Yes it does. At least, it means more distance is covered during your reaction time, which is the same thing as driving slower and having an impaired reaction time due to not paying attention.

if the IRS should be allowed aggressive auditing powers (and I'm not saying they shouldn't), then it's only fair that an elected body such as Congress should have the right to aggressively audit those audits to ensure those powers aren't being abused. If the IRS can get out of that check by losing particular emails that is a serious problem, just as if the political non profits being audited could avoid problems by disposing of evidence they would rather not have the IRS look at

Unfortunately even that isn't true: see Simpson's Paradox. Not to pick on you, but it is really tough to make strong assertions one way or the other based on social science data. I think the best we can do is a Bayesian approach; start with some prior assumption based on ideology and personal experience, then adjust that prior based on the results of scientific studies. So in parent poster's case, his prior is that guns are pretty good in society, so the reinforcing data point that more guns = less crime makes his belief stronger. Someone whose prior is that guns are bad should probably not be as affected by that data (and if they are being intellectually honest, it would lessen their conviction that guns are bad), and someone who really had no opinion (if you could find such a person!) should be slightly more positively disposed to guns with that data. Of course, another study will typically come out shortly thereafter saying the opposite, so unless you get a series of studies all going in one direction, science will typically not change people's minds.

Von Neumann said it; that's close enough to a law for me!

But the effects of this on the non-zero sum economy are important to consider. If the new markings actually do discourage parking in front of the hydrant, then both New Yorkers and the New York Government can be better off because of the improved ability to control fires, thereby reducing damage and protecting firefighters. Hence the knowledge gained from proper analysis of the data makes the world a better place.

I'm not sure which of these technologies will be successful in the coming months, but I am certain that before the year is over we will see many job postings requiring 3 years experience with Swift.

And here this post is modded +5 Informative but somewhere else it's modded +5 Funny

Sounds like jury duty. Which was (and still is) one of the best technologies to fight tyranny.

The Nazi's what understood quite well? (check your possessive apostrophe)

I'll let someone else make the appropriate joke about a grammar nazi comment about real Nazis. So to feel like I contributed something serious to the discussion, I'll simply add that, whatever they understood about SIGINT, the Nazis were pwned by the English-speaking world too.

I agree that the first order effects should assume that the system generally works, but it is also important to consider second order effects of the inevitable failures that will occur, and whether the consequences of those failures are acceptable.

However, even the secondary effects of a loser pays system aren't too bad. It would add some Type I error for a (hopefully much larger) reduction in Type II error, which probably makes the system a little better overall.

The aqueduct?

Slight correction - it's a 2.4L engine...to run the fuel pump.

This is why I do not like kickstarter-like equity investments. Kickstarter and Indiegogo should give away free shirts that say "I was an initial investor in a billion dollar company and all I got was this lousy t-shirt." If somebody puts their hard earned money at risk, they should reap the equity-like rewards. Then they can use the proceeds to buy whatever thing the entrepreneurs are selling.

The USPS is a bad comparison to make. The USPS pension fund is a public pension fund, whereas social security (OASDI) and Medicare are social insurance programs. There are good reasons why the accounting for these should be different. In fact, the issue that you point out with the USPS pension fund arose when they forced a public pension plan (the USPS) to check for actuarial balance similar to a social insurance program (the 75 year long-term actuarial balance), instead of the simple employer accounting basis under GASB 68 (which is similar to the FAS 87/88 standard for private firms)

I am not arguing that PAYG is the *worst* accounting for social insurance programs, and in fact I don't think that. There are many good reasons why PAYG with some sort of short term/long term checks of actuarial balance *can* be appropriate measures for the health of a social insurance plan. However, OP said OASDI and Medicare are in SURPLUS, full stop, and I think that greatly oversimplifies the issues involved.

Disclaimer: I am an actuary, but no longer in active practice.