Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:A senior administration official LIED?!?!?! (Score 1) 241

Clapper was asked to testify on classified material in a non-classified forum.

He did the best he could, and then called the committee head and said he hadn't been telling the truth. Not someone else coming forward, but Clapper himself.

Sure, he could have said "no comment", but that is basically a comment to the people that he is not supposed to tell.

I can't get outraged over Clapper. and leaning on that for your case makes it look weak. The hard drive problem is easily explained by anyone who has ever filled their inbox, leaving the question of why backups were not being done properly. It's hard to pin on Lerner, and you just sound silly.

You have legitimate complaints here - focus on those.

Comment: Re:That's what a technical interview is (Score 1) 494

by Bite The Pillow (#47571443) Attached to: Jesse Jackson: Tech Diversity Is Next Civil Rights Step

I put something on my CV, and got a relatively simple question that confirmed I knew more about it than the interviewer. It was tangentially related, but established me as legit.

I asked the same question two years later with essentially the same details on the CV. Not even an attempt at the answer.

That interview got ratcheted up in terms of expectation. Everything was questioned. Because that's all we really have to go on when trying to decide what to ask. If our ad said Oracle, and you list Oracle, we are going to ask. If you didn't list Oracle, we are going to try to fit you in somewhere by asking things other than Oracle.

Everything on the CV is fair game. If we ask your address and it doesn't match, you should have a really good explanation for sending an out of date CV. Because I care whether I hire someone who doesn't at least say, "I can tell you what's on there, and that it's out of date."

Because when someone asks a question, they rarely want to know what they asked. And if you can parse my question and figure out why I'm asking, I might hire you just based on ability to think. If you back up and say let's go back to this question, that shows me you can admit being wrong and background process. If you call me a day later, that shows you think about things overnight, but aren't content to just let it go.

If you pretend any of this, I'm no psychologist, but it's going to feel really odd, and I'm going to have a hard time working with you.

I prepare based on the CV. I interview based on the CV. I am not going to assume that the liars out there are telling the truth.

Comment: Re:An outrage! (Score 0) 161

by Bite The Pillow (#47571081) Attached to: The Problems With Drug Testing

You are a stupid person. If you are simply ignorant and chose not to read a little more, you are stupid for making that choice.

We have to have a representative sample in order to test both safety and efficacy. We have to include the successful, unsuccessful, and mediocre, in order to have a result.

The second part is really easy to dismiss on its surface. if you assume that every revoked doctor is completely sober for every drug trial. A bad reaction in one patient that leads to severe health issues is not acceptable, if it could have been prevented by insisting on licensed doctors only.

And then there's this quote: "Karns canâ(TM)t remember the companies he worked for". If I ran a one-month study, I'd be able to tell you who I worked for. If I consulted for one month, I'd be able to tell you who paid my check. Perhaps I misread your statement as sarcasm, but it is at least in some cases fact.

One of the studies mentioned is taking stem cells and transplanting them. Anyone who lost their license, I would not allow them to do this to me. Feel free to volunteer as a mentally ill person, which you clearly are based on this single comment, to have non-doctors implant things that may or may not be stem cells into places that you may or may not want things transplanted.

That was sarcasm, btw, don't actually do that.

Comment: Re:Huh (Score 1) 161

by Bite The Pillow (#47571007) Attached to: The Problems With Drug Testing

... And don't have other options. Many drugs currently developed help a very specific part of the population. A lot of drugs now have something like this in their "approved uses" list: "... and who do not respond to current treatments..."

By studying the chemical bases for drug efficacy, we are developing highly personalized drugs that work in well under 50% of the target audience. No one really knows why something *doesn't* work for a good part of the population - it could be other drug interactions, or diet, or microbiota, or epigenomic changes. But in many cases they do have a good model of why it *does* work when it does, because that's where they got the idea to use this formula or this drug.

I have X disease, I take all the treatments, nothing works. So I sign up for a trial and hope that a) I am in the control group and provide meaningful data to establish both efficacy and safety or b) that it works for me when nothing else will.

I can already see the replies. Please note that most of these types of issues will happen after procreation, meaning the treatment will improve quality of life for a parent and probably a child, but will not do much to change inheritance of whatever defect is present. So we aren't helping people who should otherwise die, unless after procreation people are considered disposable. In which case I'm glad to make a list of disposable people.

Comment: Re:Wackadoodle (Score 1) 161

by Bite The Pillow (#47570969) Attached to: The Problems With Drug Testing

Be glad that you are, for the moment, healthy enough to maintain that attitude. When you develop something that your lifestyle says you should never get, I hope the rest of us have figured out the problem for you already.

And when we let you die anyway because in 2014 you called our concern "Wackadoodle", well you can be sure I voted "abstain" so you have other people to blame.

To be more specific, homeless, destitute, and mentally ill people are not necessarily genotypically representative, and dangerous reactions may not be found when they should have been. Doctors with their licenses revoked isn't on the surface as big of a deal, other than the inability to be certain the study studied what it intended to, let alone having any confidence in the results.

But I'm sure you have 100% confidence in your genetics and lifestyle, and have no reason to expect to be taking anything that had to pass human trials. I suppose you could get hit by a meteor and bypass the whole aging thing completely.

I suppose I could go on preemptively admonishing your short-sightedness, but I suppose you could claim you don't need glasses.

Comment: Re:some more data would be nice (Score 1) 287

by Bite The Pillow (#47570909) Attached to: Amazon's eBook Math

This is an artful example of writing for your audience. You are not their audience, and people who know about such things are not their audience.

They are writing directly to the Hachette fans, and indirectly to the Hachette authors. People who prefer to write for a living, or even read for a living in many cases. Not for the quants in the bookkeeping department of Hachette.

