despite the book's title and notes that explicitly state it (reminiscent of Orwell's writings). Most people seem to think that a writing is completely about whatever it happens to mention the most.
Antibiotics alone won't get rid of anything, you have to have a (at least partially) functional immune system to get rid of an infection. An antibiotic dose that'll kill every bacterial cell on its own will kill a human as well. So getting antibiotics doesn't harm your immune system at all, since it's still exposed to whatever bug made you sick. Sanitizing the water supply and food is what lowers our exposure to random bacteria and while it saves many lives it does seem to make allergies worse.
But, in any case, getting antibiotics for an infection isn't what's causing most resistance. The real problems are the worried mothers who won't leave without an antibiotic for their child's viral illness, the schmucks that stop their antibiotics early because they feels better, and the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals. Hunter gatherers are a lot better off than most people think they are, but it's our population density and international travel is what puts us at higher risk of disease, so it's not a fair comparison.
I'm a medical student as well (not a doctor though... I'm not sure how you can be both), and I like the idea. The physical exam is unlikely to show much for the type of case this should be applied for, namely borderline subclinical stuff that doesn't warrant a visit. If it's something more serious then the patient will be told to come in. Furthermore, lots of people get iatrogenic infections by coming into a clinic just to be told to drink plenty of fluids and get some rest for their viral cold. For the physician, the time savings on the simple cases should allow more time to be spent on the complicated ones.
That's pretty much on target. UV light is absorbed by DNA, and it causes changes like Thymine-Thymine dimers (ATCG are DNA bases, a T-T dimer is when two adjacent T's on the same strand bind to each other). Cells have DNA repair mechanisms, some of which are accurate, others of which are not. If the repair is inaccurate you have a mutation in a semi-random location (needs something like two adjacent thymines, and it probably needs to not be in it's condensed storage form). A mutation in each of about 8 genes that control the cell cycle will lead to uncontrolled replication and further mutation. Certain types of cells are vulnerable to different things, and require certain genes to be knocked out (or overexpressed) to form certain types of cancer. It's all very random, but there are trends within each type of cancer (hence its behavior).
Now it's 37 years later and while we've probed a lot of nearby celestial bodies, where's the self sustaining space station, or manned interplanetary travel? It's like we got bored after 15 years in space and decided it wasn't worth the effort or something. With the recent advances in commercial space flight it wouldn't surprise me if the first large space station more closely resembles an airport or resort hotel than a scientific endeavor.
A lack of transparency is what allows stuff like this to happen. I think you're right about the ethics of it, since it's not all that different from scamming someone. IMHO it'd be nice if one could request an honestly (and recursively) itemized price for anything. Something along the lines of $30 base materials, $30 labor, $40 recouping equipment and development investments, $20 marketing, $20 administrative, $40 profit.
Of course, many of the successful businesses rely on obscene profits on specific items, so they'd never want this. OTOH, it'd be much easier to simply price according to costs and I don't think many consumers would mind reasonable profit margins. It'd also help companies that make higher quality products because the consumer could tell why the price is higher, and see what they are actually paying for.
Interesting, I am reminded of evolutionary biology and the tragedy of the commons. One well know trait of natural selection is that it does not plan ahead. So that's why you get population explosions such as 30,000 deer on a small island, or cancer/infections committing suicide by killing their "host". Nature is a completely deregulated system and it works, thus indicating that anarchy can as well. Technically speaking, we've never left the free market, we just have groups that will collectively punish members (or outsiders) for certain behaviors. (This is also observed in nature.)
Regulation can just as easily be said to have caused the collapse because the naturally evolving mechanisms that would have prevented it ("invisible hand of the free market") were banned. Of course, since a true free market is completely amoral it is perhaps better that those practices (whatever they are) be banned. OTOH, it's not like it was a complete economic destruction, so it's also possible that a true free market has more variability than we'd like and this is just a natural low. Looking at reality, the free market is the only system that is known to work in all circumstances. All other (successful) strategies are mostly free market with restrictions that attempt to improve it's stability and morality.
I've got a pair of ER-6i canalphones and have the same problem with my cell phone's music player. At volume "1" it's literally louder than a helicopter taking off about 15-20 feet away (I walk past a helipad on my way to class). It's kinda ridiculous how loud most people must listen to music. It's also fairly pointless since hearing loss and acclimation will ensure that the perception of it being loud won't last for long.
Using fake info has a limit. It's fine so long as you remember why you're using Facebook in the first place. It's stupid if you (unintentionally) mislead your friends or keep them from finding you. In the latter case, that's a very round-a-bout way to not use Facebook.
As for verification, I originally registered under a pseudonym with no problems. Realizing how pointless that was I tried to change my name to my real one. Apparently, it wasn't real enough for Facebook though, so they rejected my name change. This is especially amusing since I used my college e-mail address that had a good portion of my real name in it...
I'm nowhere near as paranoid as I once was, but I try to keep my Facebook account usable for my friends while near useless for anyone else. I keep it professional enough that I wouldn't mind future employers looking at it, and keep only the most subtle references to the rest of my online identity (similarly, my username is rarely associated with my real name). I figure it's a good "stopping point" if someone tries to investigate me online. If it didn't exist then I'd suspect that might encourage someone to dig a little deeper.
Not having a Facebook profile also has some privacy concerns. Someone can tag you in an image even if you aren't on Facebook. The only differences are that it's obviously not linked to your profile, and you cannot untag yourself from it.
