Tim, I don't know about you but in my opinion and experience there are many, many, many police who do not abuse their position of authority - probably most of them. Perhaps the judicious use of the modifier "some" would be more appropriate, as in:
"Maybe the only ways some cops can embrace change is with chokeholds and bullets."
So as is well known and proven, how you phrase a poll question has a huge impact on how the people responding choose to answer.
I wonder if the results would have been the same, if these had been the questions...
(1) Revised question: 'A Pew poll shows Americans say, by a two-to-one margin (56-28), say the CIA's interrogation methods after 9/11 (primarily actions explicitly identified in the Geneva Conventions -- which the United States is bound by after near unanimous passage by both houses of Congress, and legislation which Ronald Reagan gladly and enthusiastically signed) such as simulated drowning and other abusive conditions:
Answer in WP's article: '"provided intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks.'
(2) Revised question: A CBS News poll said that 57 percent of Americans think the that torture techniques such as waterboarding and other interrogation techniques -- which the existing anecdotal evidence suggests result in false information due to the torturee's instinctual reaction to save his life by saying whatever the torturer seems to want -- practiced by the CIA:
'"provided reliable information that helped prevent terrorist attacks" either "often" or "sometimes." Just 8 percent say it "never" provides quality information, while 24 percent say it "rarely" does.'
(3) A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday morning shows people say 53-31 that the CIA's program did:
'On the asssumption that torture provides reliable information -- which anecdotal evidence strongly suggests is not the case, produce important information that could not have been obtained any other way.'
I find it... less than convincing that the "average American" has either the familiarity with the small amount of information about the efficacy of torture methods, or the inclination to devote much in the way of thought on the mater.
So -- hooray polls! Hope WP at least sold some ads or something...
Whether or not car imports/exports make up half of the projected total trade increase doesn't really matter. When domestic car production increases to serve exports this provides income to workers, who then purchase cars, some of which will come from the EU. Unless the increased import volume results in significant displacement of US auto production jobs, on net it seems that this could have meaningful positive effects, at least for the auto sector.
This law makes me feel uncomfortable and threatened. Unless we want to countenance the complete breakdown of civil society and render the law impotent, the mayor must be found guilty!
Can I just point out that WTC may in fact have as a condition of sale, that the album (or parts of it) must be made available to the public at a price of >= $0 w/in some time frame? The excerpt quoted in this post only states that "the iconic hip-hop collective will make and sell just one copy of the album"
I guess what I'm saying is that a future public leak may in fact be an intentional feature & not just left up to the buyer's whim...
We shouldn't be surprised -- didn't Congress pass a law that specifically exempted telcos from any prior illegal cooperation, while at or near the same time the intelligence agencies were given the ability to compel future telco cooperation under seal? If I were the head of a major telco and believed that my job was to maximize return to shareholders, why wouldn't I cooperate? Where is the downside?
I think it's a craven and -- in the best sense of the word -- unpatriotic position, but unfortunately the reality "on the ground" doesn't surprise me in the least.
Mike, the FDA isn't at all saying that every claim that 23andme makes in its promotion of its service is problematic, just that there are specific claims they make in their promotional communication that can -- depending on how an individual decides how to respond -- lead to predictably negative health outcomes.
In your article you use the phrase "most people" a lot. The FDA in its review of appropriate medical claims made -- particularly in direct-to-consumer communications -- is not concerned with "most people". It is concerned with "some people" to the extent that they may use this information in a way that will predictably lead those "some people" to negative health outcomes.
Perhaps that would be an individual deciding they don't need to follow the therapy prescribed by their physician.
Perhaps, and 23andme is clear about this possibility, the test results related to a specific potential illness aren't 100% accurate -- a 'false negative'. And then an individual decides either to stop adhering to a current prescribed therapy, or not to seek benefit of any advice or intervention from a physician in the event of a possible risk factor.
This is the difference between genotype and phenotype. 23andme's test characterizes genotype. They don't claim 100% accuracy. They provide only statistical guidance as to what a specific test result may infer. Phenotype refers to a specific individual's actual medical condition based upon the specific expression of their genes, in the context of that individual's environment.
A physician's diagnosis of actual or potential illness is based upon phenotype -- the individual expression of their genotype.
There is plenty of evidence showing that incorrect patient interpretations, assumptions, or simply preferences with respect to adherence to prescribed therapy is not unusual, and can result in serious medical consequences.
Based upon the limited information I have seen, the FDA is concerned with specific claims 23andme makes in its direct-to-consumer advertising about specific medical conditions which may lead an individual to either make bad decisions to follow existing prescribed therapies, or to conclude that they can discount or eliminate the possibility that they will ever be susceptible to an illness which could be present due to their phenotype.
I can appreciate a healthy skepticism about whether the current medical delivery system and physician training environment and conditioning always lead to an optimal result. In this case, I don't think that the FDA's action is a result of either.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by RJ.
Don't use such a broad brush?
