You do realize that every plant manufactures its own pesticides, right?
You and the other earlier poster are missing the point. Or at the very least, a large part of it.
"Roundup-Ready" crops were supposed to REDUCE the use of pesticides. Instead, the practical effect is that it has ENABLED more use of glyphosate. As a real result, the use of glyphosate and the level of glyphosate in some food products has multiplied.
These are "perverse consequences". As another poster mentioned, there has been "voluntary" passing of the glyphosate-resistant gene to what are normally considered noxious weeds, meaning its widespread use is probably self-defeating, in exactly the same sense as over-use of antibiotics.
To say that GMO foods are "safe" therefore is naive at best.
I suspect that book is still foundational in most University advertising/marketing progams.
I think historically, a more influential book has been Darrell Huff's "How To Lie With Statistics", the second book in this list.
It was originally written in 1954. And while less rigorous, it is an entertaining read and probably gets its point across to a much wider audience.
I know for a fact that Huff's book is still used as a text in college statistics courses... but probably only the lower-level classes.
It's a trivial result and just what you'd expect by chance, but it does drive the point home that you can't rely on p-values alone if you're testing multiple hypotheses.
On the other hand, TFA is proposing to replace this with Bayesian probabilities, which are likely even less understood, even more abused, and it could open the door to subjectivism.
I wouldn't doubt thaht the NSA has broken iPhone's encryption.
This proposal by NSA mirrors the Clipper Chip/Skipjack + Key Escrow system proposed back in the early 90s. People didn't trust the government with their keys THEN... why the hell should they do so NOW, given that government intrusion into our lives has only increased in the interim?
Unlike the 90s, by now they have proved they can't be trusted.
I'm surprised the USA makes advanced computer chips. I thought all that stuff was exported to Asia years ago.
Don't be ridiculous. Asia has made good on cheap manufacturing, but the majority of design AND cutting-edge fab is done in U.S. and Europe.
Intel should not have been allowed in the first place; it is a surprise to me that they have only been blocked now. There is a thin but very definite line between simple international commerce and treason.
IBM and Thomas Watson crossed that line in WWII.
Kids need to learn the consequences of embarrassing powerful people. That is one of the golden rules of modern society; thou shalt not embarrass thy superiors. Snowden forgot that, and this little punk forgot that.
Are you for real? It is hard to tell whether this is sarcasm, but I suspect that it is.
You respect your betters, or you get tossed in a cage. That's the law. Ingrain that into your kid's brains before puberty hits, or they will wind up in a cage too.
There are no "betters", in America. Hell, I had a very hard time trying to teach my British manager that, way back when. He felt justified in taking credit for my work, because he was a manager and a "better".
Haha.
But again, that's sarcasm. Here's what I actually suggest: pretend to respect your "betters", because in fact that's all they require: the facade. Then when they're not looking, prove they're not "better".
I don't mean backstabbing. I mean frontstabbing. Make the truth plain to all.
But who will register
Anybody. Just get a
BINGO! And I see I'm not the only one suspicious of her bizarre excuse for refusing to negotiate.
I'm of divided mind. I think she might actually be sincere but misguided. It seems like it must be one of the two. I think that we can agree that either way, it won't result in overall advantage for the employees, women or not.
I wonder if she will also propose that from now on, all employees will get the same raises.
We are talking about a simple number. One party wants to maximize it, the other minimize. There isn't any room for anything except a game of chicken there.
Nonsense. What we're talking about here is supposed to be a labor MARKET. In a market, people negotiate for prices. That's how markets get "price signals" that allow them to find the proper balance between supply and demand.
Pao wants to make it a "take it or leave it" deal, with the result, as one GP said, that the "price" will almost surely go down across the board over time.
No thanks.
Or they can take advantage of their vastly stronger position and simply refuse to indulge the candidates. Sure, they might miss out on "top talent", but it doesn't take that to maintain a message board.
While you have a point about message boards, again the result of not playing in the market is (which you have given kind of a sideways nod to): you will end up with lesser quality employees.
Yeah but the cable sticking out of a suspicious package is a very quick and easy way to defuse such a device. And severely limits its placement, as you have to be within cable range of a phone jack you know the phone number to.
Well, I agree with some of the point but not some of the details.
You'd have to know the number anyway.
It wouldn't necessarily mean "a cable" coming out of a suspicious package. It could be a couple of fine wires leading out of the phone, under the couch. In the case of a pay phone, it could actually be inside the phone.
But I agree; in general a cell phone is more mobile and more concealable. Even so, I don't think there's enough of a difference to justify shutting off cell phones but not landlines.
We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"
