Europe’s economic model is failing. We’re going to have to deal with similar issues in just a few years…
Archive for February, 2010
Reason summarized the results as, “Everyone who knows what they’re talking about agrees with me, and everyone who doesn’t wears a tinfoil hat.” It received attention elsewhere, also.
I, for one, found the entire study to be hogwash. The study in question was trying to determine why, and how, the public trusts scientists and experts in their own fields. Here are the major problems with the study, however:
- Science isn’t done by consensus. The Yale study worked around several issues where scientists had x% consensus on an issue. Sorry, but that’s not science. Science is about who’s right, and who’s wrong, and about who’s mathematical model can account for the data without getting disproved. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
- The studies in question they based their study off of were entirely manufactured political statements. 98% of climatologists agree with global warming? No, they don’t. Perhaps the Yale scientists have taken a look at the news (albeit, not the U.S. news) lately? There was never consensus on anthropogenic global warming – there was always a strong group of climatologists (such as at MIT) who disagreed with those results, and lately the side that believes in AGW has had most of their data invalidated. Something similar can be said about the position they took with gun regulation and crime rates. Sure, scientists disagree on whether guns make society safer or more dangerous. Except that one side of that argument consistently comes out with studies and mathematical models that claim that NH should be more dangerous than D.C., Detroit, or California, because it has less gun regulation – and the other side has massive amounts of empirical evidence from the history of the world where armed societies were more polite, and safer, and unarmed societies have more violence. Clearly, one side in the argument over gun rights has a political objective, and is trying to fit the data to their model, rather than vice-verse.
If the Yale study shows anything, it is that “scientists” are just as subject as anyone else to viewing the world through politics-colored lenses.
New Jersey’s in trouble precisely because of their tax policy.
Now, what makes you think the same math doesn’t scale to U.S. tax policies vs. the rest of the world?
In fact, many areas are shortening their yellow light durations, just to generate more ticket revenue.
Once again, Democrats are failing to define what actually constitutes torture, or any of the behaviors they wish to condemn. Instead, the scale stays free to slide, and they can continue to criticize whenever they wish. It’s pure politics, and reveals all of their words on the subject to be absolutely worthless.
I, as always, propose a simple definition: If liberals are willing to repeatedly subject themselves to the activity during protests, then it’s not torture.
And when people do so, they aren’t “hacking” your site.
Actually, this touches the open source movement too: keeping your code private doesn’t mean its secure, it just means people have to guess. That’s not as hard as you think it should be.
He was also a supporter of Saddam.
Even most Democrats who didn’t support us going into Iraq aren’t that far left.
This is actually pretty big news for computer security: some German researchers have come up with a new approach for generating random numbers, that is much more random than previous algorithmic methods.
Isn’t it funny how the MSM constantly finds polls that seem to always portray issues in favor of liberal opinions?
Democrats like to smear them as money laundering havens. They’re not.
Arizona is treating Muslim killers differently – they don’t want to have a Christian execute a Muslim.
Classic dhimmitude and politically correct nonsense.
This is why they’re so scared of standing up for freedom of speech, or anything else.
