Yes. And the closest thing to a quantification was "10 to 20 times as fast as any in the rest of Norway." Which means....what? It tells me that the guy has 43 TB of storage capacity, and even specific climate info about the town, but I'm left to guess the specs of the internet link, which is the subject of the article?
My guess? Anyone who "communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist." Add your six degrees of separation, and presto, that's everyone.
Because the more you know about functions in your company besides IT (such as finance, investor relations, and -- yes -- marketing), the more valuable you are as an employee.
Right, because every place I've ever worked in IT, they've been totally transparent and forthcoming about finance, marketing, and investor relations to make the people in the trenches more valuable. Oh wait, no, that never happened....
Of course it can. "I believe I have a 90% chance of succeeding in this crime, i.e., of not being convicted for it. If I succeed, I receive benefit (money, the elimination of an annoying person, whatever) which I value at A, a positive number. I have a 10% change of failing, i.e. being convicted, and receiving sentence B, which I value at a negative number. My expected outcome is.9A +.1 B. In this case that sum is greater than 0. Logically, I should commit the crime."
I suggest doing a search on "certainty vs. severity of punishment". If you poke through the literature, it appears to be well established that criminals are far more sensitive to the perception of the *certainty* of punishment (which is what you are arguing would change a rational risk assessment) than they are to the *severity* of punishment (which is what I kan read is arguing would *not* change a rational risk assessment).
In other words, these two arguments are not contradictory. To the extent that criminals are rational actors, they will make risk assessments based primarily along the lines you cite, i.e., the chances of getting caught; with the severity of the consequences playing a much more minor role. So given an equal chance of being caught/punished...i kan read is correct...if one is rationally deterred from committing a crime punishable by the death penalty today, it is highly unlikely that the same person would be undeterred if the punishment for that crime was reduced to 10 years in prison.
Wouldn't you expect St. Patrick's day to *reduce* the overall number of livers available.
That's the magic of alcohol, my son. It can destroy one liver through chronic abuse as it makes another available via inhibition of good judgement. All hail the powers of demon rum!!
Low Fat, Low Carb...oooh...hardcore...(thats what I did)...nearly died from that one...
Yep, it's long been known that extremely high protein diets are bad for humans. I actually RTFA, and in the mouse study, it was a 50% protein diet. Mice are herbivores, that much protein is effectively toxic for them.
So the mouse study doesn't show that low protein diet extends lifespan as much as a ultra-high protein diet reduces lifespan, which is not really news.
The second study was an observational study of humans, which joins a long list of such studies where you'll find something to support pretty much any nutritional hypothesis you can imagine.
It depends on a lot of factors. First of all, for e. coli, most strains are harmless and so 1 or 10,000 of those cells won't really affect you. However, the greater the number you ingest, the greater the chances that you'll get one of the pathogenic strains. For someone with a normal immune system, I'd expect the chance of just one cell causing an infection is exceedingly small, but for someone with compromised immunity it would obviously be much higher.
But as I mentioned upthread, when water is contaminated, it is rarely just one cell.
Yes, but, the OP didn't say that one shouldn't use the method...those were *your* words and *your* assumption. The analogy simply points out that '99% removal' may not be adequate in this particular case.
What a silly thing to say; as if not filtering 99% of something harmful is a better idea...
OP does have a quite valid point...I worked in water testing lab years ago so I have some experience with this. The EPA standard for coliform in drinking water is zero, that is to say one e. coli bacteria in a water sample (usually 100 ml) means the water is contaminated. (And generally when water is contaminated, there will be far more than just one bacteria per 100 ml.)
So while, yes, removing 99% of the bacterial load is better than not, as a general rule a 99% effective "decontamination" process still leaves you with contaminated water
But I don't think the promotion to Schedule 1, about 40 years later IIRC, was pushed by any lobbyists--it was a pure executive branch thing, and based on the flimsiest of pretend science.
Sorry to say, but you are mistaken on several counts. The scheduling of drugs only came about with the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, passed by Congress (i.e., lobbyists were surely involved) and signed into law by Nixon. Marijuana was Schedule I from day one and has remained so, even though Part F of the umbrella legislation (the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) known as the Shafer Commission, tasked to study the problem of marijuana abuse, recommended decriminalization (which Nixon famously ignored).
According to Wikipedia, they are not an endangered species though there are reports of declining populations. As to breeding them in captivity:
Raising horseshoe crabs in captivity has proven to be difficult. Some evidence indicates mating only takes place in the presence of the sand or mud in which the horseshoe crab's eggs were hatched. Neither what is in the sand that the crab can sense nor how they sense it is known with certainty.
