The mailer was 10 times better at turning nonvoters into voters than the typical piece of pre-election mail whose effectiveness has ever been measured./quote.
It would get me to the polls, too. Maybe not with the intended effect, however.
How is gaining access to the contents of your phone not "just surrendering information which is stored outside your brain"?
Your phone and its contents are evidence and once a warrant is issued (which I hope is still a requirement) it is fair game. What is not fair game, thanks to the American constitution, is to say "Either you can tell us that you committed the crime and we can send you to jail for the confession or you can tell us you didn't and we can send you to jail for perjury."
The password on your phone is not protected information because it requires your consent for the police to look at it. It's protected information because divulging it proves you own and have access to the contents and giving it up equates to admitting the same. You can't be compelled to make that admission.
But if the police prove by some other means that you do own and have access to the information, then you're no longer protected from being compelled to dislose the password. E.g., we have had articles here where a defendant admits it is their laptop computer and they know the password, and then are ordered to reveal it.
How is someone with only high school as experience expected to assess how well they will be doing in 401 Statistical Mechanics down the road, what job they will have, how difficult it will be to make their student loan payment on top of a carpayment, rent check, groceries, etc.? Up to this point in life most of them have lived at home, had no job, no responsibilities, and are used to having all the important decisions made for them. Their first real life decision shouldn't concern whether to sign up for a hundred thousand dollars in debt. They realize it's a lot of money but it's all part of some nebulous future to which their parents, teachers, and peers assure them a "good college" is the key to success. And their actual responsiblity to pay back the loan is deferred four or five years into that future.
What's missing here is the other party to the risk. If you were to take out a loan to buy a house or start a business, you would have to convince the bank that it was reasonable for you to pay it back. The goverment has removed that risk to the seller of the loan on the theory that now you can take out a cheaper loan, but with the downside that there is no second assessment on whether the loan is a good idea.
But in the grander scheme the bank is mostly just an accessory. They're earning a percentage, it's the colleges who are pocketing the lump sum, and the colleges are also doing so with the entire risk shifted onto the student, despite their continued intimate involvement in whether the student's investment will pay off.
IMHO, the university should be as responsible for the loan as the student. Call it a partnership.
You're comparing analysis of a decades long trend to single data points. The question which is being asked is "Why has the proportion of females in CS declined?" Yes there are many complicated factors which go into a woman's decision to pursue a career in CS -- more than we could ever hope to analyze -- but taking all those factors as a given, and then allowing a change, it's possible correlate any increase/decrease to that change. This study is purporting to have isolated economic factors as providing that correlation for a particular set of data. No, it does not explain the job market breakdown between women in CS/psychology/art history, etc., but it does explain why the ratio for CS now is different from the ratio for CS in 1985.
I don't see why establishing unrealistic views of reality would ever be constructive. Imagining the week will excel in every way and finding out that it doesn't isn't what I consider "positive thinking" -- obviously the week is going to fall short and then the lesson learned is not going to be a habit of thinking positive, it is going to be the opposite, that thinking positive is futile and incorrect.
What I consider "positive thinking" is a realistic perspective which acknowledges the good and the bad but emphasizing the good aspects. Seeing losing your job as an opportunity to start a new chapter. Seeing the misfortune of others as an opportunity to help them. Being thankful for what you already have instead of craving everything you don't. It's a more accurate view in any case -- it's quite rare that losing a job or a relationship deprives the rest of your life of meaning or success, and solving problems actually does give the brain a sense of euphoria, so why should you be upset about encountering them?
The mental contrasting approach the article describes seems oriented along those lines, but to me it's not a matter of "contrast" so much as a matter of compatibility -- positive thinking doesn't contrast with realism, realism simply sets the context in which positive thinking should take place.
The risk factor is non-zero regardless of what procedures are followed. Even if ebola is not generally transmissible by air it's not quite against the laws of nature for the virus to find itself in some liquid drop which just happens to follow the right air currents in the right time frame to get taken up in an orifice etc. Then there's the possiblity of tears and defects in protective equipment, etc. The fact he spent so much time near ebola patients may have turned a one in a million risk to a one in a thousand or one in a hundred and from there it was bad luck. Of course, he might have botched it, too, but realistically if someone is spending all of their time around carriers of the disease they should be considered at risk of contracting it whether they're being clever about it or not.
An EU spokesman later said the removal was "not a good judgement" by Google.
Clearly google should have a team of philosophers, ethicists, social activists, and legal theorists evaluate each of the 1000 requests per day to ensure that each link removed is a "good judgment."
