Posts by richard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
What I meant is that if they made the first round a random draw, it wouldn't produce discernably different outcomes with respect to quality, and there would be a great time-saving for researchers and panellists alike (ie non-monetary cost)
I suspect this is not true. A lot of genuinely weak proposals are probably weeded out during the first screening, and it is hard to see how sending some of these through to the second round would help the writers of strong proposals (since this is a zero sum game).
I have never applied for Marsden money, but I have written a fair number of grants, and reviewed proposals for funding agencies in several countries, and I rather like this approach. It is pretty much a law of nature that your specific enthusiasm will be grossly under-represented on the panel. Everyone who is not funded will be sure of this, but it is usually true even for people who are funded -- the Marsden is unusually open, but I have heard people applying for pots of money restricted to astrophysics say that the panelists are all the WRONG SORT of astrophysicist.
It strikes me that what is really being asked for with this short pre-proposal is an "elevator pitch" -- the 30 second summary of your idea you can give to a bigshot you just happen to find yourself standing next to in an elevator (ok, lift, since this is New Zealand). And this is not an intrinsically unreasonable request.
(But I do agree that many good Marsden projects must go unfunded -- whereas usually when I sit on grant panels in the US, I can see some people who are unlucky, but the fraction of deserving proposals that receive funding is typically much higher than in NZ)
-
Actually, going from memory here, didn't this clown say that it was adultery that caused the earthquakes, and that immodest dressing was a problem inasmuch as it encouraged adultery. In that case you could half the population go topless for the day, and not actually test the specific hypothesis in question, unless they simultaneously adulterated themselves...
-
Amusingly, the numbers on whether sex crimes increased in Sweden rose because of the ban on prostitution actually seem a little iffy to me.
This plot begins in 1999 (when the law passed) but this one goes back to 1998 and shows a rising trend before the passage of the law (albeit only for a year or two, and that depending on just when in 1999 the law passed.)
I have other things to do with my evening than research Swedish sex crime statistics, but it is hard to see that the claim that clamping down on prostitution is causally correlated with a rise in sexual offending passes the sniff test. (This data does not speak to claim that life got harder for prostitutes themselves, I hasten to add.)
-
One or two have in the past. But surely the point is that it isn't about something neat and tidy like that?
Eh? Gambling is neat and tidy, but prostitution is not??
Both of them are age old human practices, both of them will still exist even if they are banned by law, both of them can cause demonstrable harm, both of them can be associated with crime and violence.
It strikes me a useful (if not foolproof) test of any argument about sex is whether it looks vacuous when applied to something OTHER than sex. And I think Emma's claims fail this test.
I am not disputing Emma's claim that sex workers may "know more" about the sex industry than other people.
However, statements like this: "A hundred women a year come to Iceland from overseas to work in the sex industry, and some of them may or may not be trafficked, nobody seems to know ... every single sex worker has forfeited the right to have a say when their job is taken away from them by legislation" are primarily about sex workers right to self-determination and economic autonomy, and in this sense they are in every way analogous to some sweaty publican complaining about the nanny state driving the small businessman to the wall when he has to unplug a couple of poker machines. (Although in fairness, it is Emma making the statement, and not the sweaty publican.)
Not only that, Emma seems remarkably blase about the risk of trafficking -- just what percentage of trafficked women in this hundred a year would constitute a problem for her?
Finally, Russell, you seem to assume that harm reduction strategies are always antithetical to efforts to reduce the total consumption of an illicit good. This may often be the case, but it seems like a huge leap to assert that it is always the case (although I would grant you that it might often be the case).
-
But actually yes, if I wanted to know about the patterns of problem gamblers, what they have in common, what makes them stop a session, how you recognise them, croupiers are one of the groups I'd want to talk to. Why does that seem so insane to you?
Well, you said insane, not me :-)
The broader point is that a society may decide it has a legitimate interest in minimizing activities like gambling or prostitution. And given that, while one might certainly consult croupiers or prostitutes, one wouldn't necessarily give their views a huge amount of precedence, if you had decided that you wanted to see their industry shrink substantially.
If this discussion was about restricting the number of poker machines in bars, I suspect very few people here would be making passionate arguments about the rights of publicans to run their business as they see fit.
-
It seems to me to be simple pragmatism. The people working in the sex industry are the people who know the most about it.
Just like people who work in the gambling industry know the most about it, so they are the first ones we should consult about regulating it?
Bzzt. Thank you for playing.
Or perhaps not?
-
Just one of the outrageous things Wakefield did was take blood samples from children attending his son's 5th birthday party. Even though he had no prior ethical approval (as if anyone would give it), it was apparently OK with his supporters as each child was paid 5 pounds
Astonishing, eh. Apparently experimenting on children without parental consent or ethical approval is OK, but vaccination is the work of the devil.
-
Actually, New Scientist is a bit of a rag these days, and has been for a while, at least as far as a lot of their particle physics and cosmology coverage is concerned.
But lumping it into paranormal does seem harsh.
-
richard: I felt very clever for spotting the Moniac reference, and then re-reading I discovered my edition of MM actually has a front note which explicitly credits the Moniac as the inspiration for the Glooper.
By an odd coincidence the New York Times (I think) had a piece on the Moniac not long after I read Making Money -- and that was what made the link for me.
-
Wow.
Must admit my main thought (after the first few screensful of blog) was that it must be raining really REALLY hard in Auckland today :-)