Leaderboard

Aw, shucks. I just stumbled into this and can at least clarify a few things: Yes, GIB is in my past. :( Yes, I was Jeremy Claptrap. :) I've done a lot of things (GIB, Dr.Fill crossword program, math, computer scientist, run a couple of startups, had a play produced, stunt pilot, husband and father) but I think that's mostly because I'm old and get bored easily. I would love to be thought of as a Renaissance man, and am very flattered to even see my name mentioned in the same breath as that phrase. I don't know how self-promoting I am. If anyone wants to reach me, you can get me at maybetemporary /at/ gibware.com. As long as I leave the address active, that is. :) Thanks! Matt Ginsberg

Normally with entrenched views that other options are completely wrong.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png (source:xkcd.com) The question is how plausible it is that the student's change in attitude was caused by the course, as opposed to how plausible it is that some third factor caused the student to take the course and also caused the change in attitude. (And of course, there is the issue of robustness of the statistics. but let's say for the case of the argument that we observed a million students who took the course, and a million who didn't, and we observed a difference in attitude change rates between the two groups). I suppose it could be argued that drunk drivers are just irresponsible people and that they would have caused accidents anyway even if we somehow prevented them from driving. (lol I mean drinking of course!)

I had pretty much made up my mind to make no further responses to Mike's posts, and in a sense this is not really a response. I am finding it very difficult to believe you have any intention other than just being aggravating. If I have you wrong on this then you might want to work on your presentation a bit. I am pretty sure that you don't have to just take my word for this. Generally I believe in listening to people whether i agree with them or not, perhaps particularly when I don't agree. But there are exceptions.

The tobacco industry is indeed a good example. People, including my mother, were dying horrible deaths from lung cancer while the tobacco industry was altering their product to make it more addictive and running a marketing campaign aime at teenagers. No they didn't admit it and yes they were doing it. Immoral corporations, stupid consumers, and so on. I started smoking when I was 14. Yes, I knew it was harmful. I recall my high school math teacher, when he spotted my package of cigarettes, saying "You still smoking those coffin nails?". We knew. Sometime around 1980, I don't remember exactly, I spent a semester at Berkeley. San Francisco had just passed a law banning, or at least restricting, smoking in restaurants. There was a grass roots uprising with many signatures demanding a referendum. Momentum was building against such government interference with individual rights. Until it was demonstrated that the signatures were fake and the whole referendum movement was financed by the tobacco industry. At the time I predicted that by 1990 smoking would pretty much be totally outlawed in public places. I was off by a few years, it took longer, but it has happened. At some point people look at something and say: "This is nuts." Then things change. It doesn't happen overnight, but it happens. I think that ten or fifteen years from now we will look back in wonder at our permissiveness with guns. What in God's name were we thinking? I may again be off on the timing, but I think I am right about the eventual result. Sooner would be much better than later.

We sit across the table from one another don't say anything. Very unusual and it rakes in good results.