- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Evil Conservatives Score One For Joe Sixpack
A high-ranking Bush administration official weighed in Thursday on anti-piracy efforts domestically and abroad, indirectly chastising Sony BMG Music Entertainment for its digital rights management (DRM) software, which computer security analysis say uses tactics typically employed by virus writers to hide its components.... |
|
|
Comments (33)
13 earlier comments in the full thread.
Martin, Martin, Martin...
There's what's said and what's said...
This seems to be a "Publish or Perish" article.
I agree that we should applaud anybody who tries to bring objective rigor to the social sciences. It's certainly the answer to charges of pontificating on research money. But...you gotta admit, objective rigor has standards, and any decent statistician should have red-flagged this one in the design stage.
There's what's said and what's said...
This seems to be a "Publish or Perish" article.
I agree that we should applaud anybody who tries to bring objective rigor to the social sciences. It's certainly the answer to charges of pontificating on research money. But...you gotta admit, objective rigor has standards, and any decent statistician should have red-flagged this one in the design stage.
oh you brainiacs, you over-complicate everything. The obvious and true answer is "those people." "Those people" are the biggest troublemakers, all they want to do is make our lives miserable. If we could just do away with "those people" life would be splendid.
Can we all at least agree that Pat Robertson really ought to be institutionalized?
Can we all at least agree that Pat Robertson really ought to be institutionalized?
tuxchick --
Well, it's hard to argue with "those people."
As to Pat Robertson, well...I look at it this way: He's not Fred Phelps. That's got to count for something, right?
Well, it's hard to argue with "those people."
As to Pat Robertson, well...I look at it this way: He's not Fred Phelps. That's got to count for something, right?
The way I see it, Pat the R. is a much more effective lunatic, because he neither foams nor shrieks. So that makes him more dangerous. At least Rev. Fred is blatant about his true intentions!
tux --
It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
I view Pat R. as neither a lunatic nor a danger, except maybe to Christian ideology. He doesn't hold public office, he doesn't break (so far as I know) the law, and, though he says some very strange things sometimes, I don't regard him as a hate-monger a la Phelps.
In a world that has room for Michael Moore, Jerry Springer, and the New York Times, I rather doubt that old P.R. is much to worry about.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
I view Pat R. as neither a lunatic nor a danger, except maybe to Christian ideology. He doesn't hold public office, he doesn't break (so far as I know) the law, and, though he says some very strange things sometimes, I don't regard him as a hate-monger a la Phelps.
In a world that has room for Michael Moore, Jerry Springer, and the New York Times, I rather doubt that old P.R. is much to worry about.
Dino, point taken. We need a bigger institution.
And to completely screw up the topic...
Have you seen that Pa may allow hunting with atlatls?
These are prehistoric throwing sticks that provide extra boost to spears, heaving them off at speeds up to 80 mph.
Unsubstatiatable rumor has it Microsoft figured that atlatl was an acronym for something really cool and rushed to file a patent application for a single-stage delivery acceleration methodology.
The PTO prior art database has nothing on it. Go figure.
Have you seen that Pa may allow hunting with atlatls?
These are prehistoric throwing sticks that provide extra boost to spears, heaving them off at speeds up to 80 mph.
Unsubstatiatable rumor has it Microsoft figured that atlatl was an acronym for something really cool and rushed to file a patent application for a single-stage delivery acceleration methodology.
The PTO prior art database has nothing on it. Go figure.
Dino: Are you serious?
tom, don't worry, dino will get a nice room between Pat Robertson and Michael Moore. Should be fun.
Hey Fritz.
That whole Clinton thing was nothing but a media generated frenzy. Can anyone here tell me what year Clinton was lowest in the polls? Can you say 1993. Years before the media generated frenzy.
To all those who mention listening to glenbeck. Are you insane? I'd rather listen to white noise.
That whole Clinton thing was nothing but a media generated frenzy. Can anyone here tell me what year Clinton was lowest in the polls? Can you say 1993. Years before the media generated frenzy.
To all those who mention listening to glenbeck. Are you insane? I'd rather listen to white noise.
tuxxie: I didn't know any room existed between Pat Robertson and Michael Moore. I thought it was space: light years and lights years of space.
> That whole Clinton thing was nothing but a media generated frenzy. Can anyone
> here tell me what year Clinton was lowest in the polls? Can you say 1993. Years
> before the media generated frenzy.
Pat, that was partly the point I was trying to make. That the media bias just goes after whoever looks easy. A good enough leader can, of course, rise above it. However, it certainly doesn't excuse non-objective reporting. No matter what side your on, it's better if the media stays int he middle. The effect of a "reporter" pushing any opinion onto a story is usually only to diminish the true issues at hand. They pushed on Clinton when they felt he was in a position he couldn't fight back from. He fought anyway, and he did pretty well. My fear is that they will now swing over and push on turn the current administrations issues into "good tv". I'm afraid this will undermine the true issues which need to be honestly and openly analyzed and discussed, not turned into talking points and ran across a ticker.
