Tag Archives: data

Santelli’s Simple Answer to Deficit: ‘Stop Spending, Stop Spending, Stop Spending!’

If it were only that simple – that is the way CNBC’s Rick Santelli would have it. On CNBC’s June 28 “Squawk Box,” CNBC’s senior economics reporter Steve Liesman vigorously defended the need for higher tax rates as a measure to cut federal deficits. Others argued that government revenues would increase if tax rates were lower because it would stimulate growth. (h/t Real Clear Politics Video ) “Let me get this straight – all you guys want to cut taxes en route to bringing down the deficit?” Liesman asked. But according to Santelli, it has nothing to do with taxes, but the role of government in the economy. “No, I didn’t say anything about taxes, Steve,” Santelli shouted. “I want the government to stop spending! Stop spending, stop spending, stop spending, stop spending! That’s what we want, stop spending!” Liesman continued his defense of higher taxes, arguing they wouldn’t “pay for themselves,” but Santelli followed up with a suggestion for Liesman. “I just keep saying what the data show,” Liesman said. “The data show tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.” “You wouldn’t know data if it bit you on the nose,” Santelli, the CME Group reporter, said. “Go read some Austrian economists instead of the funny pages.” And Santelli suggested Liesman try a change of venue to get a better understanding of economics. “Go back to Russia where you understand the state and the citizen,” Santelli said. However, “Squawk Box” co-host Becky Quick said the government is occasionally needed to step and she alluded to the near financial collapse and ultimate passage of TARP in 2008. “I’m on Steve’s side on this,” Quick said. “There are times when the government has to step in. I think probably what happened two years ago was the time.” But that has caused a political backlash, demonstrated by European nations and their lack of willingness to employ government-spending policies. “Yes they did and a couple of trillion of dollars later they’re [the federal government] done because the taxpayers are the people voting and they’re done, Steve,” Santelli said. “Talk all you want, they’re done. Merkel’s done. Europe’s done because the voting electorate has said their done.” Liesman stuck to his line of reasoning argued the deficit was directly correlated to the economy and not as much as the amount government spending. “I don’t even care, Steve. Our deficit is too big and we need to knuckle under and we need to live too prudently, prudently,” Santelli fired back.

Read the original post:
Santelli’s Simple Answer to Deficit: ‘Stop Spending, Stop Spending, Stop Spending!’

Lying children will grow up to be successful citizens

Researchers have found that the ability to tell fibs at the age of two is a sign of a fast developing brain and means they are more likely to have successful lives. They found that the more plausible the lie, the more quick witted they will be in later years and the better their abiliy to think on their feet. It also means that they have developed “executive function” – the ability to invent a convincing lie by keeping the truth at the back of their mind. “Parents should not be alarmed if their child tells a fib,” said Dr Kang Lee, director of the Institute of Child Study at Toronto Universit who carried out the research. “Almost all children lie. Those who have better cognitive development lie better because they can cover up their tracks. They may make bankers in later life.” Lying involves multiple brain processes, such as integrating sources of information and manipulating the data to their advantage. It is linked to the development of brain regions that allow “executive functioning” and use higher order thinking and reasoning. Dr Lee and his team tested 1,200 children aged two to 16 years old. A majority of the volunteers told lies but it is the children with better cognitive abilities who can tell the best lies. At the age of two, 20 per cent of children will lie. This rises to 50 per cent by three and almost 90 per cent at four. The most deceitful age, they discovered, was 12, when almost every child tells lies. The tendency starts to fall away by the age of 16, when it is 70 per cent. As adulthood approaches, young people learn instead to use the less harmful “white lies” that everyone tells to avoid hurting people’s feelings. Researchers say there is no link between telling fibs in childhood and any tendency to cheat in exams or to become a fraudster later in life. Nor does strict parenting or a religious upbringing have any impact. Dr Lee said that catching your children lying was not a bad hing but should be exploited as a ” “teachable moment”. “You shouldn’t smack or scream at your child but you should talk about the importance of honesty and the negativity of lying,” he told the Sunday Times. “After the age of eight the opportunities are going to be very rare.” The research team invited younger children — one at a time — to sit in a room with hidden cameras. A soft toy was placed behind them. When the researcher briefly left the room, the children were told not to look. In nine out of 10 cases cameras caught them peeking. But when asked if they had looked, they almost always said no. They tripped themselves up when asked what they thought the toy might be. One little girl asked to place her hand underneath a blanket that was over the toy before she answered the question. After feeling the toy but not seeing it, she said: “It feels purple so it must be Barney.” Dr Lee, who caught his son Nathan, three, looking at the toy, said: “We even had cameras trained on their knees because we thought their legs would fidget if they were telling a lie, but it isn’t true.” Older children were set a test paper but were told they must not look at the answers printed on the back. Some of the questions were easy, such as who lives in the White House. But the children who looked at the back gave the printed answer “Presidius Akeman” to the bogus question “Who discovered Tunisia?” When asked how they knew this, some said they learnt it in a history class. added by: cclark_productions