Tim, I don't know about you but in my opinion and experience there are many, many, many police who do not abuse their position of authority - probably most of them. Perhaps the judicious use of the modifier "some" would be more appropriate, as in:
"Maybe the only ways some cops can embrace change is with chokeholds and bullets."
Oh boy! Polling!
So as is well known and proven, how you phrase a poll question has a huge impact on how the people responding choose to answer.
I wonder if the results would have been the same, if these had been the questions...
(1) Revised question: 'A Pew poll shows Americans say, by a two-to-one margin (56-28), say the CIA's interrogation methods after 9/11 (primarily actions explicitly identified in the Geneva Conventions -- which the United States is bound by after near unanimous passage by both houses of Congress, and legislation which Ronald Reagan gladly and enthusiastically signed) such as simulated drowning and other abusive conditions:
Answer in WP's article: '"provided intelligence that helped prevent terrorist attacks.'
(2) Revised question: A CBS News poll said that 57 percent of Americans think the that torture techniques such as waterboarding and other interrogation techniques -- which the existing anecdotal evidence suggests result in false information due to the torturee's instinctual reaction to save his life by saying whatever the torturer seems to want -- practiced by the CIA:
'"provided reliable information that helped prevent terrorist attacks" either "often" or "sometimes." Just 8 percent say it "never" provides quality information, while 24 percent say it "rarely" does.'
(3) A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday morning shows people say 53-31 that the CIA's program did:
'On the asssumption that torture provides reliable information -- which anecdotal evidence strongly suggests is not the case, produce important information that could not have been obtained any other way.'
I find it... less than convincing that the "average American" has either the familiarity with the small amount of information about the efficacy of torture methods, or the inclination to devote much in the way of thought on the mater.
So -- hooray polls! Hope WP at least sold some ads or something...
Minor quibble w/trade flows analysis
Whether or not car imports/exports make up half of the projected total trade increase doesn't really matter. When domestic car production increases to serve exports this provides income to workers, who then purchase cars, some of which will come from the EU. Unless the increased import volume results in significant displacement of US auto production jobs, on net it seems that this could have meaningful positive effects, at least for the auto sector.
This law makes me feel uncomfortable and threatened. Unless we want to countenance the complete breakdown of civil society and render the law impotent, the mayor must be found guilty!
Brilliant
Can I just point out that WTC may in fact have as a condition of sale, that the album (or parts of it) must be made available to the public at a price of >= $0 w/in some time frame? The excerpt quoted in this post only states that "the iconic hip-hop collective will make and sell just one copy of the album"
I guess what I'm saying is that a future public leak may in fact be an intentional feature & not just left up to the buyer's whim...
Predictable
We shouldn't be surprised -- didn't Congress pass a law that specifically exempted telcos from any prior illegal cooperation, while at or near the same time the intelligence agencies were given the ability to compel future telco cooperation under seal? If I were the head of a major telco and believed that my job was to maximize return to shareholders, why wouldn't I cooperate? Where is the downside?
I think it's a craven and -- in the best sense of the word -- unpatriotic position, but unfortunately the reality "on the ground" doesn't surprise me in the least.
23andme
Mike, the FDA isn't at all saying that every claim that 23andme makes in its promotion of its service is problematic, just that there are specific claims they make in their promotional communication that can -- depending on how an individual decides how to respond -- lead to predictably negative health outcomes.
In your article you use the phrase "most people" a lot. The FDA in its review of appropriate medical claims made -- particularly in direct-to-consumer communications -- is not concerned with "most people". It is concerned with "some people" to the extent that they may use this information in a way that will predictably lead those "some people" to negative health outcomes.
Perhaps that would be an individual deciding they don't need to follow the therapy prescribed by their physician.
Perhaps, and 23andme is clear about this possibility, the test results related to a specific potential illness aren't 100% accurate -- a 'false negative'. And then an individual decides either to stop adhering to a current prescribed therapy, or not to seek benefit of any advice or intervention from a physician in the event of a possible risk factor.
This is the difference between genotype and phenotype. 23andme's test characterizes genotype. They don't claim 100% accuracy. They provide only statistical guidance as to what a specific test result may infer. Phenotype refers to a specific individual's actual medical condition based upon the specific expression of their genes, in the context of that individual's environment.
A physician's diagnosis of actual or potential illness is based upon phenotype -- the individual expression of their genotype.
There is plenty of evidence showing that incorrect patient interpretations, assumptions, or simply preferences with respect to adherence to prescribed therapy is not unusual, and can result in serious medical consequences.
Based upon the limited information I have seen, the FDA is concerned with specific claims 23andme makes in its direct-to-consumer advertising about specific medical conditions which may lead an individual to either make bad decisions to follow existing prescribed therapies, or to conclude that they can discount or eliminate the possibility that they will ever be susceptible to an illness which could be present due to their phenotype.
I can appreciate a healthy skepticism about whether the current medical delivery system and physician training environment and conditioning always lead to an optimal result. In this case, I don't think that the FDA's action is a result of either.