I always thought that warning messages were more likely to get you killed in the 0.05s you spend pressing "ok" when you could have done the one thing you wanted to do.
Yep. To add to what I originally said, you will often hear anecdotes on here saying "The guy in my office who dropped out of kindergarten is a better coder than the caltech phd we just hired!" - simply put, if credentials were useless they would not exist. (In reality, cases like these likely occur because the dropout is an expert in some specific language when the Ph.D. might be more well rounded or an expert in something else entirely).
To be honest, I think a lot of it stems from the fact that young students may have an understanding of some new field or niche that their elders do not, or just be better read on an obscure topic that interests them. For instance, my area of work (computational neuroscience) was virtually unknown amongst the faculty in both psychology and computer science at my college, but that does not mean that they are idiots or that I am in some way better than they are.
So just from reading the summary I want to say that I have grown somewhat tired of the attitude towards academia on here. It is not a place of suppressed ideas, incompetent people, publish or perish, and faked results to get more funding. While publish or perish can be very true at the most elite universities, it ain't true everywhere. There are plenty of profs doing good research at upper tier liberal arts schools, teaching only a bit more than they would at UC San whereever. Hell, you can even go to a decent sized research school and not feel like you are in hell. As an UNDERGRAD I worked 60-80 hours a week on classes, grad school applications/related stuff (like the GREs) and working in a lab. It sucked, but I worked longer hours than the majority of professors. I think anyone that earned a decent Ph.D. to get tenure shouldn't complain when they are working less than their students.
Lack of transparency? The biomedical research industry is far worse on this issue. "Getting scooped" (idea stealing) is only a problem when you are working on a project. Once it is done and sent off for publication or discussed at a conference (or brown bag seminar in your own department) everything is way more open than it would ever be in the corporate world.
Can't get access to an article? Try scholar.google.com. Many journals allow researchers to post PDFs on their personal webpages, and such documents come up in this search. I went to a liberal arts college with a shit library, and google scholar was how I got work done (That and a zippy interlibrary loan service). No one actually pays $30 to read some article, and if you think that is how the system works then you have been completely duped.
Rote memorization is the most overrated style of learning there is, unless the facts are life and death related (medical facts, nuclear safety procedures, etc). Memorizing log tables is a complete waste of time when you could be learning how to actually use them.
Or exactly what a prof or TA might do during their office hours. Although they are more likely to give you a hint or at least the one step you are stuck on rather than the whole thing.
I never understood how this argument makes any sense. Its not like universities are traded on the stock market or that investors expect a return and so students get shafted in some respects. It may be true that they WANT money so they are better funded, but to say that they are "making" money is ridiculous.
I think everyone is confusing correlation with causation here. Research shows that kids who skip a few grades if able are normally more well adjusted. Sending a 12 year old to a university is a different ball of wax. The kid might not be a social type anyway, but having them live by themselves in the dorms will never work when their neighbors are interested in drinking and sex. Also, there are universities with programs that specialize in taking in teenagers (such as Mary Baldwin for women), keeping them in separate dorms until they are mature enough (16 or 17) to live with normal aged students.
Other than starting in "Kindergarten" and ending in "12th grade" there is no "American System." Certain things are common to most states, but there is no national system of education. That is why pathetic things like the SAT test exist, so that the universities know what they are getting at.
I went to CNU (Not to be confused with any of the CMUs) which made use of CSA. I would "register" the computer in windows (which I had for gaming only) and then do everything in linux. If it still works like that, you can install linux and be ok.
Although it can be represented as such, multiplication and addition are two separate mathematical axioms, which do not include division or subtraction.
Even if the brain is not a deterministic system, it still acts according to laws of physics and chemistry. You can't change those rules just because you "will" it.
Actually, Alaska and most of the continental US was purchased from various nations. Having said this, pretty much all of North and South America was taken from native peoples.
Sure, it is unprovable. However, with MAD there were clear moments such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or some of Kissinger's "madman" strategy of B-52 deployments that certainly had an impact.
The notion that die hard jihadists are doing their thing in the middle east does make a good deal of sense, but I still have a hard time accepting that if there are as many die hards out there as we are lead to believe that they would not pull of small, simple attacks every so often.
