Just as an aside: Condoms don't necessarily prevent exposure to HPV. They reduce the chances, but obviously not all that much (as you said, HPV is a raging epidemic, with something like 90% of sexually active women getting some strain or other eventually). It can be transferred by contact with a lot of surface area that condoms don't cover at all (like the scrotum), and as such doesn't even require actual intercourse to transmit from person to person.

Weapons and training are "VERY expensive?" How about the cost of stolen cargo, is that cheap? The ransom paid for kidnapped crewmembers, how cheap is that?

This whole "anti-gun" argument seems to revolve around the fact that it's hard to dock a merchant ship in international ports if it's armed. It's a bullshit argument. Either change the laws (and any nation that doesn't want to cooperate can find out how nice not having any commerce is), or.... Put the anti-pirate people on a smaller craft that does not enter sovereign waters. Easy solution. Contractors can be hired to escort your ships through danger zones armed to the fucking teeth. Problem solved.

Dr. Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal!
Dr. Peter Venkman: That's bad. Okay. All right, important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

I think I sort of see where you're going, but you're not quite there. For most instruments, the score is only valid when compared to others of the same age / grade. Being a 40 year old with an IQ of 120 is very different than being a 6 year old with an IQ of 120, since they're being compared against two different cohorts.

Also noteworthy is that fluid intelligence (if you're into CHC theory) declines steadily as you move out of your 20s, while crystallized intelligence, or things like your general knowledge base, continues to increase as you experience more of the world. So yeah, on average a 45 year old probably can't solve as many algebra problems in 2 minutes as the average 18 year old, or be able to find Waldo in the images nearly as quickly. But the average 45 year old is going to know much more about the world and will do much better on those knowledge heavy parts of the instrument.

That is a common argument... but just because a test is not "culture free" doesn't mean it's worthless. If we measure the IQ of the son of an immigrant Kalahari bushman and it's, say, 79, that is an important measure despite being "ethnocentric" (and quite frankly not everything that is specific to one culture is bad). It is still useful information when you want to know things like how well the boy will do in an American school system.

Does it mean he's stupid? Not at all... A skill set valued in the desert (let's say, fast reaction time and a concrete approach to problem solving) is simply undervalued in the school system here. Should we redefine the tests to suit his cultural background, where in all likelihood he will score higher, just to assuage whatever bad feelings we have? I think that would be pointless--whereas knowing that the child is NOT using those skills that we value in our society, those skills that tend to go along with good grades and a good job, is a useful thing indeed.

So yeah, if the ultimate goal of IQ tests is to put value judgments on people you're absolutely right. It is not fair to label the kid. But if the goal is to devise teaching interventions to help him succeed in our schools and in our culture it is kind of nice to be able to see where he is deviating from the norm.

It's even more complicated than what you've described. Most modern intelligence tests (WJ-III Cog, WAIS, SB) incorporate WIS (as you've described it, Gc / knowledge) as a component of intelligence. And in actuality that kind of general knowledge has stronger links to general intelligence than just about any other measure on those tests. What it boils down to is that how much you know about the world is a pretty good indicator of intelligence, and by extension, is a pretty good indicator of your _ability_ to thrive.

So yes, IQ is an aggregate measure of lots of diverse qualities, but WIS is definitely one of them. And it happens to be one of the best.

Personally I always liked Heinlein's take on what a man should be able to do... It's very similar to Wechsler's definition of intelligence, only described in example behaviors:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Heinlein, Time Enough For Love

Yes, now just tell us your password so that we can add that karma to your account... We have an automatic system for it but it's on the fritz. You know. Sunspots.

"broadband saturation" is a meaningless unit of measurement without some carefully defined terms. Personally, I'd rather see them not use it, and instead use some form of [price / speed] measurement to determine the overall health of our nation's internet service.

Just as a side note, a friend just moved into a wealthy suburban neighborhood here (near Memphis, TN). The only options available for internet access are Bellsouth DSL: $20/mo for 768k down / 128 up, or $34/mo for 1.5m down / 768 up. Or Comcast, which no matter how you slice it seems to run about 60 bucks just for the ISP, although the speed is much better. Do you have any idea how much it makes my blood boil to hear about our nation's "broadband saturation" in the same string of comments with other people claiming to get 10Mbps down/up for cheap?

Don't forget US v. Salerno. The "perceived evil" stipulation. Because Christ knows, down here in the south a black man that rapes a white woman won't be perceived as any more evil than a white man that does it. White, wealthy tech guys won't be perceived as any more evil than the beer swilling schleps in the jury box. Yeah, we're all equal in the eyes of the law, seriously! We are! And the judges can tell for sure how evil you are when using preventive detention as a punishment. They're not doing anything wrong! They're just living in their own little la-la land of assumptions and gut-reactions and intuition that makes the whole thing a sham.

Perceived evil... what a bunch of fucking nutcases. The entire criminal justice system in the US needs to be reworked from the ground up, and many of the people currently in positions of power need to be digging ditches somewhere in the southwest. Small but deep ditches. With a nice man with a gun behind them.

Old SCARY Joke!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_Day

INCORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobeî Photoshopî software.

CORRECT: SHOOP DA WHOOP!!!

You've outlined the best way to fight those groups, too. All they're after is money, so when it becomes unprofitable they will leave. When their little pay boxes start getting filled with gasoline and set on fire, for instance. Or when their agents start getting killed. They are slugs who are in the business simply because it's easy money, so when it quits being easy they'll quit going after it.

I would assume he's pretty anal about his personal security; political wingnuts usually are.

That's part of what makes this man so dangerous. He's such a fringe character with such extremist views, he doesn't have anywhere else to go politically. He probably doesn't even want to advance that way. He is in a position where he can surround himself with extremely loyal yes-men and function with little oversight.

It's typical small-town-sheriff garbage, except for this guy has amassed a lot more power than the typical southern headcase. If he ever does retire he'll probably write some kind of self-serving fluff piece, blaming his sadism on Mexicans and pot heads and justifying it in any under-handed manner his ghost writer can dream up. Oh, wait! He already did. http://www.amazon.com/Joes-Law-Immigration-Everything-Threatens/dp/0814401996/

Here in Memphis the feds (under that notorious civil liberties champion John Ashcroft) took control of our jails after reported civil rights violations. The federal government is the appropriate agency to step in by means of the USDOJ, and should likewise step in on behalf of the people incarcerated under that maniac's supervision. It would disgust me if we treated prisoners of war the way that "law man" has been treating his charges.

Dostoyevsky said that any society can be judged by the way it treats its prisoners. I sure as hell don't want this man standing as a representative of our civilization.