Perhaps this type of conduct is expected out of someplace like BYU. If so then I think that is kind of sad.... I disagree though that there aren't currently egregious violations of free-speech at BYU. I brought up that if an LDS student converts to any other religion they will be kicked out of school and their transcripts will be locked so they can't transfer to another university either (because the school views converting from LDS faith to another faith as an honor code violation and they lock transcripts for honor code violations). The student would also be kicked out of their housing if this occurred. How is this not an egregious suppression of speech?
Full-disclosure: I attended BYU and actually really enjoyed my time there.
Brigham Young University should be on that list. Student's will be expelled (and their transcripts locked so they can't transfer credits either) if they convert from Mormonism to any other religion while a student. You can literally get academically disciplined for profanity or criticizing LDS leaders. It isn't just student's though. Faculty can also get in serious trouble for what they say. For example, a BYU professor and historian (Michael Quinn) was strongly pressured to leave after he published honest histories of the LDS church's history with polygamy. He had been an excellent professor as evidenced by the fact that one of his years at BYU the graduating class voted him the best professor on campus.
BYU is absolutely not a place where you can talk about the LDS church honestly and openly without getting kicked out (at least if you want to talk about large parts of history that the church tries to bury).
If I remember correctly, both the two nurses were from the first visit, when it was just flu like symptoms. Also, she did clear her traveling with the CDC, which moves the onus of the flight on them not her.
Even if the CDC "cleared" her for travel she should of known better being a medical professional. She knew there was a chance she had ebola and was contagious and she choose to travel. The CDC didn't force her on that plane.
Just because a government agency tells you something is "ok" doesn't mean you can turn your brain off and a absolved from all consequences of your actions.
Your statement baffles me. Somalia does not have laws against any of the things OP complained about. You can shoot people via drone while wearing a costume from your car while talking on a cell phone! That this anarcho-capitalist paradise sprung from the ashes of an oppressive regime (worst than NYC, even) seems beside the point.
I'm not sure why my statement would baffle you. I never claimed that things were great in Somalia; I only claimed that Somalia is the result government failure.
I'm not an anarchist, but I am familiar the standard anarchist response to your statement. It goes something like this....
No one ever claimed that the mere absence of a government is sufficient for bliss. The claim is that adding an institution of organized theft and violence will make anywhere worse.
Also, in regards to Somalia in particular, in the time since the government of Somalia has collapsed: (1) life expectancy has gone up, (2) death rates have gone down, (3) GDP has nearly tripled, (4) infant mortality is lower, (5) a larger percentage of the population has access to water, and (6) more adults are literate. It seems like by many measures Somalia has done better without a government than they did with a government.
And finally, may I make a suggestion? If you really, really want less government, then move to Somalia. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms (pun intended).
Somalia once had a strong (and oppressive) central government. It collapsed. Somalia is an example of what happens when strong, oppressive central governments collapse. Telling people who want less government to go to a Somalia may seem pithy, but it really just shows ignorance of history.
The issue of the right to bear arms was NEVER mutually agreed upon by the states and federal government. The federal government essentially tricked the states by the use of a carefully placed comma.
I'd be interested in knowing if you have any references at all to support that claim. I'd prefer something written during that time period that says something to the effect of, "Dang it, those clever Federalists tricked us with that comma! Curse you, comma!"
If she were my child, there would be no way I would let them stop me from getting her back. If paperwork and appeals didn't do the trick, I would very quickly escalate the actions I took to ensure her safety and care under my responsibility. That might mean intimidation or violence...so be it. They threw the first stone.
The State has absolutely no reason to take these parents' child from them.
I agree with you that that The State had no reason to take the child, but be careful. The State views those that use violence against it as the most vile criminals and would not hesitate to have you thrown in prison. If you are in prison how can you help your child?
This ALWAYS this you crybabies whine about right up until it is your ASS being left out front of the hospital. Then it is all about SAVE ME!
What you say could be 100% true and the ACA could still be unconstitutional. What you are doing here is attacking the person (an imaginary person) rather than attacking the argument. If you want to argue that it is constitutional your best bet would be to go to the constitution and find the parts that you think would allow for this legislation. For help you could read what the supreme court justices said about the legislation.
It's a contraction of "not have used". Again try to avoid using words/phrases that you've only heard and never read when writing. It occasionally makes you look illiterate.
For the record I don't think this should be modes as "Troll". His observation is correct. If anything I usually try hard to *thank* people who correct me. So, "thanks".... I appreciate that you took the time to correct my grammar.
Nobody should be constantly monitored. Be that at work or in private.
That's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't live in a totalitarian state or the US.
Society allows police officers to use violence against members of society. They are supposed to only use that privilege under certain circumstances, but many officers have already demonstrated poor judgement and used violence when they should not of used it. The point of these cameras is to provide a control against people who can legally assault the public (police officers) as well as give officers a defense if they are ever accused of using violence inappropriately. This monitoring is necessary because police have already shown themselves to be irresponsible. Any police officer that is intentionally interfering with the recordings should be charged with destruction of evidence.
Ironically, the very people [Mormons] who would support such a movement, Mormons, pretty much shot themselves in the foot by actively opposing allowing gays to get married, so they won't find many friends to help them in their movement.
Mormons (at least the biggest group LDS) would not support any movement to strike down polygamy laws. Currently they excommunicate anyone who practices polygamy even if that person lives in an area of the world where polygamy is normal. Additionally, the LDS Mormons haven't practiced polygamy in so long that they wouldn't want to be in a polygamous relationship anymore than anyone else in this country.
Oh great, so you need to be a Jew in order to make a formal denial? This atheist thing is starting to be more troublesome than I imagined.
Kosher is also commonly defined as "legitimate".
"she consulted lawyers to make sure everything was kosher" is actually an example sentence if you type, "define: kosher" into google.
I am not sure why this is so unclear.
The null hypothesis of "no treatment effect" is equivalent to saying
"both groups were sampled from the same distribution" which is equivalent to
"the means of the treatment group and control groups are exactly equal"
The p-value is the probability of getting as or more extreme of the difference between sample means that you observed assuming that there is in reality no difference in population means. If the treatment and control groups are different at baseline (or become different over the course of the study for reasons other than the treatment) then this assumption is false.
What you quoted doesn't say what you just said. "both groups were sampled from the same distribution" is not the same as "the means of the treatment group and control groups are exactly equal." The *expected* means of the groups is equal. The math behind the statistical models takes into account random group assignment and so there is no expectation that the groups start exactly the same (or change in similar ways over the course of the experiment).
It is evident that the null hypothesis must be exact, that is free from vagueness and ambiguity, because it must supply the basis of the “problem of distribution,” of which the test of significance is the solution. A null hypothesis may, indeed, contain arbitrary elements, and in more complicated cases often does so: as, for example, if it should assert that the death-rates of two groups of animals are equal, without specifying what these death-rates usually are. In such cases it is evidently the equality rather than any particular values of the death-rates that the experiment is designed to test, and possibly to disprove.
How do you get "treatment had no effect" into the t-test calculation? You compare the difference between means that you got with what you would expect if the difference between means was zero.
.....and your point is? And how does this relate to your initial statement that scientists "assume that the treatment group and control group were exactly the same at baseline"?
"If the treatment had no effect at all we'd expect to see results like this x% of the time just based on the randomness of group assignment."
At no point in this process did the scientists assume that the treatment group and the control group were exactly the same.....
"If mu1=mu2 we'd expect to see results like this x% of the time just based on the randomness of group assignment."
Can you see the assumption?
What you have in quotes isn't what I said. The assumptions in the part that I wrote that you quoted were that the treatment had no effect and that group assignment was random.
If you'd like to spell out the assumptions in your statement you are welcome to do that.
TC Wilcox clearly I am not an authoritative enough entity for you to listen to why you are wrong. You have also apparently failed to perform the calculations yourself and understand the implications. What person or organization would you like as a source?
Dude, I am listening to you (and wasting my time apparently) trying to explain why your claim that scientists assume that "treatment group and control group were exactly the same at baseline" is false, false, FALSE.
You tried to back way from that by asking me if "two groups would have the exact same average if there were no treatment effect". That is once again false (but in my opinion less false). They would have the exact same expected average, but I wouldn't expect them to have the same exact average.
If you would like to explain to me what I said exactly that is incorrect you are welcome to do that. So far I don't think you've actually claimed that anything I've said is incorrect.
If you'd like to go to a third party that is fine with me to. I'd accept anyone that is really good at Math or Statistics. A PhD just to show they (probably) know what they are talking about would make them more acceptable.
You want to compare with a t-test or anova. How do you test the null hypothesis that the treatment has no effect?
Do you claim that it is possible to do this without first assuming that the two groups would have the exact same average if there were no treatment effect? If so I would like to learn your new method.
