Yep, it's the same basic principle of operation as the birthday paradox. But still, they're not "false positives". The data does correlate.
True, the data correlates, but that doesn't tell you anything about whether vinyl floors and autism correlates.
The problem is in the sample itself. Since you're not out to actively trying to locate vynils or autists, so yuo grab a sample of 100 people, in which you then might've found 5 autists and 10 people with vynil floors. If 4 of those autists happen to live in houses with vynil floors, the data *does* correlate quite strongly. The correlation just isn't very significant because of the tiny sample size.
The problem is not the sample size. It would be invalid whatever the sample size was. The problem is that the hypothesis has been formed after the data has been examined. As I said, given enough diverse data sets it's pretty much certain that there will be a spurious correlation in there somewhere. The challenge is knowing whether it's spurious or not, which can only be done by testing the hypothesis. If I toss a coin 20 times, the chance of the particular sequence of heads and tails that I get is, by my reckonning, about one in a million. But if I come to you and say "Wow! That sequence will only come up one in a million times, and I've just thrown it on my first attempt", nobody will be impressed. You will only be impressed if I predict the sequence in advance of tossing the coin.
It's more qualified even than that. What that language means is that it's not even clear there really is a correlation yet. If you check enough pairs of data sets for correlation, you're pretty certain to get some false positives. You then go on to collect more data specifically looking for the correlation, and only if those subsequent tests come up with a correlation do you have something to explain and questions of causation arise. So the scientists are not yet even up to the correlation/causation question yet.
The key in any country is to attempt to speak the native language first. Most people will respect your attempt and immediately switch to English if they detect your French (or whatever langauge) is weaker than their English.
That might work for Americans in Paris; it doesn't work for Brits in Paris. As I said elsewhere in the thread, a Brit trying to use French is just likely to have their mistakes mocked or be met with feigned incomprehension. It's not like that outside the tourist season, so I suspect it's not Brits as a whole that they loathe, just British tourists.
It works better if you learn a few basic words of French
That worked outside the tourist season, when indeed I found the Parisians friendly and helpful. Once the tourists hit the only effect was that they mocked my bad French.
Actually, linguists reckon the languages closest to English are the Frisian languages. But of the ones folks here will have heard of French is high on the list.
In my time in Paris (only a week), I didn't meet a single person who spoke English outside of museums or stores close to them.
That's quite likely. I doubt you met anybody who couldn't speak English, but you would meet a lot who didn't. Especially in the holiday season. When I was working in Paris I found that almost everyone spoke English until the tourists arrived, and then nobody did.
Don't you folks also have a law that requires you to buy a TV license for any device that can show TV shows, (including laptops and mobile phones)?
No. The requirement only relates to devices that can show TV as it is broadcast, so only covers laptops with TV receiver cards, and no mobile phones that I know of. And it's the residence that needs to be licensed, not the device; portable devices are covered by the license of the owner's residence. There used to be a similar requirement for radio receiving equipment, but that was dropped in 1971.
Anyway, a simple solution is to buy (or rent) music that includes the license fees for public performance, or use royalty-free music such as available from RoyaltyFreeMusic.com. Even the commercial services from Muzak and 3M are a better bargain than most PRO license arrangements.
Yes, but as others have pointed out, the PRS won't take that lying down, so she'd have a fight on her hands. A fight she should win, but hassle I doubt she needs.
As they say: [citation needed]. The Isle of Wight, Lundy, Caldy, Anglesea, North and South Uist, and so on, are all islands that are in Great Britain. Great Britain is many islands (although admittedly one of them is much bigger than all of the rest put together).
The issue is a bit confused by "Country" having multiple meanings. You're right, of course, that England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales are countries (I'm something of an English nationalist, so it's important to me, too), but within normal usage of the term so is the UK (who, outside of governnment, would use the term "unitary state"?)
The countries that make up the UK stand in a similar relationship to the UK as States in the USA do to the USA as a whole; they have their own legislatures (except Wales) but they work within a centrally decided framework. And I think many Texans will sympathise with Scotland seeing itself as a seperate country under occupation.
I do think you underestimate the power of Scotland in UK politics, though. Many elections come down to a decision of which Scot we want to lead us. And the West Lothian question illustrates the fact that there's an asymmetry in favour of Scotland in UK politics.
It also raises the question of whether you should write England or UK. I was taught to write England as a child, but UK seems to be common these days.
"England" and "UK" are different things. And "Great Britain" is different again. The most general designation is "UK", or, to give it its full designation, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", from which you'll be able to work out that "UK" includes Northern Ireland, "Great Britain" is the rest of the country. Great Britain is, in turn made up of England, Scotland and Wales. Calling somebody from Scotland "English" is likely to go down about as well as calling somebody from the deep south of the USA a "Yankee".
