NO! the solution is to allow the world labor market to regulate itself. We only live in the US by virtue of birth, any right-thinking American-spirited individual wants the BEST and BRIGHTEST and MOST DRIVEN to be able to get ahead. Why does that egalitarian principle stop at some imaginary line in the water?

PHD land and Masters work if you have an assistance-ship (and most foreigners do) then you get paid AND you'll have in-state tuition.

You either 1.) didn't even bother to RTFS or 2.) did not comprehend that these claims are about a lack control for other factors that lead to misleading statements about the efficacy of the flu vaccine

The point of the article is that without blocking for socioeconomic status you have a bias sample.

YES you can have bias even if you select everyone! how? You violate the other assumption of regression: that all pertinent factors have been included.

If age, race, ethnicity, family back ground, location, doctor-seeking behavior and a slew of other things are not taken into account then you lack internal validity.

On the other hand, you are right, people do offer us a natural experiment by choosing to or not to take the vaccine and if we simply follow 1000 that do take it and 1000 that don't then we'll have a very high power sample from which to draw a reasonable conclusion.

"Some people you don't care about are saying that character customization is used to keep from having to write story, we don't HAVE to have customization. Some gender studies people are looking at video games. Relate-ability and understandability are two different words! Game markets sell you the LIE. Stories can't and won't be replaced with customizable avatars and content."

Even from an academic paper standpoint this is a bad abstract/introduction. An abstract should say what the objective of the paper is, why that objective is important, to whom the objective is important, when the research does and does not apply and what the findings are... this paper = fail

from a human stand point.. The re-defining of words to mean something that no one else understands is the stupidity of academia. The more I read about this the more I believe this guy time cube

In soviet/fox-news Russia/America Google pay YOU for adverting your site.

Actually the square created inside of the circle is what matters, making each tower, at best, able to cover a grid square of 625-4050 square miles.

http://www.demographia.com/db-uland2000.htm
then we have not to cover ALL of the US for some reasonable amount of coverage but, instead, the urbanized land where we actually need the towers: 92,505

At $300,000 (the highest possible cost) a 25mi tower(the lowest possible range) it would cost ATT about 44million to double the coverage in urban portions of the US.

It is important to not that by only paying the top executives at ATT an average of 3.2 million each ATT could double coverage every year.

The problem with what you are saying is that there are often multiple "bleeding obvious" answers to a question.

So, yes, a lot of basic research seems like a "I already knew that" conclusion, but the truth is that "common sense" often cuts both ways.

I like your observation of history, taking historical information and adding it to empirical observation is a great way to cross-validate a study... but it does not mean that the original study is without merit.

Actually, with the rare exception of the sociopath, behavioral research has found that people are most motivated by the idea that they are doing something good.

" Judge... all of Compton is very dangerous and we need to tail them all, please sign this blanket warrant"

You aren't good with definitions of words are you? Or does ignorance prove non-existence.

Get past simple emotional responses and start thinking or you're doomed to stay as small as you've always been.

your system only works one person at a time, any number of people can ware glasses and see the 3d tv;

eye tracking would fix the depth problem.

No, but voluntary regulation is always preferable to the innovation destruction inerrant in top-down regulation. It is only when voluntary regulation isn't working that top-down regulation becomes a necessary evil. That someone could use something for evil doesn't mean we need to keep them from using it for good.

The top 1 percentile would make you in the top 99 percent.. or approximately three standard deviations below median in IQ... giving you an IQ of "above 55".

But I know what you are saying and what you are saying is exactly why half of people who get GEDs are not below average intelligence.

That was the only one of the litany that you thought wasn't "obvious and true"?