Some of it is UCE, partially due to a couple dingbats with similar names who apparently think my gmail account belongs to them.
This isn't spam; at worst, it's bacn with a case of mistaken identity.
As someone whose full-time job is preventing spam (I work on Akismet, which checks about 380MM Web comments per day for spam), my general response to these kinds of questions is this: Fighting spam is hard because what's spam for you is not always spam for someone else, and spammers are continually changing tactics -- what worked to prevent spam yesterday may not work as well tomorrow, so it's a constantly moving target.
In my experience, GMail's filter is just ok. I see about 50 spam per day end up in my spam folder, 3 or 4 that make it to my inbox, and maybe one false positive per month (when I bother checking). That's a 94% success rate with a 0.3% FP rate (based on my ham email activity), assuming that they're not instantly discarding blatant spam that wouldn't even merit ending up in the spam folder (which they very well might be doing). If Akismet had this same success rate filtering comments on my blog, I'd have to manually mark 230 comments as spam each day instead of Akismet's missed spam average of about one per day. I don't complain about it though, since fighting spam is hard (see above).
Converting natural nickel to nickel 62 is a bit outside the magician's domain. If the scientists only examine the fuel at the begining and end maybe there is opportunity for some slight of hand (although not any I think a magician would be more likely to catch given there were 32 days to make the switch). If they are making consistent measurements, however, it could be very tricky to fake data which shows consistent rates of consumption for nickel-58 and nickel-60 given the starting abundance.
OK. Let's look at the articles that you linked me. The CCPOA (the California Guard's Union) has nothing to do with private prisons (not private prisons). CCPOA is a very powerful union, and they are guards of state run prisons. CCPOA is against the concept of private prisons (they state in the link that they "Successfully defended the basic incarceration function from privatization (contracting out)"). These are public employees doing what you're accusing private organizations of doing! It's no surprise that a powerful state correctional officer union doesn't like private prisons, the private prisons are a threat to the correctional officers' jobs.
In the third link, it discusses contracts where CCA requires states to have minimal occupancy rates or pay rebates. I can see how that might be objectionable, but that is not an example of using lobbyists to campaign stronger sentencing. The agreements essentially say: "We've invested dollars for infrastructure to build this prison under agreement with you guys. If we're going to continue to operate this facility, you need to fill our facility to x percent capacity". If private prison firms are getting paid at a capitated rate, there is no money in operating an empty prison...just like flying a plane with empty seats will lose an airline money. The only article of substance in your post basically says "see, those evil bastards are trying to make money from prisons!' Well duh, of course they are. That does not, in any way, point to their lobbyists pressuring lawmakers for harder sentencing. Further, none of these states are entirely privatized, believe me - the states don't need to incarcerate more people to fill prisons. California, in particular, really doesn't need more inmates - they were among the first to enact (what I believe are unreasonable) 3-strikes laws (which existed before private prisons).
Look, I have already said that it is in their best interests that incarceration rates are high. CCA said it themselves in the (mandated by law) risk profile of their SEC filing ("The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction
You also complain that they exist solely because of lobbying. What public-private partnership does not exist (in-part) because of lobbying? Does that make the entire privatized government service industry shady, or just private prisons? Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, SpaceX, Boeing...these all helped America build our space program with help from lobbying (among other things). I am not suggesting that the space program is the same as private prisons, or even remotely in the same ball ballpark, but these are private agencies who served the government with serious help from lobbying efforts, on the same level as companies like CCA.
I've said a number of times, I understand how higher incarceration rates are in the best interest of private prisons. I also understand how the idea of private prisons can be objectionable to many. However, my post effectively asked a simple question: Is there actual evidence to demonstrate that the private prison is actively lobbying to increase prison sentencing? Your 5 second trip to google did not provide any answers to the question that was implicitly asked. You provided links to more of the same conjecture. Conjecture does not equal evidence.
I also understand why many have a problem with private prisons on a fundamental ideological level. I am not a fan of the industry myself. I don't like the concept. But I'm not going to make up facts to support my fundamental problems with the industry. We both might really dislike Nazis, but if I made a blanket false statement like "all Nazis are child molesters", I'd like to think that you would call me out on it too. You're making an assumption due to the direction that the incentives run, but have yet to offer anything other than conjecture. If you have evidence, please share it.
If you have a large applicant pool (which I believe is true for the FBI) false positives are not a concern. It's only false negatives which they would actually fret about.
For your convenience I have put some good resources in C:/ on the FBI mainframe.
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