-> Fritz
Pat, that was partly the point I was trying to make. That the media bias just goes after whoever looks easy. A good enough leader can, of course, rise above it. However, it certainly doesn't excuse non-objective reporting. No matter what side your on, it's better if the media stays int he middle. The effect of a "reporter" pushing any opinion onto a story is usually only to diminish the true issues at hand. They pushed on Clinton when they felt he was in a position he couldn't fight back from. He fought anyway, and he did pretty well. My fear is that they will now swing over and push on turn the current administrations issues into "good tv". I'm afraid this will undermine the true issues which need to be honestly and openly analyzed and discussed, not turned into talking points and ran across a ticker.
-> Fritz
Fritz -
Live in all the denial you want, but every study of voting patterns, financial contributions, party affiliation, etc, makes clear that there is a strong media bias towards the Democrats.
Please understand what bias is, however. It's not dishonest, but a function of personal experience and belief. You tell the truth as you see it, but you have blinders on because all people do. Propaganda is a different beast, but that's not what we're talking about.
Live in all the denial you want, but every study of voting patterns, financial contributions, party affiliation, etc, makes clear that there is a strong media bias towards the Democrats.
Please understand what bias is, however. It's not dishonest, but a function of personal experience and belief. You tell the truth as you see it, but you have blinders on because all people do. Propaganda is a different beast, but that's not what we're talking about.
"To all those who mention listening to glenbeck. Are you insane? I'd rather listen to white noise."
come on now...there is a very distinguishable difference between Glenn Beck and white noise...White Noise takes much longer to drive you insane.
helios
come on now...there is a very distinguishable difference between Glenn Beck and white noise...White Noise takes much longer to drive you insane.
helios
tadelste: I strongly suspect that Pat Robertson and Michael Moore 'are' the same person :D
jimf:
Some people are merely bi-polar, some people are REALLY bi-polar.
;0)
Some people are merely bi-polar, some people are REALLY bi-polar.
;0)
> But...you gotta admit, objective rigor has standards, and any decent statistician should have red-flagged this one in the design stage.
Look at the plots, Dean... and then tell me if you still need a statistician.
Look at the plots, Dean... and then tell me if you still need a statistician.
Martin --
I looked at the plots. To analyze those plots without looking deeper into the data, you need to have reached your conclusions before you started the study.
I looked at the plots. To analyze those plots without looking deeper into the data, you need to have reached your conclusions before you started the study.
It's easy to prove a bias either way if you honestly believe the truth is objective. The problem is that this is so rarely the case. Bias can easily be seen in the media every day throught he blatant lies and and misinformation that is spouted every day. I'll say again, look at mediamatters.org. It documents specific cases of right wing bias in the media, and every incident is provided with the actual video and audio from the moment in question. Whether you agree with the viewpoints of the creators of mediamatters doesn't matter, but you can't say it's lies when they provide the very video/audio that they are discussing. I'll ask again, provide me with a location to see specific the liberal bias that is supposedly running rampant in the media. If you can't do that, maybe you need stop and think why.
The only site even close from the right-wing is fairpress.org, but if you actually read through it, it only points out where the reporting differs from their opinions. No matter what your opinion is, the media will frequently present a different angle. Writing an article everytime somebody on TV disagrees with you doesn't prove anything
-> Fritz
How the liberal myth was created. http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004170.php
"the myth of the ‘liberal media’ empowers conservatives to control debate" - Eric Alterman
The only site even close from the right-wing is fairpress.org, but if you actually read through it, it only points out where the reporting differs from their opinions. No matter what your opinion is, the media will frequently present a different angle. Writing an article everytime somebody on TV disagrees with you doesn't prove anything
-> Fritz
How the liberal myth was created. http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004170.php
"the myth of the ‘liberal media’ empowers conservatives to control debate" - Eric Alterman
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Eh, no, Dean. If you read the article you will see that it aimed at demonstrating that at least the available evidence does not support the contention that all these nasty things are caused by (or correlated with) godlessness. And I would say he pretty much makes that limited argument.
As for not doing any regression analyses: just look at the pictures! I bet your common sense is as good as any regression software :-)
(But do remember, correlation is no causation. It doesn't tell what caused what.)
The same about calling the US an outlier: again, look at (some of) the pictures. It's the same as when you are, e.g., measuring the circumference of a tree as a function of its height. Even if most of your measurements will lie roughly on a staight line, a few will not. The conclusion then is, that these measurements do not belong to the same population but to another one; perhaps another tree species, or a diseased individual. That's an "outlier": a point far removed from the line that goes almost through all the other points. What you do with it is reject it in statistical testing as being irrelevant to what you are trying to study. Assuming it is, of course.
See, e.g., Figures 2 and 7 for illustration. That's outliers for you. Again, no computation needed to see the obvious.
As for what sets the US apart from all other countries, your guess is as good as mine... violence and sexual stupidity, but what causes it? My personal pet theory is that both are related to the motives that made people emigrate from the old continent. Fleeing from religious persecution, or from the long arm of the law (or creditors). Thus the people from which many current Americans descend, and that defined the cultural context of the new country, were selected to be of both higher religiosity and higher criminal/violent tendencies, both undoubtedly with a genetic component. And yes, I do believe that religion can play, and has played here, a causal role in keeping people uninformed and hostile about sexuality, the body and women. With the results that we see.