"Financially stable men prefer smaller breasts"

...that is one odd choice for a graph axis in this data set (financial stability, not breast size preference). They also need to clarify precisely what they mean. I assume that, on average, men with higher incomes would designate an "ideal/preferred breast size" smaller than that of men with lower incomes. I'd assume that there is an asymptotic minimum (in the b-cup range?); I doubt that 1%ers collectively prefer entirely flat-chested women.

But hey, whatever floats your (motor)boat.

the graphs go in opposite ways, in terms of reproductive success vs. number of mates, for men and women. .. guess who is supposed to fuck more and who needs to be more of a gatekeeper hehe

These guys are fucked in the head.
Educated, working women, are the PRIMARY KEY to a HEALTHY ECONOMY.

Why tie that to abortions, or high school dropouts, or MALE unemployment? haha...what hegemonistic fucktards.

This is a complete and utter joke, right? Every single society on earth, where you increase female education and employment, you reduce child death rates, injury, illness, and a direct increase to GDP.

Ill try and find the hans rosling video explaining the IMPORTANCE of WORKING WOMEN in developing nations, his bubble graphs are so freakin amazing at showing correlations between these kinds of things..

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

No videos/photo(graph)s?

Meow.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/under-the-hood-the-natural-language-interface-of-graph-search/10151432733048920

yea thats what i meant~~

I would like to see a graph comparing USA personal guns vs the full miltary power.

Last graph (adjusted for inflation per capita) should be put in a separate diagram because of high risk of misinterpretation (750-->7000 instead of 2000-->7000)

He forgot one thing, people today are more productive then they were 60 year ago (Productivity growth 1947-2012)

To bypass this problem spending should compared with GDP ( market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period of time): Total Government expenditures by major category of expenditure as percantages of GDP: 1938-2009. It is stable since 1968, nearly 30% of the GDP.

No, corporations are not included as individual people on this graph.

The problem with this kind of wealth inequality is that it historically leads to social and economic instability. The US's economic dominance in the 20th century was built in no small part on the solid middle class, whose purchasing power drove the economy.

That is increasingly vanishing. The richest are getting much, much, much richer, while the median income, adjusted for inflation, has been dropping for the past twenty years.

Edit: Oh boy, wall of text crits for 10k.

His explanation was rather short and somewhat misleading. Maybe they thought a proper explanation would have been too dry or too lengthy to be of any interest for a sufficient number of their viewers.

tl:dr

If all rotor settings are indicated to be correct, a feedback loop within the circuit indicated a subset of correct connections on the plugboard, even if the initially assumed connection turned out to be wrong. It didn't show all connections, but enough to run it through a modified Enigma to determine if it's a false positive or in fact the correct setting. If it was correct, the rest could be done by hand.

----------------------- Long version -----------------------

Apologies in advance. We had to recreate parts of the Bombe as a simulation, but a) it's been a while and b) it was in German. I'll try to explain the concept behind it, hopefully without screwing it up entirely.

The combination of clear message and code snippet (2:25) is called a crib. This can be used to create a graph, wherein letters are the vertices and connections together with their numerical positions are the edges.

For example, at position 1, "A" corresponds to "W". So you'd create an edge between "A" and "W" and mark that edge as "1". At position 4, "B" corresponds to "T", so there's the edge marked as "4". All edges are bidirectional, the transformation at a specific position can go either way.

Once your graph is finished, you check for loops. These are essential. Without loops, you're boned. In this case, one loop can be found at positions 2,3,5 in form of "T->E->Q->T".

Here the Bombe comes into play. It uses scramblers, each combining all three rotors plus reflector of an enigma into one segment. This way, one Enigma setting is functionally equal to a single scrambler.

Now you can use those scramblers to create an electrical circuit that corresponds to your graph -- scrambler = edge. All scramblers are set to the same initial configuration. The first scramber remains at in the inital configuration, while the second and third get configurations in relation to their edge's numerical value. Configuration in this case means the value of their internal three rotors, so there are 26*26*26 possible settings within each scrambler.

It's basically a sequence of three encryptions.

Example: in our little TEQ triangle, the first scrambler (TE, 2) gets a random starting position. The second scrambler (QE, 5) gets turned three notches, the third scrambler (QT, 3) gets turned one notch. The initial configuration might be wrong, but only the relation between the scramblers matters. A wrong result simply tells you to turn all scramblers another notch, until you get it right.

You have a possibly correct setting when the output matches the input. Specifically, a voltage is applied to the wire of letter "T", leading into the first scrambler. And on a test register attached to the last scrambler, the wire of letter "T" should have a voltage on it as well. If the setting is incorrect, a different letter will light up. Similarly, all incorrect inputs for this particular setup will always light up a different letter at the the end, never the same (thanks to the reflector). If output equals input, you're golden. And if several loops are used, all with the same input/output letter, each of their outputs must equal the input.

To reduce the number of false positives, you need as many connected loops within the crib as possible.

So far, that's an Enigma without a plugboard. To account for that, they introduced feedback loops into the circuit. In our small scale case, the output of the third scrambler would be coupled back into the input of the first scrambler. The number of loops determines the number of possible outcomes with each specific setting. All of these are fed back into the first scrambler of each loop.

The plugboard, however, changed the input into the system of rotors. Instead of a "T" in our example, it might be a "Z", if those two letters were connected on the board.

A random hypothesis is made and fed into the machine. If the scramblers are set incorrectly, a different letter comes out at the end of each loop and is in return fed back into the first scramblers. Result: (almost) everything lights up. If you start with a good graph, everything will light up.