Here's the difference: technology CEOs run companies that make things and contribute to society. Bankers earn a profit by moving other peoples' money around and taking some off the top. One of those jobs is necessary for us to progress.
Unless/until humanity overthrows the global captialist/monetary economic system, banking is just as necessary for 'progress' as the tech sector.
Banking is not inherently evil...the problem arises when the financial sector grows too politically powerful and can twist the laws to permit them greater and greater capacities for rent-seeking. This is not limited to the financial sector, they just seem to be in a better position to do so than most other enterprises.
The problem is with an electorate that is politically disengaged and doesn't notice when the laws are gradually changed to allow economic players to shift from active wealth creation to passive wealth accumulation, until one day you notice that bankers are ignoring the traditional risks of their business because the laws permit them to privatize their profits while shifting their losses to the public. But this is not limited to banking/finance...even in the tech sector you have the telcos and the trend towards walled gardens where they are more looking to simply skim fees rather than provide better and more useful technology.
I am by no means a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, but as long as we are stuck with the system we have, it is not very useful to single out banking as a whole as the cancer on the system, and instead focus on how we regulate the actors in the system we have.
Who said their primary mission was advocating openness? I thought their mission was building an online encyclopedia. (Or as the Wikimedia Foundation puts it more generally, "... to bring free educational content to the world.") When did it turn into an ideological crusade?
From the Wikimedia Foundation MIssion Statement:
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
..and from the Wikipedia page:
The Wikimedia Foundation's stated goal is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge.
...although it doesn't explicitly state that patent-unencumbered formats are necessary for those goals, but it's safe to say that insisting on them is fully compatible with those goals. No more ideological than the rest of their 'crusade', IMO.
It's like you show up to a benefit potluck for your local library, and people start ranting about how the food people brought isn't vegan.
To me, it's more like:you show up to a benefit potluck for your local library, and people start complaining that some people are charging money on the side for (or restricting access to) the food they bring. Do you want those people at your potluck?
Re the 2004 election, all I'll say is that the discrepancies are nowhere near what you are suggesting for the creationist polls.
As for the difference between the accuracy of election polls vs opinion polls, I can even buy that up to a point. After all as I noted, Pew gets 33% and Gallup gets 45% for what are both crystal-clear creationist options, that's a huge gap by election poll standards. But only up to a point. Pew gets 33%, Gallup 45%, but you want me to believe <10% without being able to produce even one poll to support anything close to that, a number less than polls of any country save for maybe Iceland and Norway. That's way beyond the point.
Otherwise, you're pretty much repeating the same kind of fallacious arguments in different variations over and over. I could reciprocate in the same vein until the cows come home: if there are so few creationists, why is "Left Behind" so popular, and why are there so many megachurches that cater to this nonsense, why does virtually no US politician publicly denounce the creationist agenda....and on and on with lots of circumstantial evidence that these views are indeed widespread. But that would all be based on various assumptions and biases that might make good rhetoric, but it's not rational argument.
And guess what? I don't have to make that kind of argument...because (sorry Trigger, here it comes again) pretty much every public opinion poll ever done on the matter indicates that at least a third of US population accepts creationism, and I don't need to invoke the proxy argument of "but if the were as few creationists you claim, then blah-bitty-blah" because as far as I know, the public opinion poll, however imperfect it may be, is the best measurement we have for, y'know, public opinion. That leaves you with the burden of proving your contention that all of the polls are so consistently wrong. As much I would celebrate it if you could prove your view to be even remotely likely, you have not convinced me in the slightest of it.
But elections are polls too. And polls that a lot of people actually happen to care about and participate in. And as I see it, when a Gallup poll ends up contradicting an election poll, I go with the latter.
But nobody votes for "I believe in YEC" in the election booth, unless by public referendum and I know of no such referendum anywhere. Generally, a voter picks a candidate to represent him/her based a prioritization of ALL issues important to the voter. So you are comparing apples and watermelons here, and making the implicit assumption that the vast majority of people who say they accept creationism have mandating creationist education as their #1 political priority. That is the glaring flaw in your argument and I don't find that a tenable position, to put it mildly.
And strange....when these same organizations conduct actual election polling that does compare apples-to-apples to actual election results, the standard margin of error is around 3%. But you compare a general opinion poll to that same election result, add a healthy dose of speculation and unfounded assumptions, and now you seem perfectly comfortable concluding on that basis alone that all of the opinion polls are totally, but yet somehow consistently out in left field.
That's my "some reason" for saying your argument is not rational, and you only keep convincing me of that further with each response.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh...never mind...subtle whoosh on my part. :)
Yes. And the closest thing to a quantification was "10 to 20 times as fast as any in the rest of Norway." Which means....what? It tells me that the guy has 43 TB of storage capacity, and even specific climate info about the town, but I'm left to guess the specs of the internet link, which is the subject of the article?