I've noticed that in my own field statistics and physics are regarded as nearly impossibly difficult for undergraduates. Apparently it's a different mindset, although I never found them to be difficult myself. As my colleges gain credentials, they don't magically become good at math. There's a little instruction on statistics here and there, but nothing too serious. Therefore, there's little surprise when researchers make stupid statistical mistakes.
My stats teacher once made the comment that in the biological sciences, probably about half of published papers have some kind of statistical error. IMHO that's truly worrisome because a Type I error can easily lead to people's deaths (i.e. erroneously finding Drug A to be more effective than the traditional approach). But my own meager statistical background suggests to me that this is probably a true statement. As part of my coursework I recently read a published article (and a prominent one at that) where the author literally reported a negative p value. Some evolution denier pointed out some statistical mistakes in the main experiment of the 40,000 generation E. coli study to the journal it was published in, and the journal's response indicates that they basically didn't care. (His other points were silly, and the p value was probably still quite low, but the reported p value is wrong.)
I can see why a researcher might feel that statistics isn't something a layman can understand because of their own struggles with the subject. I also think he's completely wrong about that since math doesn't care about credentials. If your math is wrong then it doesn't matter if it was a retarded house cat that pointed it out. IMHO open access to data sets is essential, at least where subject privacy isn't an issue. Peer review lets way too much by, and I suspect it's exactly because the reviewers are prone to making the same kind of mistakes their peers are. Some outside scrutiny can only improve research quality.
Our current system contributes to 60% of bankruptcies, is the most expensive in the world, and doesn't come close to providing adequate care to everyone. I do not know whether a more capitalistic or a more socialistic system would be best, but right now we have the benefits of neither and the problems of both.
That said, life expectancy is difficult to compare across cultures. Ours is actually predicted to peak and start declining before long, due to the obesity epidemic. Other countries are about 5-15 years behind us in that regard, so it wouldn't surprise me if that explained some of the disparity. Additionally, as the center of medical training, we have a lot more specialists compared to primary care doctors, which increases costs quite a bit. As the center of medical research we pay something like five times more for many of our drugs as other countries do... cutting into that would have serious effects on Big Pharma's profits, and subsequently slow down research. Then you have confounding factors like prescription drug advertising, defensive medicine, complex legal issues, patent issues, asinine insurance company decisions, vaccine refusal, patient non-compliance, celebrities giving medical "advice", and media fear mongering.
This is a complex issue and cloning another country's system (or an amalgamation of several) isn't necessarily the best solution. It's actually not even entirely possible since America differs in culture, size, population distribution, patient expectations, and in a plethora of other ways from any other country. Sadly, I fear that most Americans are having their opinion told to them about this matter (and most others), exemplified by stuff like this facebook quiz.
My understanding was that it was the difference of applications having access to your name, gender, and such, as well as being able to contact you, compared to applications not being able to tell that you exist at all.
Changing my privacy settings reminded me to double check my Application privacy settings. Is it just me being unobservant, or has the "Do not share any information about me through the Facebook API" option been stealthily removed?
I would think it would be more worth it to get someone else's fingerprints, if you could.
Swapping one's own finger pads is bound to be painful and you'd lose your sense of touch for quite a while (perhaps some of it permanently). Graphing on someone else's would mean that you'd need to take immunosuppressants to make rejection less likely. Taking those drugs is better than dying, but they're certainly no walk in the park, and expensive to boot. You'd basically be sacrificing years of your life and the health of your remaining years. I could see a suicide bomber doing it in a heartbeat, but not someone trying to fool immigration.
Well, since we don't exactly have a secret police here in the US anyone who tried and got caught would be known regardless of what a business wants. We aren't that much of a corporate-ocracy yet. And there is money in fear mongering, so I'm not exactly sure our corporate overlords would really want to keep it quiet.
we cannot risk the entire cell ecosystem on a phone that can be completely modified to do anything.
So, if it's possible to bring down the cell ecosystem using a cell phone, then why isn't anyone doing it? I'm sure there are plenty of anti-social types that would get a kick out of it, so motivation isn't a factor. And it's not all that difficult to send any arbitrary radio signal, so that's not an issue. So there's both the means and the desire, yet the towers have withstood the test of time. Something doesn't quite add up here.
True, although you could slide the tabs around and almost replicate the feature. Haiku has improved in this area and has a feature called Stack and Tile.
Latency and susceptibility to jamming will always be an issue for drones. This can be lessened by making them semi-autonomous, but it'll always exist. So a piloted craft has those advantages. The UAVs still have cost (thus numbers), weight, and their unmanned nature as advantages. Since they have different advantages their roles will just become differentiated over time. IMHO it's likely that it'll go to having 2-3 manned fighters with the gunners controlling a dozen drones or so.
There is far, far too much politics in science. I don't know why Dr. Jones decided to step down, but I'm inclined to believe (after reading the Nature editorial) that the reasons were almost entirely political.
I think most everyone agrees on that. There was actually a best selling book about that very topic a few years ago. It used global warming as the example, and, ironically, wound up further politicizing the issue. I'm appalled by the overall lack of reading comprehension in America, and find it interesting that the book was prominently "rebutted" point by point by one of the people tangentially involved in the e-mails. While it's wrong to assume guilt by association, it does seem to me that the people suffering because of the leak appear to adamantly disagree with the book and it's premise that science should be separate from politics.
Hmm... it would appear that I've lost my ability to count.
I had added a third, "situational", but reconsidered and deleted it because it's doesn't exist independently from the other two.