Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

Statisticians Study Who Was Helped Most By Obamacare 739

HughPickens.com writes We know that about 10 million more people have insurance coverage this year as a result of the Affordable Care Act but until now it has been difficult to say much about who was getting that Obamacare coverage — where they live, their age, their income and other such details. Now Kevin Quealy and Margot Sanger-Katz report in the NYT that a new data set is providing a clearer picture of which people gained health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The data is the output of a statistical model based on a large survey of adults and shows that the law has done something rather unusual in the American economy this century: It has pushed back against inequality, essentially redistributing income — in the form of health insurance or insurance subsidies — to many of the groups that have fared poorly over the last few decades. The biggest winners from the law include people between the ages of 18 and 34; blacks; Hispanics; and people who live in rural areas. The areas with the largest increases in the health insurance rate, for example, include rural Arkansas and Nevada; southern Texas; large swaths of New Mexico, Kentucky and West Virginia; and much of inland California and Oregon.

Despite many Republican voters' disdain for the Affordable Care Act, parts of the country that lean the most heavily Republican (according to 2012 presidential election results) showed significantly more insurance gains than places where voters lean strongly Democratic. That partly reflects underlying rates of insurance. In liberal places, like Massachusetts and Hawaii, previous state policies had made insurance coverage much more widespread, leaving less room for improvement. But the correlation also reflects trends in wealth and poverty. Many of the poorest and most rural states in the country tend to favor Republican politicians.
Earth

New Study Shows Three Abrupt Pulses of CO2 During Last Deglaciation 132

vinces99 writes A new study shows that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide that contributed to the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago did not occur gradually but rather was characterized by three abrupt pulses. Scientists are not sure what caused these abrupt increases, during which carbon dioxide levels rose about 10 to 15 parts per million – or about 5 percent per episode – during a span of one to two centuries. It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including ocean circulation, changing wind patterns and terrestrial processes. The finding, published Oct. 30 in the journal Nature, casts new light on the mechanisms that take the Earth in and out of ice ages.

"We used to think that naturally occurring changes in carbon dioxide took place relatively slowly over the 10,000 years it took to move out of the last ice age," said lead author Shaun Marcott, who did the work as a postdoctoral researcher at Oregon State University and is now at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "This abrupt, centennial-scale variability of CO2 appears to be a fundamental part of the global carbon cycle."

Previous research has hinted at the possibility that spikes in atmospheric carbon dioxide may have accelerated the last deglaciation, but that hypothesis had not been resolved, the researchers say. The key to the new finding is the analysis of an ice core from the West Antarctic that provided the scientists with an unprecedented glimpse into the past."

Comment Re:Gay? (Score 5, Interesting) 764

Says the guy who's plainly never been part of a despised minority treated as second-class citizens simply because of how you were born.

Well. I say that and then remember that some black folks old enough to remember Jim Crow still think that it's OK to treat gays like second-class citizens, because religion.

Earth

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change 495

HughPickens.com writes "The NYT reports that Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, is attracting wide notice these days for a work of science fiction called "The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future," that takes the point of view of a historian in 2393 explaining how "the Great Collapse of 2093" occurred. "Without spoiling the story," Oreskes said in an interview, "I can tell you that a lot of what happens — floods, droughts, mass migrations, the end of humanity in Africa and Australia — is the result of inaction to very clear warnings" about climate change caused by humans." Dramatizing the science in ways traditional nonfiction cannot, the book reasserts the importance of scientists and the work they do and reveals the self-serving interests of the so called "carbon combustion complex" that have turned the practice of science into political fodder.

Oreskes argues that scientists failed us, and in a very particular way: They failed us by being too conservative. Scientists today know full well that the "95 percent confidence limit" is merely a convention, not a law of the universe. Nonetheless, this convention, the historian suggests, leads scientists to be far too cautious, far too easily disrupted by the doubt-mongering of denialists, and far too unwilling to shout from the rooftops what they all knew was happening. "Western scientists built an intellectual culture based on the premise that it was worse to fool oneself into believing in something that did not exist than not to believe in something that did."

Why target scientists in particular in this book? Simply because a distant future historian would target scientists too, says Oreskes. "If you think about historians who write about the collapse of the Roman Empire, or the collapse of the Mayans or the Incans, it's always about trying to understand all of the factors that contributed," Oreskes says. "So we felt that we had to say something about scientists.""

Comment Re:Look, cheaper for everyone by removing luxury! (Score 1) 286

On recent Delta flights, I was surprised to learn that I could get free movie and TV streaming to my tablet. I'm fine with that since the resolution on my tablet is far better than the screens that get installed into seatbacks. I also got what was listed as 24-hour access to the movie, though I forgot to check to see if I could finish the movie once on the ground until after the 24-hour mark. It doesn't make up for seat issues, but it's definitely better than options I've seen on United or American.

Comment Re:oooh GMO is to oscary u guys! (Score 1) 432

My favorite ones are the Creationists against GMO foods due to the risk of an unknown modification being introduced to the environment running amok and killing all the plants, us, or both. All while arguing evolution doesn't exist and doesn't happen!

The fact such people exists always makes me laugh.
The fact some of those people are in positions of power however makes me cry for humanity.

Comment Re: Boys are naturally curious... (Score 2) 608

A single study is "good evidence" because it finds interesting correlations beyond the dozens if not hundreds of studies that find gender differences in spatial ability, which you call "very little evidence". As if the "spatial ability" measured is the same as being "'curious' about systems".

Who is actually fishing for data to fit the narrative here?

Comment Re:Boys are naturally curious... (Score 1) 608

preeminent misogynist theory is that women are born with physiological differences that make them naturally less inclined toward the field

"The difference is, females in general are much more interested in what you can do with the technology, than with just the technology itself," says Harvey Mudd President Maria Klawe

It certainly doesn't take much of a leap of faith to agree with Barbara Ericson, a senior research scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, when she says that "Boys fall in love with computers as machines; girls see them as tools to do something else."

When the people actually doing something about getting girls into computer science say things like that, it certainly sounds like they believe girls aren't naturally inclined toward the field, at least not the way boys are.

(And why do you deny physiological differences? Are you a TERF?)

Slashdot Top Deals

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. -- Paul Erlich

Working...