Did I miss something?
How do you write an article about the "highest speed internet" in the world without a single quantification of how fast it actually is?
My guess? Anyone who "communicated with someone that is 'reasonably believed' to be a terrorist." Add your six degrees of separation, and presto, that's everyone.
I was about to say if they made a fork of btrfs for their own implementation it should obviously be called ButterFace.
Maybe they added picture scanning technology and the New Braunfels Republican Women are simply hawt.
Right, because every place I've ever worked in IT, they've been totally transparent and forthcoming about finance, marketing, and investor relations to make the people in the trenches more valuable. Oh wait, no, that never happened....
I suggest doing a search on "certainty vs. severity of punishment". If you poke through the literature, it appears to be well established that criminals are far more sensitive to the perception of the *certainty* of punishment (which is what you are arguing would change a rational risk assessment) than they are to the *severity* of punishment (which is what I kan read is arguing would *not* change a rational risk assessment).
In other words, these two arguments are not contradictory. To the extent that criminals are rational actors, they will make risk assessments based primarily along the lines you cite, i.e., the chances of getting caught; with the severity of the consequences playing a much more minor role. So given an equal chance of being caught/punished...i kan read is correct...if one is rationally deterred from committing a crime punishable by the death penalty today, it is highly unlikely that the same person would be undeterred if the punishment for that crime was reduced to 10 years in prison.
And you can't spell SATAN without N, S, and A. Coincidence? I think not.
That's the magic of alcohol, my son. It can destroy one liver through chronic abuse as it makes another available via inhibition of good judgement. All hail the powers of demon rum!!
Excellent point...but "investition"?
The maximum bitrate for mp3 is 320 kbps.
Empty carbs.... you do know that Atkins died young?
Where does this meme I keep reading about how Atkins' diet killed him come from? He died at 72 from surgical compilcations after a head trauma sustained by slipping on icy pavement.
Low Fat, Low Carb...oooh...hardcore...(thats what I did)...nearly died from that one...
Yep, it's long been known that extremely high protein diets are bad for humans. I actually RTFA, and in the mouse study, it was a 50% protein diet. Mice are herbivores, that much protein is effectively toxic for them.
So the mouse study doesn't show that low protein diet extends lifespan as much as a ultra-high protein diet reduces lifespan, which is not really news.
The second study was an observational study of humans, which joins a long list of such studies where you'll find something to support pretty much any nutritional hypothesis you can imagine.
It depends on a lot of factors. First of all, for e. coli, most strains are harmless and so 1 or 10,000 of those cells won't really affect you. However, the greater the number you ingest, the greater the chances that you'll get one of the pathogenic strains. For someone with a normal immune system, I'd expect the chance of just one cell causing an infection is exceedingly small, but for someone with compromised immunity it would obviously be much higher.
But as I mentioned upthread, when water is contaminated, it is rarely just one cell.
Yes, but, the OP didn't say that one shouldn't use the method...those were *your* words and *your* assumption. The analogy simply points out that '99% removal' may not be adequate in this particular case.
What a silly thing to say; as if not filtering 99% of something harmful is a better idea...
OP does have a quite valid point...I worked in water testing lab years ago so I have some experience with this. The EPA standard for coliform in drinking water is zero, that is to say one e. coli bacteria in a water sample (usually 100 ml) means the water is contaminated. (And generally when water is contaminated, there will be far more than just one bacteria per 100 ml.)
So while, yes, removing 99% of the bacterial load is better than not, as a general rule a 99% effective "decontamination" process still leaves you with contaminated water
But I don't think the promotion to Schedule 1, about 40 years later IIRC, was pushed by any lobbyists--it was a pure executive branch thing, and based on the flimsiest of pretend science.
Sorry to say, but you are mistaken on several counts. The scheduling of drugs only came about with the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, passed by Congress (i.e., lobbyists were surely involved) and signed into law by Nixon. Marijuana was Schedule I from day one and has remained so, even though Part F of the umbrella legislation (the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) known as the Shafer Commission, tasked to study the problem of marijuana abuse, recommended decriminalization (which Nixon famously ignored).
According to Wikipedia, they are not an endangered species though there are reports of declining populations. As to breeding them in captivity:
Raising horseshoe crabs in captivity has proven to be difficult. Some evidence indicates mating only takes place in the presence of the sand or mud in which the horseshoe crab's eggs were hatched. Neither what is in the sand that the crab can sense nor how they sense it is known with certainty.
I don't know about that...but I'd like to know who upgraded the memory in the RAMALAMADINGDONG server.
Here's the difference: technology CEOs run companies that make things and contribute to society. Bankers earn a profit by moving other peoples' money around and taking some off the top. One of those jobs is necessary for us to progress.