Facebook Founder Called Trusting Users Dumb F*cks

Loveable Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg called his first few thousand users “dumb fucks” for trusting him with their data, published IM transcripts show. Facebook hasn't disputed the authenticity of the transcript. Zuckerberg was chatting with an unnamed friend, apparently in early 2004. Business Insider, which has a series of quite juicy anecdotes about Facebook's early days, takes the credit for this one. The exchange apparently ran like this: Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuck: Just ask. Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuck: People just submitted it. Zuck: I don't know why. Zuck: They “trust me” Zuck: Dumb f*cks more at link… Truth hurts. added by: rodstradamus

Health care reform also touches tanning beds, restaurant menus

(CNN) — The health care bill signed into law Tuesday by President Obama is the nation's most sweeping social legislation in four decades. But it also includes some smaller changes that will directly affect consumers. These include taxes on indoor tanning services, requirements for restaurants to post calorie information and changes to flexible spending accounts. Restaurants There are 540 calories in a Big Mac and 670 calories in a Whopper. Nutritional information will be unavoidable when customers step up to the counter to order. The health care law requires chain restaurants that have more than 20 locations to display calorie information next to the food item on the standard menu. The Food and Drug Administration has the task of establishing more specific regulations and determining when these changes go into effect. The health care law requires “succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake” that are “posted prominently on the menu and designed to enable the public to understand, in the context of a total daily diet, the significance of the caloric information that is provided on the menu.” Dr. Kelly Brownell, a Yale University psychology professor at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, conducted research that found that consumers choose lower-calorie food when their menus contained caloric information and a statement that said “an average person consumes 2,000 calories a day.” “A lot of people don't know what it means to have 600 calories,” he said. “They have no context and the legislation requires that anchor statement.” Nutrition facts would also be required to be posted on vending machine products and drive-thru menus. Temporary specials appearing on the menu for less than 60 days, condiments and test market foods are exempt. “Consumers have the right to this info whether or not it makes a difference on the diet,” Brownell said. “But I believe the data will ultimately show that it does.” YAY! There's going to be a food revolution! *throws confetti and dances naked under the stars* added by: Almibry

Girl Performs Poker Face on 4 iPhones

Link: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:193… That's amazing! That she can afford four data plans, that is. Read

Oscars ceremony 2010: All the major nominees and winners for the 2009 film season (Guardian Unlimited)

The Academy Awards – the Oscars – yesterday marked the culmination of the film industry’s 2009 awards season that has included the Baftas and Golden Globes. See if you predicted the results with the key nominees and winners here • Get the data • Oscar winners: the full list The 2009 Oscars ceremony took place in Hollywood last night , and most of the Datablog predictions (based on previous …

Link:
Oscars ceremony 2010: All the major nominees and winners for the 2009 film season (Guardian Unlimited)

Rupert Murdoch calls in Bill O’Reilly and "pollster" Frank Luntz to provide cover for yet another Palin misstep.

