Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (135700)	5/21/2001 3:30:23 AM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Respond to of 186894

One thing a person can say is, Carter is an ethical and honest person What is this political BS doing here? Either defend your thread brethren and attack the AMD infidels or be silenced!!! <gg> P.S. I heard the Carter interview by Tim Russert. Carter is far too good a person to have ever gotten involved in politics. THE WATSONYOUTH

To: Amy J who wrote (135700)	5/21/2001 12:48:57 PM
From: dale_laroy	Respond to of 186894

>Only those research reports that back the administration are allowed to be performed, and they must back the agenda of the current administration in power - this is true no matter whether the party in power is Dem or Rep (unless the head isn't too buddy buddy, which is why I said it is a shame they are so buddy buddy). Thus, no checks and balance.< A friend of mine worked as a computer programmer for DEA. His assignment at one time was to "evaluate" the effectiveness of DEA activities at reducing drug use. To this end his program was speced to compare the rate of drug use before the DEA targeted a neighborhood to the rate of drug use in that neighborhood after the DEA operation concluded. The initial analysis indicated that drug use typically more than doubled after the DEA operation. My friends superiors then researched the results and determined that the pattern was that DEA would move in and set up small time dealers with the connections needed to transform them into big time dealers. Then DEA would make a big bust and leave the area. Often the newly created big time dealers would either get minor sentences because of no previous violations or get off entirely due to entrapment. Then they would proceed to continue dealing drug using the connections that the DEA set them up with. After discovering the cause of the program output, the parameters for the acceptable input data was changed to exclude those operations in which the charges did not "stick". This resulted in a sample only a fraction of the size of the original sample, and the desired results of demonstrating that drug use typically decreased after a DEA operation. This is the report that was passed on to the overseers of DEA operations. Then of course, there is Edwin Meese, who was put in charge of research into the harmful effects of pornography. Not only did he only select those researches out to prove that there was a link between pornography and sexual crimes, he also made sure that the final report excluded the majority of reports from this biased base of researchers, because most of these research efforts indicated that, while there were a few specific types of pornography that did have a strong tie to sex crimes (such as child pornography), most pornography actually had a negative correlation to sex crimes. The final report, using only a fraction of the funded research, "proved" a strong link between pornography and sex crimes. It is interesting to note that Edwin Meese was later convicted of ethics violations, yet he is still worshipped as a hero by the anti-porn movement.