Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 248

by phlinn (#47729157) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic
What does seem to be news to everyone that isn't a skeptic is that the models are almost all wrong in one direction: more warming. The alarmists in general still refuse to accept that the fears of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are vastly overstated.

Comment: Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (Score 1) 497

by phlinn (#47424359) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann
Well, the 97% consensus paper cited above only got to that number after throwing out non-climatologists, taking them for over 3000 respondents to under 80. The linked press release mentioned the values for a particular subset of the scientiests whose responses were removed, but didn't give us info on phsysicists or mathematicians. I think it's highly likely that some of those in the removed set were skeptical, and basing their skepticisim within their specialty as applied within climate science. Not to mention the very broad wording of the questions, such that skeptics about the scope of the affect of humans on the warming would be included in the consensus.

For a specific case, my first thought was McKintyre vs Mann, but they are both mathematicians by training.

I wasn't trying to solve disputes in advance in any way, merely noting a flaw in the appeal to authority used by the comment I was responding to.

Comment: Re:Lets start with paul first (Score 1) 272

by phlinn (#46989395) Attached to: Rand Paul Starts New Drone War In Congress
It didn't qualify as abduction because it not against her will, she went along with it. She wasn't forced to do drugs, because among other things she didn't actually do them. She was pressured to do so, but that's a rather large difference from actually being forced to do drugs like you originally claimed. Huffington post called it "tried to force" which I can't fault them for as it's apparently what the source said, but it still doesn't match your initial claims.

Comment: Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score 1) 410

Within a city, I would guess that the correlation between poverty and race is a factor. No stats on this, but I would expect areas with poorer residents to have fewer funds to pay for voting booth. There are a lot of possible confounding variables though.

I despise early voting, but targeted elimination of the practice is at least suspicious. Frankly, I'm surprised they ever offered it on any weekend, since government usually doesn't operate on those days.

As far as reasons for density affecting voting times, I don't know. I would hazard a guess about having less space to work with in the first place. I don't know that there really is such an association, I really just wanted to note that your response wasn't relevant to what gtall had suggested. It's probably worth looking into.

Comment: Re:MLK Finally Realized (Score 1) 410

"Correlated with" does NOT mean "caused by". Going by purely academic achievement, while race blind, would have a disparate affect because different races perform differently at lower levels of education as well. That's not the responsibility of higher education to fix.

Comment: Re:Not really needed anymore. (Score 1) 410

That link does not disagree with gtall's basic point. Assuming for the sake of arguments that longer voting times are caused by a higher population density and that blacks are disproportionately concentrated in high density areas, the racial disparity in voting times is likely a side affect of population density rather evidence of racism. The numbers at the end of your link even show the disparity base on number of voters.

You can't use a nationwide average to dispute an argument based on clustering. Simpson's paradox is a bitch. Anyone who doesn't understand it in principle if not by name is incompetent to make arguments using statistics. That seems to be a strong majority of the people actually making such arguments, but I stand by the assertion.

Comment: Re:Im all for human rights... (Score 1) 1482

by phlinn (#46639429) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights
Not putting your stamp of approval on a couple is a non-action. Non-actions remain non-actions no matter how much some people want certain actions to occur to their benefit, and non-actions have no impact on anyone (their status before and after is identical). Government marriage rules are an explicit stamp of societal approval on whatever arrangements are included. As such, they are a matter of equal privileges not equal rights. The 14th amendment is still relevant in any case, it's only the rhetoric that many gay marriage supporters use that I object to, such as your comment here.

I'd rather the government get out of the marriage business altogether. Since I can't have that, I'll support gay marriage.

Comment: Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (Score 4, Informative) 578

by phlinn (#46473341) Attached to: White House: Get ACA Insurance Coverage, Launch Start-Ups
The Harvard study they relied on? It's crap. Note that even your link only claimed 57%. I would dispute whether that qualifies as a VAST majority.

The self reported figure from the study came in at 29%, which is probably a better number. The 62%, and even the 57% in your link rely on a very broad definition of medical bankruptcy. Some with $500,000 in other debt and $5,001 in medical debt shouldn't really count as a medical bankruptcy.

Comment: Re:I have your conversion right here... (Score 1) 860

by phlinn (#46457347) Attached to: Microsoft's Attempt To Convert Users From Windows XP Backfires
I still consider my links to be valid examples of getting a gaming rig for less than the cost of a mac.

Since newegg combos are subject to link rot, for anyone reading this, the links were for a case, power supply, hard drive, motherboard, ram, processor combo. One was an A8 chip and the other was an A10.

Another megabytes the dust.