You should study some statistics. You seem to some (very) incorrect ideas about what the tests mean.
This is how it works. In a randomized study scientists will assign subjects two a treatment group and a control group. As you might guess assignment to a group is done randomly.
Now we go to one of the big misconceptions you seem to keep going back to. You state that scientists assume "treatment group and control group were exactly the same at baseline." They do NOT! On purpose they are creating random groups. They are making no effort at all to make the groups equal and in fact if they made any effort to make the groups equal it would invalidate the math behind the statistics and the experiment would have no real value.
They have two groups and they are as sure as they can be that the two groups aren't equal because groups were assigned randomly. They do whatever it is they want to do and then they measure whatever it is they want to measure. Statistics tells the scientists how likely it is that any differences they see between the groups are caused by random chance. In other words, statistics might say something like, "If the treatment had no effect at all we'd expect to see results like this x% of the time just based on the randomness of group assignment."
At no point in this process did the scientists assume that the treatment group and the control group were exactly the same.....
And if you want to learn this stuff you most certainly can. Pick up a cheap textbook on statistics. Read it and try to understand it. Be careful to make sure that you are learning not just how to run a t-test, but the assumptions that are built into a statistical model.
Oh really. What null hypothesis was used? Was it that the mean of the treatment group is equal to the mean of the control group?
The null hypothesis would probably normally be that the treatment has no effect. In some studies it might be that there is no relationship between the things that are being measured. The null hypothesis does not mean, "we assume that that the two groups are exactly the same". You thinking it means that once again shows that you know very little about statistics or how statistics is used in science.
It is simple, anyone can understand it. They assume that the treatment group and control group were exactly the same at baseline and that nothing happened during the course of the study that could make the groups differ on average. Do you believe any two groups of people are exactly the same?
You haven't studied statistics, have you? You might want to try and learn a little introductory statistics.
I don't know in particular which study you are referring to, but I've never seen or heard of a medical study where the doctors assumed the control group and the treatment group are exactly the same. Assuming proper statistical protocols were followed statistics tells us what the odds are that what we observed is just a random by-product of how people were assigned to groups.
In short, you don't understand the math behind these experiments and so you are convinced that the experimenters have made silly assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Wrote it quick and dirty-like. Unfortunately slashdot hasn't discovered "edit" yet.
Perhaps this type of conduct is expected out of someplace like BYU. If so then I think that is kind of sad.... I disagree though that there aren't currently egregious violations of free-speech at BYU. I brought up that if an LDS student converts to any other religion they will be kicked out of school and their transcripts will be locked so they can't transfer to another university either (because the school views converting from LDS faith to another faith as an honor code violation and they lock transcripts for honor code violations). The student would also be kicked out of their housing if this occurred. How is this not an egregious suppression of speech?
True. So are many of the universities that did make it onto the list.
Full-disclosure: I attended BYU and actually really enjoyed my time there. Brigham Young University should be on that list. Student's will be expelled (and their transcripts locked so they can't transfer credits either) if they convert from Mormonism to any other religion while a student. You can literally get academically disciplined for profanity or criticizing LDS leaders. It isn't just student's though. Faculty can also get in serious trouble for what they say. For example, a BYU professor and historian (Michael Quinn) was strongly pressured to leave after he published honest histories of the LDS church's history with polygamy. He had been an excellent professor as evidenced by the fact that one of his years at BYU the graduating class voted him the best professor on campus. BYU is absolutely not a place where you can talk about the LDS church honestly and openly without getting kicked out (at least if you want to talk about large parts of history that the church tries to bury).
You are joking right? If not, are you aware that the MPAA is a private organization?
What is the MPAA enforcing and how is it enforcing it? If the MPAA didn't have friendly laws passed by the government what would it be able to do?
If I remember correctly, both the two nurses were from the first visit, when it was just flu like symptoms. Also, she did clear her traveling with the CDC, which moves the onus of the flight on them not her.
Even if the CDC "cleared" her for travel she should of known better being a medical professional. She knew there was a chance she had ebola and was contagious and she choose to travel. The CDC didn't force her on that plane. Just because a government agency tells you something is "ok" doesn't mean you can turn your brain off and a absolved from all consequences of your actions.
I found this a year or two ago. Very funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Your statement baffles me. Somalia does not have laws against any of the things OP complained about. You can shoot people via drone while wearing a costume from your car while talking on a cell phone! That this anarcho-capitalist paradise sprung from the ashes of an oppressive regime (worst than NYC, even) seems beside the point.
