Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Affirmative Action (Score 1) 529 529

by phlinn (#49729469) Attached to: Harvard Hit With Racial Bias Complaint
You're missing something on the variations between sexes. Men may be about the same as women on average, but it's ALSO been demonstrated that they have a much greater standard deviation. That internal variation means when you get to points on the tails of the distribution curves, the differences between sexes will be significant even if there was an identical average.

In any case, my original point stands. Considering only general population numbers is misleading when there are other known confounding variables.

Comment: Re:Affirmative Action (Score 1) 529 529

by phlinn (#49718199) Attached to: Harvard Hit With Racial Bias Complaint
Raw populations numbers are a default choice, but almost always the wrong one. To evaluation any given system, you need to examine the actual input into that system, which is usually already different from the general population. For instance, correcting the gender wage gap for the different choices men and women make. Or adjusting judicial outcome statistics for different crime rates within different populations. If you ignore those differences, you apply the wrong solutions, like blaming wrokplace sexism for the results of early education sexism.

Comment: Re: There is no such thing as equal work (Score 1) 349 349

It would actually be far more equitable if ALL leave was unpaid leave, but you were guaranteed the ability to take it without otherwise being penalized. The person who uses up all their sick/vacation/maternity leave every year is doing less for the company than the one who only takes a 2 week vacation to refresh themselves, and thus earned proportionately less.

HOWEVER, it's probably not a good idea to actually operate that way due to perverse incentives for things such as burning themselves out, and coming to work while hacking up a lung and infecting all your other employees. I'm just saying that there's at least some logic the idea, and I don't think your point makes his argument ridiculous.

On an different note, 'other countries do it' is not a great argument. The general standard of living between the US and any given European country overall favors the US... depending on which factors you consider important. YMMV. They also suffered from the great recession for longer in most cases.

Comment: Re:You are missing the obvious point! (Score 2) 349 349

That would depend on the demand for the product, the price elasticity of that demand, and the cost of expansion wouldn't it? More accurately, what my estimates of those values are, which could be way off. If i have to go lease a whole new factory in a different city because my current city wouldn't let me expand for instance, that would suggest it might be better to just decrease price a bit until a new equilibrium is reached.

Comment: Re:We deserve this guy (Score 1) 496 496

by phlinn (#48803445) Attached to: Ted Cruz To Oversee NASA and US Science Programs
You mean after a left wing piece of legislation was pushed down their throats without any actual negotiation, using parliamentary tricks? The only negotiation on Obamacare was with conservative democrats, and sometimes the straw republican in Obama's head. I'd give him some credit for the straw republican being based on things like something the heritage foundation wrote, except itwasn't actually similar to obamacare. The actual republicans then in office got nothing out of it. Why would they bother trying to work with someone who's public attempt to supposedly negotiate comes down to "I won"?

The democrats tried to have everything their way. Turning around and banning a practice they started because they didn't like the results didn't do them any favors in the long run.

Obamacare is the first major program to ever be passed on strict party lines, with a minimal majority, using whatever means available to bypass resistance from the opposition and ignoring generally unfavorable public opinion.

Comment: Re: Considering how few boys graduate at ALL (Score 1) 355 355

You're right, clearly we need more women in prison.

In all seriousness, I wouldn't expect that. Assume for the sake of argument that IQ tests are actually reasonable proxies for raw intelligence. As I understand it, the means are roughly the same but men have a larger standard deviation. Which means if you are studying a field only suitable for high IQ's, you will have more men than women.

The accuracy of IQ tests is questionable, but I think there is some truth to distributions being different between the sexes. It fits with the available evidence. However, it's always a mistake to judge an individual by the group they happen to be in rather than their individual observable characteristics.

Comment: Re:Pathetic (Score 1) 1128 1128

by phlinn (#48458017) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting
Citation needed. There is ZERO evidence that Mao was a net positive. The only people who think otherwise are ideologues who believe that communism is inherently good and benevolent regardless of it's actual effects, and despite the totalitarianism inherent in it's basic definition. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" has no room whatsoever for freedom of choice.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427 427

by phlinn (#47911293) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
I'm not in support of using the minority report. I would quibble about basically flat and could argue that some of the slopes qualify, but thanks for pointing out the data link to get the slope of the line.

I think the more likely issue is just a matter of bias, not deliberate malfeasance. It's really hard to see errors in something when you get the results you expect. For TOBS adjustments for USHCN in particular, a mathematical artifact from the way they try to correct for it seemed more likely. That's based solely on my intuition as a mathematician though. Since we know they have engaged in deliberate efforts to conceal disconfirming evidence, and to punish journals for publishing papers whose conclusions they didn't like, I don't consider malfeasance completely implausible.

It's interesting to just plot the trendline of various sets. I especially find it interesting when you do so from the year I suggested previously, 2002.

CRU Global Average is how they described in on their page. Going by the link, it was HADCRUT3. Which shoes only .01C over the period. They didnt specifiy variance adjusted or not, and their choice of endpoints were on specific months, so i'm going to go with some cherry picking there as well.

I meant to include this in my previous line. The way NOAA wrote that note in 2008 did not exclude peak to trough periods of 15 years or longer. It's a reasonable exclusion to make though, so I decline to hold that against them.

Comment: Re:Wrong Title (Score 1) 499 499

Tolerance does not equal approval. The fact that you can still do your job is irrelevant. They are under no obligation to hire you just because you are qualified, and there is a good reason to suspect that someone who is philosophically opposed to government will not do the best job they can for the government even if they are theoretically capable of doing so. Now, if you had already been hired and had a good track record, you would have a good argument against being fired.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427 427

by phlinn (#47908509) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
After playing with the data for a bit, I found one set of data that has a downward trend. The RSS MSU lower trop global mean. Starting in 1999, which is a more reasonable year, it shift to a slight upward trend. Unfortunately your site doesn't give a value for the slope. Eyeballing it, 2002 or thereabouts is a better start, which drops them below the 15 year cutoff, except the line from NOAA didn't exclude peak to trough periods.

Being highly set dependent is suspicious, but the on the other side the adjusments made to surface station data are suspicious in nature based on my own checking. Specifically, averaging all adjustments for the GHCN after the flap about the Darwin station, I found a definite warming linear trend in the adjustments. The USHCN had a significant quadratic trend in adjustments, such that 80% or more of the warming trend in the data was created by the adjustments.

They were using global coverage. CRU Global average in the downward trend, and UAH in the one that had a very slight upward trend (.0004 per year). I can't see the slope of the trendline on that site you gave, but visually it's the same. Calling that basically flat is defensible, assuming reasonable error bars.

The perversity of nature is nowhere better demonstrated by the fact that, when exposed to the same atmosphere, bread becomes hard while crackers become soft.

Working...