Agreed. I am convinced that if Al-Qaeda was a real threat, we would see far more bus/subway bombings. Another 9/11 would be a bitch for them to pull off, but how easy is it to just sneak one guy (a suicide bomber) in to some small town in the US or UK sans a "cell" for authorities to watch? Surely the terrorists know this, and if they were as real as we think, would exploit it. A major attack every 5-10 years is far less scary than 5-10 minor attacks in one year.
"... it is not possible with this methodology to adequately assess whether access to a gun increases the risk of a violent death at the individual level"
This is a typical disclaimer in studies of this nature. It is more of an ass-covering than a real statement of what the study cannot say.
Further, the study does present strong evidence, and the only limitation that caught my eye was the possibility that the gun in a home was not in any way involved in a homicide.
The reality though, is that you are not arguing with me, but with mountains of research. Personally, I am pretty indifferent about the 2nd Amendment from a philosophical standpoint. However, what we have here is plenty of evidence, albeit correlational, that bringing a gun into a home is not the way to go to protect your family. (No true experiment in this area would be ethical, so we're gonna have to settle for this)
Go to google scholar, type in "gun in home death" and you will get a smattering of research from various disciplines indicating that this is the case. The crook being shot is not the point. Protecting your family is the point, and by bringing a gun into the home, you are more likely to hurt/kill a family member, defeating the point of a gun in the first place. This study should cover a lot of "buts..." that people have. Granted, if there *is* actually a crook in your home about to kill/rape or whatever, go ahead and shoot them. I'm all for self defense. The odds of that happening to most people are really slim, therefore self defense is not a valid reason to keep a gun around.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that the average VVS fighter pilot gets as much flight in a year as a USAF pilot gets in a month, I'm not too worried.
Better than the F-22? Like what? Any stealth capabilities? No. You can't kill what you can't see.
No pilot would be able to fly enough hours in a month to keep qualified if this were the case. I call bullshit.
They haven't flown a combat mission because none of the current conflicts involve air to air combat.
I also am highly skeptical it takes 44 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.
I always thought that warning messages were more likely to get you killed in the 0.05s you spend pressing "ok" when you could have done the one thing you wanted to do.
Yep. To add to what I originally said, you will often hear anecdotes on here saying "The guy in my office who dropped out of kindergarten is a better coder than the caltech phd we just hired!" - simply put, if credentials were useless they would not exist. (In reality, cases like these likely occur because the dropout is an expert in some specific language when the Ph.D. might be more well rounded or an expert in something else entirely).
To be honest, I think a lot of it stems from the fact that young students may have an understanding of some new field or niche that their elders do not, or just be better read on an obscure topic that interests them. For instance, my area of work (computational neuroscience) was virtually unknown amongst the faculty in both psychology and computer science at my college, but that does not mean that they are idiots or that I am in some way better than they are.
So just from reading the summary I want to say that I have grown somewhat tired of the attitude towards academia on here. It is not a place of suppressed ideas, incompetent people, publish or perish, and faked results to get more funding. While publish or perish can be very true at the most elite universities, it ain't true everywhere. There are plenty of profs doing good research at upper tier liberal arts schools, teaching only a bit more than they would at UC San whereever. Hell, you can even go to a decent sized research school and not feel like you are in hell. As an UNDERGRAD I worked 60-80 hours a week on classes, grad school applications/related stuff (like the GREs) and working in a lab. It sucked, but I worked longer hours than the majority of professors. I think anyone that earned a decent Ph.D. to get tenure shouldn't complain when they are working less than their students.
Lack of transparency? The biomedical research industry is far worse on this issue. "Getting scooped" (idea stealing) is only a problem when you are working on a project. Once it is done and sent off for publication or discussed at a conference (or brown bag seminar in your own department) everything is way more open than it would ever be in the corporate world.
Can't get access to an article? Try scholar.google.com. Many journals allow researchers to post PDFs on their personal webpages, and such documents come up in this search. I went to a liberal arts college with a shit library, and google scholar was how I got work done (That and a zippy interlibrary loan service). No one actually pays $30 to read some article, and if you think that is how the system works then you have been completely duped.
