|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 31 2014 11:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote: For the same job (non-linear), Work 10 hrs at $10/hr and earn $100. Work 20 hrs at $12/hr and earn $240.
-or-
Again for the same job (linear), Work 10 hrs at $11/hr and earn $110. Work 20 hrs at $11/hr and earn $220. in the first case you are wrong. the paper defines the first case to be two different jobs... but maybe in the same occupation. there are no non-linear jobs in the framework... what you call non-linear is due to a relocation from one linear job to another linear job.
The positions can be separate occupations or they can be different varieties of the same occupation. we done.
|
On January 31 2014 13:32 nunez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2014 11:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote: For the same job (non-linear), Work 10 hrs at $10/hr and earn $100. Work 20 hrs at $12/hr and earn $240.
-or-
Again for the same job (linear), Work 10 hrs at $11/hr and earn $110. Work 20 hrs at $11/hr and earn $220. in the first case you are wrong. the paper defines the first case to be two different jobs... but maybe in the same occupation. there are no non-linear jobs in the framework... what you call non-linear is due to a relocation from one linear job to another linear job. No, the paper defines the first case to be the same job (see figure 5). It doesn't matter if the framework reflects that or not.
|
new jonnybnoho's: reading definition from the definition would make me wrong, the definition is a figure now.
|
On January 31 2014 14:03 nunez wrote:new jonnybnoho's: reading definition from the definition would make me wrong, the definition is a figure now. nunez: nitpick irrelevant details to exhaustion 
I'm done. The paper's fine. It's conclusions are fine. That's what matters. End of story.
|
He didn't nitpick, he criticize the methodology of the study, and if you can't adress his critic, then just stop discussing.
Anyway, mathematics overall is always ridiculous in social studies. I've had a huge discussion on the matter with a university teacher in sociology stating that "everything equal" women are paid 9% less than men (quoting a study). To me it seems ridiculous because the everything equal doesn't exist, and especially those everything equal women that I've never heard about. Trying to isolate one variable (men / women or linear / non linear) is always partly a mistake in social science and researcher still try to do it for every study - badly because they suck at math - just because they need the excess legitimacy.
And yes, economists love Lagrange, and sociologists just spam linear regressions.
|
|
ah, i remember reading a nsfwcorp article that might be relevant.
"TSA and Pigs"
|
As many as 17,000 Americans will die directly as a result of states deciding not to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, according to a new study.
Researchers from Harvard University and City University of New York have estimated that between 7,115 and 17,104 deaths will be "attributable to the lack of Medicaid expansion in opt-out states" in a study published in Health Affairs.
"The results were sobering," Samuel Dickman, one of the authors, said, according to the Morning Call. "Political decisions have consequences, some of them lethal."
They projected that 423,000 fewer diabetics would receive medication to treat their disease. If opt-out states had expanded Medicaid, 659,000 women who are in need of mammograms and 3.1 million women who should receive regular pap smears would have become insured, the study found.
"Low-income adults in states that have opted out of Medicaid expansion will forego gains in access to care, financial well-being, physical and mental health, and longevity that would be expected with expanded Medicaid coverage," the authors wrote.
Source
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — The long-delayed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada moved a significant step toward completion Friday as the State Department raised no major environmental objections to its construction. The finding is likely to be welcomed by Republicans and some oil- and gas-producing states but is sure to further rankle environmentalists already at odds with President Barack Obama over his energy policy.
The department report stops short of recommending approval of the $7 billion pipeline, which has become a major symbol of the political debate over climate change. But the review gives Obama political cover if he chooses to endorse the pipeline in spite of opposition from many Democrats and environmental groups. Foes say the pipeline would carry "dirty oil" that contributes to global warming. They also worry about a spill.
Republicans and business and labor groups have urged Obama to approve the pipeline to create thousands of jobs and move toward North American energy independence. The pipeline is also strongly supported by Democrats in oil and gas-producing states, including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. All face re-election this year and could be politically damaged by rejection of the pipeline. Republican Mitt Romney carried all three states in the 2012 presidential election.
The 1,179-mile pipeline would travel through the heart of the United States, carrying oil derived from tar sands in western Canada to a hub in Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries in Texas.
