Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Snow storm? (Score 2) 279

I wonder if the previous post was thinking of Marcott's statement about the paper rather than the paper itself. "Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. "

Comment Re:Hillary's a WITCH! (Score 1) 1069

One thing I think many Clinton supporters miss: Not convicted != innocent. There are many things which look shady even if they can't prove anything definitively. Consider, for example, the Clinton foundation receiving $1,000,000 from Qatar for Bill Clinton to speak. Yet in their mind, despite being a one time donation for a special purpose, that wasn't an unexpected increase in funding which was supposed to be reported. Even if bribery wasn't proven, the conflict of interest issues were huge.

Yes, Trump's conflicts of interest are potentially larger. However, the media didn't make much of them during the election. Perhaps because doing so would have drawn more attention to the crap HRC pulled? Instead, in the week that Qatar donation was reported, a 10 year old video of Trump being a sexist pig got almost all of the airtime.

Even though I think HRC was a better choice overall, the thumbs on the scales in her favor worked against her.

Comment Re:People are not logical (Score 2) 436

Illegal immigrants != immigrants. Although not a subscriber so I can't see all of it, that article starts off referring just to immigrants. Opponents of border control consistently combine legal and illegal immigrants into one group when spouting statistics, which means they are ignoring the actual point. People who choose to violate the law in order to immigrate are not particularly prone to respect other laws, while jumping through the convoluted mess of our immigration laws suggests someone who is more law abiding than most. Collecting any statistics on illegal immigrants is going to be difficult because they are actively trying to hide, meaning that the combined group is going to be dominated by legal immigrants.

Comment Re:I already posted this on another site.... (Score 1) 1092

Medicare for all has a 2.2% income tax applicable to everyone currently paying income tax. From his site: "The 2.2% income tax applies to taxable income as currently defined. In calculating taxable incomefor a married couple with two children, it has been assumed that they use the $12,600 standard deduction and a personal exemption of $4,050 per family member for a total of $28,800. The 2.2% tax is applied to the remainder."

But that's not all. It's based on a ridiculously underestimated cost of the plan. Effictively, it's wishful thinking. Mega McArdle lays it out better than I could, but the basic point is that it asserts magical unexplained savings. Further, it promises to eliminate co-pays, deductibles, and refusal to cover various treaments.

Before you claim other countries single payer plans prove we could save money and provide universal care, the plan avoids any mention of cutting the pay of healthcare professionals. Doctors here make more than twice as much as doctors elsewhere.

Comment Re:Affirmative Action (Score 1) 529

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

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

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

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

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Working...