StrangeSox

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ May 2, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) yes 20.2 percent is a large increase, but i just don't think its safe to make definitive statements that insinuate that every single person with 3 or more concussions will have triple the rate of depression, when the study said 20.2 percent of 595 people that were interviewed had triple the depression rate. This statement doesn't make any sense. They're not saying that their depression is three times as bad but that this population subset, ex-NFL players with 3+ concussions, is three times as likely to have concussions. 20.2% interviewed had depression, individuals don't have rates of disease.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:57 PM) in 20.2 percent of 595 cases, not 100 percent. This is not correct. You are misunderstanding what the statistics represent and what "tripling" the rate of depression means.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:53 PM) ok but don't say that this is CONCLUSIVE evidence that concussions = depression.. if the article says 100 percent or heck even 90 percent of people with 3 or more concussions have depression, then yes that is damn conclusive evidence. otherwise all you can say is that there is a chance that you will suffer from depression. A less than 50 percent chance even, which seems to be a magic number when it comes to a convincing poll. Strongly increasing the likelihood of depression does not imply that every single sufferer of concussions will have depression. That's a pretty dishonest interpretation of what's being claimed. You need to compare rates of depression against those of the normal population. Think of it like this hypothetical: Exposure to Product X is claimed to increase your risk of cancer. In the normal population, only 3% of people get this particular cancer. In the group exposed to this Product X, 15% get this cancer. Would you say that it isn't conclusive that exposure to this product increases your likelihood of getting cancer because it isn't above 50% (this is a weird misunderstanding of stats, btw), or would you say that a 5x increase in cancer rates is pretty damn conclusive?

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:49 PM) definitive studies = polling 595 players that have had 3 or more concussions and having only 20.2 percent of them say yes they suffer from depression. SCIENCE! A sample size of 595 from the pool of ex-NFL players is huge and more than enough for statistical significance. Qualifying 20.2% as "only" has to be done by comparing it to the control group (non-NFL players) response rate.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:43 PM) I have one skiddish cat. When we introduced a new dog, she was very scared at first, but gradually got better. One thing that helped was a very tall cat tree. She could sit at the top and observe the dog walking around without feeling threatened at all. She eventually learned the dog was no big deal. Yeah, having lots of high places for cats to escape is key to their being comfortable in general. Having an up-high path out of the room is good, too.

"I don't know where he is. [...] I truly am not that concerned about him." How is that substantially different from saying he didn't give a s*** where he was? He said he didn't know and wasn't concerned.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:43 PM) No more funny than Democrats exploiting it after complaining for years about Republicans doing it. If Obama had simply spoke to his accomplishment of overseeing the operation that killed Osama, I'd say that there wasn't real equivalency. But dragging Romney into it explicitly and implying that his opponent wouldn't have taken out the bad man is pretty similar to attacking Democrats by saying they're against removing a brutal dictator.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) I find that incredibly hard to believe. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/14/nation/na-osama14 Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? W: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:33 PM) I totally disagree with the idea that this is somehow politically dumb. The whole reason why the Republicans, including both Romney and 2 posts above, are annoyed, is that this is an effective attack that can literally use the current candidate's own words. Are low-information undecided voters really going to buy into the idea that the Republican candidate, the guy representing the party constantly calling for war, is soft on terror? He could have bragged about his decision and implied that it was a tough choice that not everyone would have made. This would still have gotten Romney on the defensive but then it isn't such a blatant partisan attack. On the other hand, Republicans whining about using this as a partisan cudgel is pretty funny in light of the 2002-2008 use of 9/11 and removing Saddam.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:33 PM) Bush and Obama said they would do that years before Osama's whereabouts were known. It really wasn't all that shocking. Bush, at one point, said he didn't give a s*** where Osama was. I think Obama was talking about this specific operation which was far from a guaranteed thing. He could have decided to hold and wait for more information and an increased likelihood of success but chose to proceed.

Going after Romney does seem pretty cheap, though. He could have done a victory lap and scored political points without resorting to that. It's pretty dumb politically because it's not like Obama's going to flip the "Dems are weak on military/CT" script with that shot.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) No, the accomplishment is fine, the crap about Romney not making the same decision is crap. Of all things, finding and killing Bin Laden should have been a non-partisan issue. It should have been a collective, celebratory anniversary. Instead Obama crapped all over that and used it to try and score political points. The decision to go ahead with a high-risk operation in a foreign country without their knowledge and approval is not an open-and-shut case. edit: "even Carter would have done it" with that implication that Carter was weak is a pretty dumb thing to say, too, since Carter, you know, approved that rescue operation into Iran that ended tragically.

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem. Interesting editorial in the WP examining the dysfunction in the GOP these days and how a Madisonian system isn't well-equipped to handle it.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ May 2, 2012 -> 02:13 PM) Yeah, our puppy LOVES the cats but the cats are extremely skeptical of him. One of our cats likes to tease him from behind the safety of the dog gate. The other one likes to snuggle with him when he's sleeping. He just wants to chase them... always. Do your cats have their front claws? One does, one doesn't. The older cat that doesn't have claws was terrified of the kitten for a few weeks when we brought her home, so I'm sure she'll love the dog.

That's going to be my wife's biggest concern by far. She knows that they're going to hate it, at least for a while, but she doesn't want to introduce anything dangerous.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 2, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) Any allergies in the family? I have random dog allergies. I'm allergic to boxers and my in-law's golden but not other goldens. I pump myself full of allergy medication for the cats anyway.

I've seen people have success with the pinch-type collars before.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 2, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) Home with a yard or apartment/condo? Do you want a relatively active dog or a lazier loungier type? Home with a big, fenced yard and a couple of cats. Most likely on the active side.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 2, 2012 -> 01:22 PM) Any idea what size dog you want? Probably medium-ish, 40 lb range.

We're looking at adopting a dog after we get back from vacation in about 6 weeks. Anyone have recommendations on local shelters/rescue societies?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 2, 2012 -> 12:49 PM) I will not be reading any of this, but here's 10 minutes of Hobbit spoilers for anyone who wants them. Spoilers

QUOTE (bighurt574 @ May 2, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) The way I see it, Cowley is a professional writer, his entire job is using words to convey thoughts. If he's not smart enough to know that his alleged attempt at humor (if that's really what it was) could be misconstrued, he's an idiot and could be fired for incompetence. There seem to be a lot of people who don't realize that things said on Facebook and twitter have the ability to spread rapidly and be preserved forever.

If a team scores more points than their opponent, they'll likely win the game. The Bulls just need to play basketball better and outscore their opponents--this will likely lead to success.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 19, 2011 -> 06:00 PM) The 4th Amendment took a beating on Monday with the SCOTUS' 8-1 ruling in Kentucky v King. the opinion QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 20, 2011 -> 08:54 AM) That's a ridiculous exaggeration and you know it. That is not what this decision said, at all. The Kentucky SC issued their opinion on remand in this case, finding that the facts in the case did not create an exigent circumstance. Mea cupla on my part, and I'm glad they ruled this way. Some commentary here.

This cartoon depicts the huge number of unemployed people weighing down the welfare state and thus holding back the economy. The tragedy of this waste of human potential is heightened by the observation that even a high level of education isn't saving people any more. Implicit in the metaphor is the obvious solution that if everyone got out and pushed, the economy could move forward. Clearly, then, the welfare state should incorporate public employment. A good cartoon.