Rote memorization is the most overrated style of learning there is, unless the facts are life and death related (medical facts, nuclear safety procedures, etc). Memorizing log tables is a complete waste of time when you could be learning how to actually use them.
Or exactly what a prof or TA might do during their office hours. Although they are more likely to give you a hint or at least the one step you are stuck on rather than the whole thing.
I never understood how this argument makes any sense. Its not like universities are traded on the stock market or that investors expect a return and so students get shafted in some respects. It may be true that they WANT money so they are better funded, but to say that they are "making" money is ridiculous.
I think everyone is confusing correlation with causation here. Research shows that kids who skip a few grades if able are normally more well adjusted. Sending a 12 year old to a university is a different ball of wax. The kid might not be a social type anyway, but having them live by themselves in the dorms will never work when their neighbors are interested in drinking and sex. Also, there are universities with programs that specialize in taking in teenagers (such as Mary Baldwin for women), keeping them in separate dorms until they are mature enough (16 or 17) to live with normal aged students.
Other than starting in "Kindergarten" and ending in "12th grade" there is no "American System." Certain things are common to most states, but there is no national system of education. That is why pathetic things like the SAT test exist, so that the universities know what they are getting at.
I went to CNU (Not to be confused with any of the CMUs) which made use of CSA. I would "register" the computer in windows (which I had for gaming only) and then do everything in linux. If it still works like that, you can install linux and be ok.
I don't care what wikipedia thinks, multiplication and addition are separate axioms.
If the mind is controlled by the brain (which it most certainly is) then it must be controlled by physics.
Although it can be represented as such, multiplication and addition are two separate mathematical axioms, which do not include division or subtraction.
Even if the brain is not a deterministic system, it still acts according to laws of physics and chemistry. You can't change those rules just because you "will" it.
Looks like someone is getting a free trip to Sweden in the future...
Sounds like someone at DARPA got drunk and played too much final fantasy the weekend before their proposal was due...
Actually, Alaska and most of the continental US was purchased from various nations. Having said this, pretty much all of North and South America was taken from native peoples.
In Virginia, there was actually a court case where a signed syllabus was ruled as a legally binding contract.
Sure, it is unprovable. However, with MAD there were clear moments such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or some of Kissinger's "madman" strategy of B-52 deployments that certainly had an impact.
The notion that die hard jihadists are doing their thing in the middle east does make a good deal of sense, but I still have a hard time accepting that if there are as many die hards out there as we are lead to believe that they would not pull of small, simple attacks every so often.
Agreed. I am convinced that if Al-Qaeda was a real threat, we would see far more bus/subway bombings. Another 9/11 would be a bitch for them to pull off, but how easy is it to just sneak one guy (a suicide bomber) in to some small town in the US or UK sans a "cell" for authorities to watch? Surely the terrorists know this, and if they were as real as we think, would exploit it. A major attack every 5-10 years is far less scary than 5-10 minor attacks in one year.
"... it is not possible with this methodology to adequately assess whether access to a gun increases the risk of a violent death at the individual level"
This is a typical disclaimer in studies of this nature. It is more of an ass-covering than a real statement of what the study cannot say.
Further, the study does present strong evidence, and the only limitation that caught my eye was the possibility that the gun in a home was not in any way involved in a homicide.
The reality though, is that you are not arguing with me, but with mountains of research. Personally, I am pretty indifferent about the 2nd Amendment from a philosophical standpoint. However, what we have here is plenty of evidence, albeit correlational, that bringing a gun into a home is not the way to go to protect your family. (No true experiment in this area would be ethical, so we're gonna have to settle for this)
Go to google scholar, type in "gun in home death" and you will get a smattering of research from various disciplines indicating that this is the case. The crook being shot is not the point. Protecting your family is the point, and by bringing a gun into the home, you are more likely to hurt/kill a family member, defeating the point of a gun in the first place. This study should cover a lot of "buts..." that people have. Granted, if there *is* actually a crook in your home about to kill/rape or whatever, go ahead and shoot them. I'm all for self defense. The odds of that happening to most people are really slim, therefore self defense is not a valid reason to keep a gun around.
Mods: Troll? Come on.
"wow, admiral ackbar!!"
"wow! admiral ackbar cereal!"
"No tongue can repel flavor of that magnitude!"