Source
|
Here's to hoping Obama finally does the right thing and approves keystone.
|
A former Port Authority official who oversaw the George Washington Bridge lane closures that have created a scandal for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Friday that the governor knew about the closures as they were happening and has the evidence to prove it, The New York Times reported.
In a letter released by the attorney of former Port Authority official David Wildstein, the decision to close lanes was described as "the Christie administration's order."
Wildstein's letter went on to say that "evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference" three weeks ago.
This would be the first evidence proving Christie was aware of the closures earlier than he admitted.
In a press conference on Jan. 9, Christie told reporters, "I had no knowledge or involvement in this issue in its planning or its execution, and I am stunned by the abject stupidity that was shown here."
In early January, the story was exposed when documents were revealed showing that Bridget Anne Kelly, deputy chief of staff to Christie, had sent an email to Wildstein saying "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" — the town on the New Jersey side of the bridge.
Christie's aides had previously tried but failed to receive an endorsement from the mayor of Fort Lee.
Soon after the news broke, Christie fired Kelly and Wildstein, then-director of interstate capital projects at the Port Authority, resigned.
Source
|
|
Obama responds to DEA criticism by pretending he has no power to curtail the drug war
President Obama asserts the right to due-process free executions, claims the power to engage in lawless surveillance, and just gave a State of the Union address promising unilateral executive action on a whole host of issues. So it was more than a bit strange to see him this week once again insist he has no power to curtail his own Drug War.
...
This claim of powerlessness is the same one Obama made back in April 2012 during an interview about marijuana with Rolling Stone magazine. It is, of course, factually false. You don’t have to trust me on that evaluation – you can trust the president’s own Attorney General Eric Holder, who admitted that under the Controlled Substances Act, the Obama administration already has the power to reschedule marijuana (Update: Holder’s statement was later confirmed by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy). This isn’t some vague gray area in the law, either – it is explicit.
weak!
|
TRENTON — The City of Hoboken has received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding Mayor Dawn Zimmer's allegations against top officials in Gov. Chris Christie's administration.
"The City of Hoboken has received a subpoena for documents and is fully cooperating," Zimmer spokesman Juan Melli said.
Zimmer two weeks ago said that Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno and Community Affairs Commissioner Richard Constable both told her that her city would get Sandy aid if she approved a politically-connected development project in the north end of town.
Source
|
Looking through the laws governing schedules, it looks to me like marijuana should probably go in schedule 3, though I'm sure some would argue for schedule 4. And I can only call it gross incompetence that it's still in schedule 1.
|
A new study has found that children born near greater densities of natural gas development sites in Colorado may have an increased risk of some birth defects.
For the study, researchers from the Colorado School of Public Health and Brown University examined more than 124,000 births from 1996-2009 in rural areas in the state.
They found that children born to mothers living in areas that had more than 125 natural gas wells per mile had a 30 percent greater prevalence of congenital heart defects. The kids were also twice as likely to have had a neural tube defect than children born to mothers who lived with no wells within 10 miles of their homes.
The study, published Jan. 28, notes that pollutants -- like toluene, xylenes and benzene -- released by some natural gas drilling operations "are suspected teratogens or mutagens and are known to cross the placenta, raising the possibility of fetal exposure to these and other pollutants resulting from NGD [natural gas development]."
It should be noted, however, that the study doesn't definitively prove that natural gas development causes anything, Lisa McKenzie, lead author and Colorado School of Public Health research associate, told The Huffington Post.
Source
|
United States42778 Posts
Doesn't say how many people are affected or how many people 30% more is. It's probably worth it to increase their odds of defects to get energy independence, decreases the odds of bullet related organ failure in children born elsewhere who join the army.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
need that data to make the energy companies pay the residents and have stricter emission standards.
|
why do i even subscribe to this thread. everything here makes me depressed. if it isnt stealthblue posting some really depressing news its a retarded argument between all of TL versus 1-2 american conservatives.
|
On February 01 2014 11:23 KwarK wrote: Doesn't say how many people are affected or how many people 30% more is. It's probably worth it to increase their odds of defects to get energy independence, decreases the odds of bullet related organ failure in children born elsewhere who join the army. The underlying study with its data is linked in the article. As I pointed out in the other thread, it is very suspect.
|
|
|
|