-----
A key element for this was the "diagonal board", which represented a) all possible connections on the plugboard and b) the bidirectional nature of those connections (AB = BA). Maybe it can be explained without pictures, but I sure as hell can't, so "a grid of all possible connections between scramblers and letters + forced reciprocity" will have to suffice.
-----

If, however, the setting was correct, a wrong hypothesis for the input connection merely meant that everything except the right connections was lit up.

Let's say the fix point of the loops in our graph is the letter "T". We assume that it's connected to the letter "Z" on the plugboard. A voltage is applied to "Z" on the test register, and thereby inserted into the circuit at the first scrambler. Loop #1 applies voltage to the letter "A" on the test register, #2 lights up "B", #3 lights up "F". These three outputs are now fed back into the first scrambler, so now the scrambler has voltage on ZABF, which in return lights up ZABF+GEK on the test register.
This goes on until everything except "U" is lit up on the test register. That means three things: a) the settings are correct, b) the hypothesis is wrong, c) "T" is connected to "U".

Reasons:
a) if the settings were incorrect, the entire register would be alive
b) if the hypothesis was correct, only the letter "Z" would be alive on the register
c) due to the feedback loop, the only way for the output to be "U" is if the input was also "U", and the reciprocity within the system makes it impossible for any other input to generate the output "U". Since "T" was the fix point for our loops, "T" is connected to "U".

Similarly, if the initial hypothesis is correct, everything on the test register except "U" stays dead.

The diagonal board provides registers for every single letter and allows the user to pick one as a test register. During operation, all the other registers serve as visual representations of the deductions based on the initial hypothesis. So you actually get to see more than just the initial connection, all based on the same concept.

I thought i smelled something fishy, those figures would've been the first in the whole history of humankind.

When was leaded gas&paint banned in the Australia? Would be nice to see that graph there too..

If you want to talk about gun violence, show gun violence statistics. If you want to talk about violence in general, show general violence statistics. But don't talk about gun violence, show general violence statistics, and talk about media conspiracies.

It started out compelling with unbiased sources, then proceeded downhill.

I've tried to dig this up myself, but as I think it's universally agreed, the categorization of crime and the regional differences makes it hard to make an apples to apples comparison. As much as I can see, the US crime rate is low and getting lower, however the percentage of gun homicide is still much higher than comparable G8 countries and is a worthwhile discussion:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Banning guns is retarded; a reasonable discussion about restrictions to access is much less... retarded.

My mom thinks me using facts is racist. Poor people tend to be black. Poor people tend to commit crimes. White people tend to move away from black neighborhoods. I suppose I should have spent less time studying political behavior in my state and more time making jokes.

"What's the difference between a black man and a white man?" "A job." - From the woman who calls me a racist for saying most violent crime in the US is black on black crime.

The biggest issue with the mainstream and statistics is that unless it plays into their stereotypes of behavior, they don't care. And when it does, they don't really care about the real cause.

From Wiki: (Violent Crime, UK)

"Includes all violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery as violent crime.[8]
Rates of violent crime are in the UK are recorded by the British Crime Survey. The Home Office Statistical Bulletin on "Crime in England and Wales" summarizes the findings of this survey. For the 2010/2011 report,[9] the statistics show that violent crime continues a general downward trend observed over the last few decades as shown in the graph.
"The 2010/11 BCS showed overall violence was down 47 per cent on the level seen at its peak in 1995; representing nearly two million fewer violent offences per year."[citation needed]
Regarding murder, "increasing levels of homicide (at around 2% to 3% per year) [have been observed] from the 1960s through to the end of the twentieth century". Recently the murder rate has declined, "a fall of 19 per cent in homicides since 2001/02", as measured by The Homicide Index.
By contrast, there is a widespread belief that violent crime is on the rise, due largely to a mass media which disproportionately reports violent crime. This phenomenon is described by Steven Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature."

(Violent Crime, US)

"The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. It should be noted that these crimes are taken from two separate reports, the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and that these do not look at exactly the same crimes. The UCR measures crimes reported to police, and looks at Aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery. The NCVS measures crimes reported by households surveyed by the United States Census Bureau, and looks at assault, rape, and robbery. According to BJS figures, the rate of violent crime victimization in the United States declined by more than two thirds between the years 1994 and 2009.[10] 7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes.[11] 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at yearend 2008 were in for violent crimes.[11] 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails in 2002 (latest available data by type of offense) were in for violent crimes.[12]"



------------------------

If you didn't want to read that babble, quick and simple: they're one and the same. From my understanding, both countries use the Type 1 list: a crime against a person in which injury or death may occur. In some cases, just because no one was hurt, doesn't mean it wasn't a violent crime.

Which brings up the other point to be made. Is the reporting of the crimes uniform? Do the Brits report EVERYTHING, as opposed to what's somewhat routine here in the states where crimes often go unreported, even when the police show up? Domestic violence only exists if one person files charges. The victim could be bruised, bleeding, broken bones etc, but if they're not willing to file a charge, no crime occurred.

Or, more so, do street brawls get reported more often in the UK? If I punch some dude, does that go onto a record somewhere where as in the states, I've been in many fights where even if the police broke it up, no reports were ever filed.

All of this is useful information, but so far the data is pretty superficial. The comment the video makes about "put on your boots and go find out" (paraphrased) is pretty much the only solution I can think of. Then again, it's the same solution that people have been chanting for for generations and have yet to see the high and mighty Elite do it.