I'm not sure why my statement would baffle you. I never claimed that things were great in Somalia; I only claimed that Somalia is the result government failure. I'm not an anarchist, but I am familiar the standard anarchist response to your statement. It goes something like this.... No one ever claimed that the mere absence of a government is sufficient for bliss. The claim is that adding an institution of organized theft and violence will make anywhere worse. Also, in regards to Somalia in particular, in the time since the government of Somalia has collapsed: (1) life expectancy has gone up, (2) death rates have gone down, (3) GDP has nearly tripled, (4) infant mortality is lower, (5) a larger percentage of the population has access to water, and (6) more adults are literate. It seems like by many measures Somalia has done better without a government than they did with a government.
And finally, may I make a suggestion? If you really, really want less government, then move to Somalia. I am sure they will welcome you with open arms (pun intended).
Somalia once had a strong (and oppressive) central government. It collapsed. Somalia is an example of what happens when strong, oppressive central governments collapse. Telling people who want less government to go to a Somalia may seem pithy, but it really just shows ignorance of history.
The issue of the right to bear arms was NEVER mutually agreed upon by the states and federal government. The federal government essentially tricked the states by the use of a carefully placed comma.
I'd be interested in knowing if you have any references at all to support that claim. I'd prefer something written during that time period that says something to the effect of, "Dang it, those clever Federalists tricked us with that comma! Curse you, comma!"
Also, the Constitution was designed by and for a relatively homogeneous culture (western European) not the "melting pot" it literally has become.
Ack! The country is a trap! We are all going to be melted!
If she were my child, there would be no way I would let them stop me from getting her back. If paperwork and appeals didn't do the trick, I would very quickly escalate the actions I took to ensure her safety and care under my responsibility. That might mean intimidation or violence...so be it. They threw the first stone. The State has absolutely no reason to take these parents' child from them.
I agree with you that that The State had no reason to take the child, but be careful. The State views those that use violence against it as the most vile criminals and would not hesitate to have you thrown in prison. If you are in prison how can you help your child?
This ALWAYS this you crybabies whine about right up until it is your ASS being left out front of the hospital. Then it is all about SAVE ME!
What you say could be 100% true and the ACA could still be unconstitutional. What you are doing here is attacking the person (an imaginary person) rather than attacking the argument. If you want to argue that it is constitutional your best bet would be to go to the constitution and find the parts that you think would allow for this legislation. For help you could read what the supreme court justices said about the legislation.
not've used
It's a contraction of "not have used". Again try to avoid using words/phrases that you've only heard and never read when writing. It occasionally makes you look illiterate.
For the record I don't think this should be modes as "Troll". His observation is correct. If anything I usually try hard to *thank* people who correct me. So, "thanks".... I appreciate that you took the time to correct my grammar.
Nobody should be constantly monitored. Be that at work or in private.
That's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't live in a totalitarian state or the US.
Society allows police officers to use violence against members of society. They are supposed to only use that privilege under certain circumstances, but many officers have already demonstrated poor judgement and used violence when they should not of used it. The point of these cameras is to provide a control against people who can legally assault the public (police officers) as well as give officers a defense if they are ever accused of using violence inappropriately. This monitoring is necessary because police have already shown themselves to be irresponsible. Any police officer that is intentionally interfering with the recordings should be charged with destruction of evidence.
Ironically, the very people [Mormons] who would support such a movement, Mormons, pretty much shot themselves in the foot by actively opposing allowing gays to get married, so they won't find many friends to help them in their movement.
Mormons (at least the biggest group LDS) would not support any movement to strike down polygamy laws. Currently they excommunicate anyone who practices polygamy even if that person lives in an area of the world where polygamy is normal. Additionally, the LDS Mormons haven't practiced polygamy in so long that they wouldn't want to be in a polygamous relationship anymore than anyone else in this country.
Oh great, so you need to be a Jew in order to make a formal denial? This atheist thing is starting to be more troublesome than I imagined.
Kosher is also commonly defined as "legitimate". "she consulted lawyers to make sure everything was kosher" is actually an example sentence if you type, "define: kosher" into google.
I am not sure why this is so unclear. The null hypothesis of "no treatment effect" is equivalent to saying "both groups were sampled from the same distribution" which is equivalent to "the means of the treatment group and control groups are exactly equal"
The p-value is the probability of getting as or more extreme of the difference between sample means that you observed assuming that there is in reality no difference in population means. If the treatment and control groups are different at baseline (or become different over the course of the study for reasons other than the treatment) then this assumption is false.