So no, it would not be more useful to have a distribution. It would confuse the audience. More meaningful certainly, I only take issue with the word "useful", since from several perspectives it would be harmful to do so.

Comment: Re:doesn't matter (Score 1) 175

by Bite The Pillow (#47562431) Attached to: Senate Bill Would Ban Most Bulk Surveillance

Can you support the assertion that the president can just make a call and it stops?

If the NSA disagreed, or the DNI, or Presidential advisors, would they have to suck it up and stop?

What happens 8 years later when he's no longer the president? We have had 8 years of a Democrat. It's almost guaranteed to be a Republican unless they put up yet another idiotically lame candidate. They are usually for this sort of thing, so in two years it magically comes back and then what happens to your argument?

Comment: Re:A/B Testing (Score 1) 161

by Bite The Pillow (#47554415) Attached to: OKCupid Experiments on Users Too

Fuck me, I made the point using the wrong experiment. Otherwise, the argument still stands. People trust that the number is as correct as the website can be. Given that it doesn't know whether you like Teletubbies putting cough syrup in your ass.

Still, not A/B testing in any but the most ignorant sense of words.

Comment: Re:A/B Testing (Score 1) 161

by Bite The Pillow (#47554315) Attached to: OKCupid Experiments on Users Too

People being manipulated, even if the manipulation is only demonstrated by the experiment, without knowing they are being A/B tested, is not what A/B testing is about.

Knowingly participating in an A/B test is kinda part of A/B testing. Is this lens better, or worse? Which of these televisions side by side looks better to you?

You are looking for love, your soulmate, or someone who will put up with your desire to have cough medicine inserted into your rectum by someone dressed as a Teletubby.

You don't find it because you are accustomed to the way people on dating sites work, and these people are not behaving your way. Cough syrup inserting Teletubbies usually post pictures, and no one fitting the description has. Or vice versa, I don't know.

Or, I have been treating this person who did not post a picture differently, even though they did.

This is much more about how people interact with people who post pictures, and misrepresenting people as picture posters or non picture posters. The misrepresentation is NOT part of A/B testing. Knowing that you don't know is part of an A/B test. Not knowing that you don't know is not.

So no, the answer to your question is no.

Comment: Re:Get used to this... (Score 1) 250

My only issue is that we haven't heard of this, though it has been happening for months.

The damage is done, it's too late to do much other than complain.

And, this was 2004. This is an eternity in business years. I can't even complain to SBC because they don't exist as of 2005 legally, I think.

What is the action here? Should I hate Comcast because they did something a decade ago? Do I oppose something that Time Warner wants because their partner to be blames a nonexistent company? Do I complain about something that is pretty much legal?

If I am to be outraged, I need an action. Otherwise, I can't just sit here and be angry. I could spend a few hours yelling at idiots who post stupid things, but that really needs to be directed towards education (indirectly if need be), rather than an anger outlet.

Comment: Re:Advertised on YouTube? (Score 4, Insightful) 97

Eyeballs bring awareness, and the hope that future purchases will be affected just by familiarity.

That works great for brand names available at the grocery store when you are already primed for buying. It does not seem to be effective if I go to a place like amazon with the intent to buy, and that product or service is not available.

Traditionally, eyeballs and click conversions have been measured, with a huge weight given to clicks. Again, brand awareness is hard to measure other than in general purchase trends. But it makes no sense to ignore the importance of click conversions and focus on eyeball measures only, or largely, or even a smallish percentage.

I have not read anything in the last decade that makes me think that in any way, a measure of eyeballs is significant in general. For anything other than brand awareness, people who would not click anyway have no need to see the ad, and eyeball measurements don't add anything.

Statistics are only meaningful when they are interpreted and understood, and eyeballs is effectively a number without meaning. It is a small part, and not worth niggling about. Especially when the point is that people who won't click don't give any benefit from watching something they won't click. Brand awareness on something that is not going to be on a list of shopped for products is throwing money away, and paying for people to watch ads they don't care about likewise.

That's why targeted advertising is such a big deal. People realize that pure eyeballs are nearly meaningless, your objections to the contrary.

Comment: Re:So why aren't they proposiing an Amendment? (Score 1) 120

Constitutional is not the topic. A normal warrant reveals the capability regardless. A trial revealing the evidence just the same.

They don't want the bad guys to know what to protect themslves against. They want to collect evidence that they have no intention of presenting at a trial.

The amendment you incoherently fail to express would be clarifying that only citizens are constitutionally protected. Problem solved. And secret warrants for the rest, because information travels faster these days. Or sealed for a number of years so the method has a shelf life.

You have no head for politics, as much as you prefer rhetoric to content you should be a shoe in.

A note: What is allowed changes as tech changes.anything sufficiently novel gets a pass until it is challenged. These methods are likely not unconstitutional yet. How many people have been imprisoned through means that were later found to be infringing?

Comment: Re:First world problems.... (Score 1) 353

by Bite The Pillow (#47513065) Attached to: Netflix Reduces Physical-Disc Processing, Keeps Prices the Same

Netflix undercut major physical stores on both price and convenience. With competition gone, the prices go up.

Did they take a loss for years running? I think there would be a lawsuit from the defunct companies if true. Sure they have inflation adjustments and fast lane ransom.

But it is hard for a consumer to see their only realistic option turn around and start gouging.

It is a violation of trust, and that causes outrage, which makes the magnitude of the violation much greater.

If you are a loyal customer, it is hard not to get worked up, because that's how your brain works. Maybe you're defective or an outlier, like many who read Slotdash. Maybe you understand that the first rule is not trusting a company.

Basic emotions feel the same whether its first or third world problems. Enlightened first world members can put this in perspective, and decide whether to cancel. Most cannot.

The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan