Skip to main content

Home/ Unintended Consequences/ Group items tagged individuals

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Skeptical Debunker

Does promiscuity prevent extinction? - 0 views

www.physorg.com/news186327580.html

polyandry sex extinction science reason

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 25 Feb 10 - Cached
  • Known as 'polyandry' among scientists, the phenomenon of females having multiple mates is shared across most animal species, from insects to mammals. This study suggests that polyandry reduces the risk of populations becoming extinct because of all-female broods being born. This can sometimes occur as a result of a sex-ratio distortion (SR) chromosome, which results in all of the Y chromosome 'male' sperm being killed before fertilisation. The all-female offspring will carry the SR chromosome, which will be passed on to their sons in turn resulting in more all-female broods. Eventually there will be no males and the population will die out. For this study, the scientists worked with the fruitfly Drosophila pseudoobscura. They gave some populations the opportunity to mate naturally, meaning that the females had multiple partners. The others were restricted to having one mate each. They bred several generations of these populations, so they could see how each fared over time. Over fifteen generations, five of the twelve populations that had been monogamous became extinct as a result of males dying out. The SR chromosome was far less prevalent in the populations in which females had the opportunity to have multiple mates and none of these populations became extinct. The study shows how having multiple mates can suppress the spread of the SR chromosome, making all-female broods a rarity. This is because males that carry the SR chromosome produce only half as many sperm as normal males. When a female mates with multiple males, their sperm will compete to fertilise her eggs. The few sperm produced by males carrying the SR chromosome are out-competed by the sperm from normal males, and the SR chromosome cannot spread.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 25 Feb 10
     
    Promiscuous females may be the key to a species' survival, according to new research by the Universities of Exeter and Liverpool. Published today (25 February) in Current Biology, the study could solve the mystery of why females of most species have multiple mates, despite this being more risky for the individual.
Skeptical Debunker

Pink Floyd wins battle with EMI over downloads - Mar. 11, 2010 - 0 views

money.cnn.com/...index.htm

Pink Floyd lawsuit win legal battle EMI

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 11 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Skeptical Debunker on 11 Mar 10
     
    Pink Floyd won a legal battle Thursday against EMI that prevents the band's long-time record label from selling individual songs online. Sir Andrew Morritt, chancellor of Britain's High Court, ruled that Pink Floyd's contract forbids EMI from breaking up the band's albums without its permission, according to a spokeswoman for the British judicial system. EMI had argued that the stipulation only applied to physical albums, not online sales.
Skeptical Debunker

Belief In Climate Change Hinges On Worldview : NPR - 0 views

www.npr.org/...story.php

social science individuals communitarians climate change disagreement

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 25 Feb 10 - Cached
  • "People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view," Braman says. The Cultural Cognition Project has conducted several experiments to back that up. Participants in these experiments are asked to describe their cultural beliefs. Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise. They are labeled the "individualistic" group. Others are suspicious of authority or of commerce and industry. Braman calls them "communitarians." In one experiment, Braman queried these subjects about something unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology — new research into tiny, molecule-sized objects that could lead to novel products. "These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says. The individualists tended to like nanotechnology. The communitarians generally viewed it as dangerous. Both groups made their decisions based on the same information. "It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information," Braman says.
  • "Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values," says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project. Kahan says people test new information against their preexisting view of how the world should work. "If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way," he says. And if the information doesn't, you tend to reject it. In another experiment, people read a United Nations study about the dangers of global warming. Then the researchers told the participants that the solution to global warming is to regulate industrial pollution. Many in the individualistic group then rejected the climate science. But when more nuclear power was offered as the solution, says Braman, "they said, you know, it turns out global warming is a serious problem."And for the communitarians, climate danger seemed less serious if the only solution was more nuclear power.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Then there's the "messenger" effect. In an experiment dealing with the dangers versus benefits of a vaccine, the scientific information came from several people. They ranged from a rumpled and bearded expert to a crisply business-like one. The participants tended to believe the message that came from the person they considered to be more like them. In relation to the climate change debate, this suggests that some people may not listen to those whom they view as hard-core environmentalists. "If you have people who are skeptical of the data on climate change," Braman says, "you can bet that Al Gore is not going to convince them at this point." So, should climate scientists hire, say, Newt Gingrich as their spokesman? Kahan says no. "The goal can't be to create a kind of psychological house of mirrors so that people end up seeing exactly what you want," he argues. "The goal has to be to create an environment that allows them to be open-minded."And Kahan says you can't do that just by publishing more scientific data.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 25 Feb 10
     
    "It's a hoax," said coal company CEO Don Blankenship, "because clearly anyone that says that they know what the temperature of the Earth is going to be in 2020 or 2030 needs to be put in an asylum because they don't." On the other side of the debate was environmentalist Robert Kennedy, Jr. "Ninety-eight percent of the research climatologists in the world say that global warming is real, that its impacts are going to be catastrophic," he argued. "There are 2 percent who disagree with that. I have a choice of believing the 98 percent or the 2 percent." To social scientist and lawyer Don Braman, it's not surprising that two people can disagree so strongly over science. Braman is on the faculty at George Washington University and part of The Cultural Cognition Project, a group of scholars who study how cultural values shape public perceptions and policy
Skeptical Debunker

We're so good at medical studies that most of them are wrong - 0 views

arstechnica.com/...hat-most-of-them-are-wrong.ars

statistics medicine studies failures

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 03 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Statistical validation of results, as Shaffer described it, simply involves testing the null hypothesis: that the pattern you detect in your data occurs at random. If you can reject the null hypothesis—and science and medicine have settled on rejecting it when there's only a five percent or less chance that it occurred at random—then you accept that your actual finding is significant. The problem now is that we're rapidly expanding our ability to do tests. Various speakers pointed to data sources as diverse as gene expression chips and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which provide tens of thousands of individual data points to analyze. At the same time, the growth of computing power has meant that we can ask many questions of these large data sets at once, and each one of these tests increases the prospects than an error will occur in a study; as Shaffer put it, "every decision increases your error prospects." She pointed out that dividing data into subgroups, which can often identify susceptible subpopulations, is also a decision, and increases the chances of a spurious error. Smaller populations are also more prone to random associations. In the end, Young noted, by the time you reach 61 tests, there's a 95 percent chance that you'll get a significant result at random. And, let's face it—researchers want to see a significant result, so there's a strong, unintentional bias towards trying different tests until something pops out. Young went on to describe a study, published in JAMA, that was a multiple testing train wreck: exposures to 275 chemicals were considered, 32 health outcomes were tracked, and 10 demographic variables were used as controls. That was about 8,800 different tests, and as many as 9 million ways of looking at the data once the demographics were considered.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 03 Mar 10
     
    It's possible to get the mental equivalent of whiplash from the latest medical findings, as risk factors are identified one year and exonerated the next. According to a panel at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, this isn't a failure of medical research; it's a failure of statistics, and one that is becoming more common in fields ranging from genomics to astronomy. The problem is that our statistical tools for evaluating the probability of error haven't kept pace with our own successes, in the form of our ability to obtain massive data sets and perform multiple tests on them. Even given a low tolerance for error, the sheer number of tests performed ensures that some of them will produce erroneous results at random.
Skeptical Debunker

Switzerland Keeping the Secrets of Alleged Tax Evaders - Yahoo! News - 0 views

news.yahoo.com/...08599196842500

Swiss banks tax cheaters

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 07 Mar 10 - Cached
  • Pick a dictator, almost any dictator - Cuba's Fulgencio Batista, the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos, Haiti's Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, the Shah of Iran, Central African Republic Emperor Jean-BÉdel Bokassa - and they all have this in common: they allegedly stashed their loot in secret, numbered accounts in Swiss banks, safely guarded by the so-called Gnomes of Zurich. This association - of bank secrecy and crime - has been fed into the public's imagination by dozens of books and movies. It's a reputation that rankles the Swiss, who have a more benevolent view of their commitment to privacy - one that happens to extend to tax privacy. Don't ask, because we won't tell. But the dramatic federal investigation of Switzerland's UBS has blown the lid off bank secrecy - and revealed how Swiss banks abet tax evasion on a far more widespread, if more banal, level. Over the past two decades, these secret banking services have been peddled progressively downmarket - first to the lesser-known fabulously wealthy, then to just the wealthy; more recently, private bankers have been tripping over themselves soliciting business from doctors, lawyers and other folks who are what the biz generally calls "high net worth" individuals. "The IRS has been concerned for decades that a combination of a global economy, the Internet, offshore banking, was really going to take offshore tax evasion from the old so-called 'gentlemen's sport' to tax evasion for the masses," says Mark Matthews, a former deputy IRS commissioner and now a tax attorney with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 07 Mar 10
     
    The federal investigation into UBS, which led to a $780 million fine and an agreement to turn over the names of more than 4,450 suspected tax cheats, is now in tatters after Swiss courts ruled against the executive-branch deal. To get around it, a special law has been proposed to accomplish the handoff, but that may not get anywhere in the legislature either. One outcome is already known: tax evasion had become a key service of the Swiss economy, not some isolated event. "They have been outed completely because a very large chunk of their business has been shown to include people cheating on taxes," says Jack Blum, a tax-haven expert. Being "reasonably conservative," he estimates 30% of Swiss banking is related to tax evasion, a figure that jibes with recently released bank data. These revelations come as the financial meltdown has punched a huge hole in projected revenues for governments, which are suddenly a whole lot less tolerant of tax cheats. That's particularly true in Germany, whose wealthy account for a significant portion (at least 10%) of the $1.8 trillion in Swiss banking assets. That translates into hundreds of millions in lost revenue and is the reason the German Finance Minister recently thundered, "There's no future for bank secrecy. It's finished. Its time has run out." The Swiss are not going to be so easily convinced. The Swiss government has already warned that it will not cooperate with German authorities if they go ahead with plans to purchase purloined data about Germans with Swiss bank accounts.
Skeptical Debunker

Hold vendors liable for buggy software, group says - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...dors_Liable_for_Buggy_Software

vendor liability software security

shared by Skeptical Debunker on 09 Mar 10 - Cached
  • "The only way programming errors can be eradicated is by making software development organizations legally liable for the errors," he said. SANS and Mitre, a Bedford, Mass.-based government contractor, also released their second annual list of the top 25 security errors made by programmers. The authors said those errors have been at the root of almost every major type of cyberattack, including the recent hacks of Google and numerous utilities and government agencies. According to the list, the most common mistakes continue to involve SQL injection errors, cross-site scripting flaws and buffer overflow vulnerabilities. All three have been well-known problems for
  • Skeptical Debunker on 09 Mar 10
     
    A coalition of security experts from more than 30 organizations is urging enterprises to exert more pressure on software vendors to ensure that they use secure code development practices. The group, led by the SANS Institute and Mitre Corp., offered enterprises recent hacks of Google draft contract language that would require vendors to adhere to a strict set of security standards for software development. In essence, the terms would make vendors liable for software defects that lead to security breaches. "Nearly every attack is enabled by [programming] mistakes that provide a handhold for attackers," said Alan Paller, director of research at SANS, a security training and certification group.
  • Skeptical Debunker on 09 Mar 10
     
    Of course, a more general way to address this and other "business" generated problems / abuses (like expensive required "arbitration" by companies owned and in bed with the companies requiring the arbitration!), is to FORBID contract elements that effectively strip any party of certain "rights" (like the right to sue for defectives; the right to freedom of speech; the right to warranty protections; the right to hold either party to public or published promises / representations, etc.). Basically, by making LYING and DECEIT and NEGLIGENCE liability and culpability unrestricted. Or will we hear / be told that being honest and producing a quality product is "anti-business"? What!? Is this like, if I can't lie and cheat being in business isn't worth it!? If that is true, then those parties and businesses could just as well "go away"! Just as "conservatives" say other criminals like that should. One may have argued that the software industry would never have "gotten off the ground" (at least, as fast as it did) if such strict liability had been enforced (as say, was eventually and is more often applied to physical building and their defects / collapses). That is, that the EULAs and contracts typically accompanying software ("not represented as fit for any purpose" more or less!) had been restricted. On the other hand, we might have gotten software somewhat slower but BETTER - NOT being associated with or causing the BILLIONS of dollars in losses due to bugs, security holes, etc. Others will rail that this will merely "make lawyers richer". So what if it will? As long as government isn't primarily "on the side" of the majority of the people (you know, like a "democracy" should be), then being able to get a individual "hired gun" is one of the only ways for the "little guy" to effectively defend themselves from corporate criminals and other "special interest" elites.
1 - 6 of 6
Showing 20▼ items per page