The first thing to address is whether or not Frank Luntz actually gathered a group of people that is representative of Obama voters. I am guessing not. And by the way WHY did they cut it off before the graph supposedly demonstrated how hateful the Obama voters were? The guy is well known for consistently skewing his data to reinforce the conclusions that Fox News pays him to reinforce. He is the guy who penned the memo that Republicans are using to try and kill the health care bill, and there is NOTHING bipartisan about his tactics. So let us get THAT out of the way right off the top. As I have addressed before the Family Guy episode was NOT aimed at Trig Palin. It contained one very slight dig at Sarah Palin, which SHE decided to capitalize on to, once again, play the victim. Only this time she was even too cowardly to do it herself, and had her daughter Bristol do the dirty work for her. Even the actress who played the part, a person with Down syndrome herself, understood the target of the joke . The only thing that is shown by this little act that Luntz and O’Reilly put on is that News Corp is still dedicated to cleaning up the messes that Sarah Palin makes in order to keep her from imploding before they have squeezed all of the potential revenue from of her appearances on Fox. After all Rupert Murdoch has made a sizable investment in Ms. Palin and, even though she is getting more batshit crazy by the day, he still stands to make a tidy sum from her in the next several months. Personally I want very much to be a fly on the wall at Fox News when we prove that Sarah did not give birth to her magical, popularity producing toddler. I wonder if MSNBC could sneak a camera in there on the big day? And as for Luntz’s ridiculous assertion that when it comes to Sarah Palin conservatives are more compassionate than liberals, I have to correct him. It is not that we are less compassionate, it is that we are less easy to fool. You see, unlike conservatives, when a woman puts a pillow under her scarf and tells us she is seven months pregnant and then produces a borrowed child to prove that she was not lying, liberals tend to be a tad skeptical. After all, as my previous post illustrates, we ARE the intelligent ones.

Continued here:
Rupert Murdoch calls in Bill O’Reilly and "pollster" Frank Luntz to provide cover for yet another Palin misstep.

Liberals have higher IQ’s than conservatives. Yeah like I needed a study to tell me that!

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly. The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people’s behaviors come to be. Well that is very satisfying to read now isn’t it? So what about religion? Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger. “It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere,” Kanazawa said. Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism “allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion,” Bailey said. “Historically, anything that’s new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence,” he noted. Seeing things that are new and different as a threat may have much to do with why many conservatives are so freaked out by having Obama in the White House. I do have to disagree with one point made in this article. I have read extensively about the origins and purpose of religion, and have come to believe that it DID play a significant role in the survival and dominance of humankind. The idea of religion provided people with the belief that they were entitled to the rewards found on this planet, and that other creatures, or even fellow humans of a different ethnicity or faith, were not favored by their God(s) and therefore less worthy of survival. This feeling of exclusivity kept early humans in closely knit groups which were more than willing to fight and die for their tribe and their God(s). It also impacted reproduction in that many religions contain very strong language encouraging large families and instructing followers to only mate with other members of their faith. In terms of competition for food and the ability to defend themselves, having larger numbers served to ensure the survival of people, and the religion provided a conduit through which they all felt connected. Religion also promised rewards in the afterlife for those who died protecting those who shared their faith making it easier to find warriors willing to sacrifice their life for the good of those in their religious community. Other than that small disagreement I find this study to fall right in line with many of the opinions that I have formed over the years.

Read the original:
Liberals have higher IQ’s than conservatives. Yeah like I needed a study to tell me that!

Just by visiting this website, you reveal who you are

Need another reason to be paranoid about companies and governments watching what you're doing online? A technology researcher has created a web tool that shows just how easy it is to identify you based on nothing more than a click.

See the original post here:
Just by visiting this website, you reveal who you are

Why You Shouldn’t Trust Facebook with Your Data: An Employee’s Revelations

The abuse of private data by Facebook employees was pretty much inevitable; the simple act of amassing data tends to lead to corruption. What’s sad is how lightly the social network reportedly controls its employees

Read the original post:
Why You Shouldn’t Trust Facebook with Your Data: An Employee’s Revelations