Comments on: Links for February 2013

By: James James

James James — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:31:35 +0000

Like smartphones reducing vandalism to bus stops.

By: Alex V.

Alex V. — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 05:47:28 +0000

No. The equivalent for dismissing illegally obtained evidence would be to revoke Merck’s patents regarding this drug (and thus make big pharma more reserved in doing bad things for profit). Same way, the equivalent for taking a useful drug off the market would be something along the lines of not just ignoring inadmissible evidence, but dismissing all other legitimate evidence too because some of the evidence was inadmissible.

Report comment

By: Douglas Knight

Douglas Knight — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:05:42 +0000

The correct link is textcelerator.

Report comment

By: Randy M

Randy M — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:36:23 +0000

I’m not sure why outraged; personally I find it convincing. Not, say, using coerced confessions, but say you find the murder weapon without a warrant, suspects fingerprints & victims blood on a knife. Do we let a murderer loose in order to perserve the system? I’d say no, but the police who violated the rules regarding searches should be fined, fired, and possibly horsewhipped as well.

Report comment

By: Rory O’Kane

Rory O’Kane — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:11:02 +0000

Are you sure you have the right link for Jim’s text accelerator? The software at your link has a list of features not including speed reading, but about text manipulation and formatting instead. And that software is made by Tordex, a Russian company, which would be unusual if you met Jim in Boston.

Report comment

By: Scott Alexander

Scott Alexander — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:44:58 +0000

I want to get very outraged and say “No it’s not!”, but now I can’t remember what the argument against doing that with evidence obtained without a search warrant is.

Report comment

By: Randy M

Randy M — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:25:15 +0000

“In any case, if it had been decided they acted wrongly then sure, give Merck a huge fine, destroy the company, whatever, but don’t let a useful drug get taken off the market just to spite your face.”

That’s the same arguement for convicting someone based on evidence obtained without a search warrant, isn’t it?

Report comment

By: Scott Alexander

Scott Alexander — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:57:30 +0000

Sorry. I’d switched the links to the pictures and the answer key. They’re fixed now.

Report comment

By: atreic

atreic — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 08:47:46 +0000

I got a bit confused by the superbowl one, as it feels like you’ve linked to the answers, not the pictures, and you have to click another link to get to the pictures…

Report comment

By: Doug S.

Doug S. — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 06:12:11 +0000

Researchers investigating the link between violent video games and violent personality usually find some sort of vague weak positive results. But I wasn’t aware that a closely related study – investigating the link between violent video game sales numbers and crime rate numbers – find a significant decrease in crime when video game sales go up.

Video games are relatively cheap for the number of hours of entertainment they provide, and they’re played indoors in private. Perhaps video games decrease crime by simply soaking up the free time of people who would otherwise be out causing trouble? (On the other hand, this is equally true of television watching, so never mind.)

Report comment