Unless/until humanity overthrows the global captialist/monetary economic system, banking is just as necessary for 'progress' as the tech sector.
Banking is not inherently evil...the problem arises when the financial sector grows too politically powerful and can twist the laws to permit them greater and greater capacities for rent-seeking. This is not limited to the financial sector, they just seem to be in a better position to do so than most other enterprises.
The problem is with an electorate that is politically disengaged and doesn't notice when the laws are gradually changed to allow economic players to shift from active wealth creation to passive wealth accumulation, until one day you notice that bankers are ignoring the traditional risks of their business because the laws permit them to privatize their profits while shifting their losses to the public. But this is not limited to banking/finance...even in the tech sector you have the telcos and the trend towards walled gardens where they are more looking to simply skim fees rather than provide better and more useful technology.
I am by no means a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, but as long as we are stuck with the system we have, it is not very useful to single out banking as a whole as the cancer on the system, and instead focus on how we regulate the actors in the system we have.
The ones I've been to only cut you off when you can't pay, puke on the floor, or start a fight.
I'm envisioning a bartender saying: "Sorry sir, but you must either pay, puke on the floor, or start a fight...or else we can no longer serve you."
Who said their primary mission was advocating openness? I thought their mission was building an online encyclopedia. (Or as the Wikimedia Foundation puts it more generally, "... to bring free educational content to the world.") When did it turn into an ideological crusade?
From the Wikimedia Foundation MIssion Statement:
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
..and from the Wikipedia page:
The Wikimedia Foundation's stated goal is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects and to provide the full contents of those projects to the public free of charge.
...although it doesn't explicitly state that patent-unencumbered formats are necessary for those goals, but it's safe to say that insisting on them is fully compatible with those goals. No more ideological than the rest of their 'crusade', IMO.
It's like you show up to a benefit potluck for your local library, and people start ranting about how the food people brought isn't vegan.
To me, it's more like:you show up to a benefit potluck for your local library, and people start complaining that some people are charging money on the side for (or restricting access to) the food they bring. Do you want those people at your potluck?
Re the 2004 election, all I'll say is that the discrepancies are nowhere near what you are suggesting for the creationist polls.
As for the difference between the accuracy of election polls vs opinion polls, I can even buy that up to a point. After all as I noted, Pew gets 33% and Gallup gets 45% for what are both crystal-clear creationist options, that's a huge gap by election poll standards. But only up to a point. Pew gets 33%, Gallup 45%, but you want me to believe <10% without being able to produce even one poll to support anything close to that, a number less than polls of any country save for maybe Iceland and Norway. That's way beyond the point.
Otherwise, you're pretty much repeating the same kind of fallacious arguments in different variations over and over. I could reciprocate in the same vein until the cows come home: if there are so few creationists, why is "Left Behind" so popular, and why are there so many megachurches that cater to this nonsense, why does virtually no US politician publicly denounce the creationist agenda....and on and on with lots of circumstantial evidence that these views are indeed widespread. But that would all be based on various assumptions and biases that might make good rhetoric, but it's not rational argument.
And guess what? I don't have to make that kind of argument...because (sorry Trigger, here it comes again) pretty much every public opinion poll ever done on the matter indicates that at least a third of US population accepts creationism, and I don't need to invoke the proxy argument of "but if the were as few creationists you claim, then blah-bitty-blah" because as far as I know, the public opinion poll, however imperfect it may be, is the best measurement we have for, y'know, public opinion. That leaves you with the burden of proving your contention that all of the polls are so consistently wrong. As much I would celebrate it if you could prove your view to be even remotely likely, you have not convinced me in the slightest of it.
But elections are polls too. And polls that a lot of people actually happen to care about and participate in. And as I see it, when a Gallup poll ends up contradicting an election poll, I go with the latter.
But nobody votes for "I believe in YEC" in the election booth, unless by public referendum and I know of no such referendum anywhere. Generally, a voter picks a candidate to represent him/her based a prioritization of ALL issues important to the voter. So you are comparing apples and watermelons here, and making the implicit assumption that the vast majority of people who say they accept creationism have mandating creationist education as their #1 political priority. That is the glaring flaw in your argument and I don't find that a tenable position, to put it mildly.
And strange....when these same organizations conduct actual election polling that does compare apples-to-apples to actual election results, the standard margin of error is around 3%. But you compare a general opinion poll to that same election result, add a healthy dose of speculation and unfounded assumptions, and now you seem perfectly comfortable concluding on that basis alone that all of the opinion polls are totally, but yet somehow consistently out in left field.
That's my "some reason" for saying your argument is not rational, and you only keep convincing me of that further with each response.