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.

Hide your email from everyone while being required to keep it ... get nominated to be President!

The first step was pulling my head out of my ass. Let me know when you've finished that, and I'll walk you through the rest.

While it may be true that this guy was "literally flying under the radar", that phrase gives a very misleading impression: the impression that he was trying to sneak up on them.

Quite the contrary. He sent them a message a full hour in advance, saying that they should expect him.

So while it might have been "literally" under the radar, it wasn't figuratively under the radar. The White House knew he was coming and expected him. That being the case, they don't get to say they were surprised by his arrival, or imply that he was any kind of serious threat. If they were surprised at all, it was nobody's fault but their own.

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.

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.

Tax day reminds us, that all taxes are regressive.

The idea that a tax can be "progressive" is simply a fairy-tale lie to get people to pay more taxes, under the guise of "their fair share" (nebulous term meaning anything and everything). The reality is, taxes are falling on those that cannot afford to not pay, and those that cannot afford to avoid them (i.e. Middle Class).

Every time a liberal cries about the rich, just know it is your pocketbook that will be impacted.

p-values are not probabilities. What people would like it to be are probabilities that one hypothesis is correct compared to another. But that is not what it does, and because people ignore that gap and mis-interpret them it has become such a problem; that's why they are being banned. Many experiments with acceptable p-values (p0.05) are not reproducible.

Actually the inventor of p-values never intended them for a test, only to uncover that there is perhaps worth of further investigation.

p-values tell you, if you collected data under the current model, how frequently you will get data more extreme than the data at hand. p0.01 means, only in 1% of cases you will get such an "outlier". But it assumes that the model itself is correct. It varies the data!

Instead, what should be done is to compare one model versus another one, with the data we have. Bayes factors do that, and should be used and taught.

The problem came to be because social sciences do not have proper, meaningful models, which can be compared. So they have resorted to techniques that do not require specifying models (or alternatives) rigorously. In the physical sciences, you can precisely write a model for a planetary system with 2 planets and one with 3 planets, and the Bayes factor will be meaningful.

Um, you failed to actually answer the question I actually asked.

This is not arbitrary boundary, it is one established by survivability outside the womb.

"Almost" doesn't mean what you think it means. "Almost None" means some. Some isn't none. Lets rephrase your statement in the positive shall we?

How you phrase things to minimize the effect doesn't actually negate it at all, which is kind of what you were aiming for. I happen to be able to phrase the exact same meaning in a sentence (Almost None=Some) that conveys a completely different connotation. Since both terms are equally nebulous they are equal in meaning.

Here is my refutation of this. Hope and being grounded in the Here and Now (present reality) are not mutually exclusive, nor did he present any argument suggesting they are.

I am FULLY AWARE that today's world sucks in many ways, I HOPE that the suckage will change when real grownups start to run the world instead of mental three year old who react based on emotional arguments, rather than logic and thought.

My hope is not fully dependent upon what is the "now". I realize that my chances of my hope coming to fruition is between slim and none, simply because the powers to be think the best person to run for president for the Democrats and Republicans are Clinton and Bush.

New York's Roosevelt Island has had underground tubes collecting trash for 30 years. They use a Swedish system of 20" diameter tubes. It's worked well for 30 years and is still maintained. No reason this couldn't be done in reverse to deliver stuff.
http://www.wired.com/2010/08/t...

I think you've hit on the problem. We do need to stop producing so much CO2. We need to stop digging up fossil fuels and burning them. We need to leave fossil CO2 in the ground. We can switch to renewables (solar, wind, etc.) and replace most of our fossil fuel consumption and the faster we do that, the less damage from fossil CO2.

After you've clear cut an area, it only makes sense to try to restore it but the reality is that you can never put it back the way it was...
Plant 3-5 new trees (each weighing less than a pound) to replace a 20,000 pound tree is a joke. After 20 or 50 years, these trees might grow enough to begin to replace the carbon sequestration of the tree you cut down but don't delude yourself into thinking that this is a solution. It's still best to just not cut down the trees in the first place.

Sigh, where to begin.

Not .28nm, just 28nm and Broadwell is made on the same 14nm process as Skylake.

They haven't called it ATI graphics for 5 years, but now I'm quibbling. What's important is that both AMD and nVidia makes their GPUs at TSMC and so have access to the exact same technology if they pay.

AMD gave up on the markets I care about in 2012 so I don't really care, what's worse it that without AMD there's really no competitor to nVidia in the high end GPU market either.

That's what smartphones and tablets are for, you only need x86 if you're doing anything CPU intensive and anything CPU intensive you shouldn't be doing on a cheap CPU in the first place.

AMD supports all the same DRM standards as Intel.

What used to be the "traditional" AMD has already imploded, if anything they'll exit the consumer market and become a pure specialist/custom player but they're not recovering to compete with Intel/nVidia. They got $17 million left in stockholder equity, losing both on revenue and margin every quarter and way behind on both CPU and GPU technology. I don't think they can be saved in a way that matters to us.