What you quoted doesn't say what you just said. "both groups were sampled from the same distribution" is not the same as "the means of the treatment group and control groups are exactly equal." The *expected* means of the groups is equal. The math behind the statistical models takes into account random group assignment and so there is no expectation that the groups start exactly the same (or change in similar ways over the course of the experiment).
Ronald Fisher it is: mathematics of a lady tasting tea http://books.google.dk/books?i...
See the section "The Null Hypothesis"
And what point did you hope to make?
How do you get "treatment had no effect" into the t-test calculation? You compare the difference between means that you got with what you would expect if the difference between means was zero.
.....and your point is? And how does this relate to your initial statement that scientists "assume that the treatment group and control group were exactly the same at baseline"?
"If mu1=mu2 we'd expect to see results like this x% of the time just based on the randomness of group assignment."
Can you see the assumption?
What you have in quotes isn't what I said. The assumptions in the part that I wrote that you quoted were that the treatment had no effect and that group assignment was random.
If you'd like to spell out the assumptions in your statement you are welcome to do that.
TC Wilcox clearly I am not an authoritative enough entity for you to listen to why you are wrong. You have also apparently failed to perform the calculations yourself and understand the implications. What person or organization would you like as a source?
Dude, I am listening to you (and wasting my time apparently) trying to explain why your claim that scientists assume that "treatment group and control group were exactly the same at baseline" is false, false, FALSE.
You tried to back way from that by asking me if "two groups would have the exact same average if there were no treatment effect". That is once again false (but in my opinion less false). They would have the exact same expected average, but I wouldn't expect them to have the same exact average.
If you would like to explain to me what I said exactly that is incorrect you are welcome to do that. So far I don't think you've actually claimed that anything I've said is incorrect.
If you'd like to go to a third party that is fine with me to. I'd accept anyone that is really good at Math or Statistics. A PhD just to show they (probably) know what they are talking about would make them more acceptable.
You want to compare with a t-test or anova. How do you test the null hypothesis that the treatment has no effect?
Do you claim that it is possible to do this without first assuming that the two groups would have the exact same average if there were no treatment effect? If so I would like to learn your new method.
You should study some statistics. You seem to some (very) incorrect ideas about what the tests mean.
This is how it works. In a randomized study scientists will assign subjects two a treatment group and a control group. As you might guess assignment to a group is done randomly.
Now we go to one of the big misconceptions you seem to keep going back to. You state that scientists assume "treatment group and control group were exactly the same at baseline." They do NOT! On purpose they are creating random groups. They are making no effort at all to make the groups equal and in fact if they made any effort to make the groups equal it would invalidate the math behind the statistics and the experiment would have no real value.
They have two groups and they are as sure as they can be that the two groups aren't equal because groups were assigned randomly. They do whatever it is they want to do and then they measure whatever it is they want to measure. Statistics tells the scientists how likely it is that any differences they see between the groups are caused by random chance. In other words, statistics might say something like, "If the treatment had no effect at all we'd expect to see results like this x% of the time just based on the randomness of group assignment."
At no point in this process did the scientists assume that the treatment group and the control group were exactly the same.....
And if you want to learn this stuff you most certainly can. Pick up a cheap textbook on statistics. Read it and try to understand it. Be careful to make sure that you are learning not just how to run a t-test, but the assumptions that are built into a statistical model.
Oh really. What null hypothesis was used? Was it that the mean of the treatment group is equal to the mean of the control group?
The null hypothesis would probably normally be that the treatment has no effect. In some studies it might be that there is no relationship between the things that are being measured. The null hypothesis does not mean, "we assume that that the two groups are exactly the same". You thinking it means that once again shows that you know very little about statistics or how statistics is used in science.
It is simple, anyone can understand it. They assume that the treatment group and control group were exactly the same at baseline and that nothing happened during the course of the study that could make the groups differ on average. Do you believe any two groups of people are exactly the same?
You haven't studied statistics, have you? You might want to try and learn a little introductory statistics.
I don't know in particular which study you are referring to, but I've never seen or heard of a medical study where the doctors assumed the control group and the treatment group are exactly the same. Assuming proper statistical protocols were followed statistics tells us what the odds are that what we observed is just a random by-product of how people were assigned to groups.
In short, you don't understand the math behind these experiments and so you are convinced that the experimenters have made silly assumptions.