England and Wales have a common legal system; Scotland and Northern Ireland each has its own legal system. So when talking about legal matters, it's best to be specific and say "England", "Scotland" or whatever. When referring to the country, it's "UK". The term "Great Britain" seems only to exist to piss off the Irish, as, for instance, when we refer to our Olympic team as "Team GB" thereby ignoring the Northern Irish contribution.
Tune her radio to the BBC. They paid the fee already, and as a tax payer, she is part owner of the BBC like every other citizen. Let the PRS sort it out with the BBC.
The BBC pays its fee, I'm sure. But playing a BBC station where the public can hear it still counds as a public performance, so a further license is still needed.
It can not be that you have to pay a fee to transit the material by radio, and also a fee to convert the radio to sound waves without it ALSO requiring a fee to convert the sound waves to ear-pressure changes.
It could be the case, but you'll be glad to hear that it isn't. Only the first and third fees you describe are payable. There is no longer a license fee for possessing a radio receiver.
Sure, they could send an army of lawyers and bailiffs after her, but all she has to do in court is say she's unable to pay, and that will pretty much be that.
Considering it's "her stable" she may have difficulty showing that she doesn't have the assets to pay the fine or for the license that she will still need. If the ordinary small business can't cover its liabilities then it goes bankrupt and the creditors take its assets (it has to be a really big business before the government steps in and gives the failed business its creditors assets).
As others have pointed out, it's nothing to do with playing the music to the horses and everything to do with other members of staff being able to hear it. That needs a licence in England and Wales (don't know about Scotland). So scrub the stuff about horses; all this story is is "You need a licence to play a radio in an English workplace", which we don't like (although at least we no longer need a licence to operate a radio receiver anywhere) but isn't news.
Spot on. If kids are not taught to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student" then they're not being taught science at all. Science is the process of critiquing scientific explanations.
This could only be an issue if people fear that the teachers themselves are clueless about science. That might or might not be the case (I don't know any Texan science teachers), but then it wouldn't be an issue for the syllabus, it would be an issue for teacher accreditation.
There's not much chance that the judges will move the law any time soon because they just aren't seeing the cases that could cause them to set new precedent.
Or more likely because judges don't have authority to "move the law" -- that's the legilature's responsibility, not the judiciary's.
No, the UK way is to have the phone covered by the contract but the contract only lasts a single year, after which the companies are obliged to SIM Unlock the phone for a nominal fee.
Or of course just to use pay as you go, if that's your thing.
It ain't necessarily so. Last time I upgraded I had to take an 18-month contract to get the phone I wanted. And being obliged to unlock "for a nominal fee" is news to me -- I have been quoted unlocking fees that were higher than the contract-free price of the handset.
Actually, it's a decent natural filter, any company that wouldn't hire you for such a reason is one you don't want to work for anyways.
On the other hand, the recruitment agencies have a reputation for being fierce age filters, and it could be them doing the blocking. Their client might be fine with older employees, but it's not always easy to find the client without going through the agencies.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, it's the same basic principle of operation as the birthday paradox. But still, they're not "false positives". The data does correlate.
True, the data correlates, but that doesn't tell you anything about whether vinyl floors and autism correlates.
The problem is in the sample itself. Since you're not out to actively trying to locate vynils or autists, so yuo grab a sample of 100 people, in which you then might've found 5 autists and 10 people with vynil floors. If 4 of those autists happen to live in houses with vynil floors, the data *does* correlate quite strongly. The correlation just isn't very significant because of the tiny sample size.
The problem is not the sample size. It would be invalid whatever the sample size was. The problem is that the hypothesis has been formed after the data has been examined. As I said, given enough diverse data sets it's pretty much certain that there will be a spurious correlation in there somewhere. The challenge is knowing whether it's spurious or not, which can only be done by testing the hypothesis. If I toss a coin 20 times, the chance of the particular sequence of heads and tails that I get is, by my reckonning, about one in a million. But if I come to you and say "Wow! That sequence will only come up one in a million times, and I've just thrown it on my first attempt", nobody will be impressed. You will only be impressed if I predict the sequence in advance of tossing the coin.
It's more qualified even than that. What that language means is that it's not even clear there really is a correlation yet. If you check enough pairs of data sets for correlation, you're pretty certain to get some false positives. You then go on to collect more data specifically looking for the correlation, and only if those subsequent tests come up with a correlation do you have something to explain and questions of causation arise. So the scientists are not yet even up to the correlation/causation question yet.
The key in any country is to attempt to speak the native language first. Most people will respect your attempt and immediately switch to English if they detect your French (or whatever langauge) is weaker than their English.
That might work for Americans in Paris; it doesn't work for Brits in Paris. As I said elsewhere in the thread, a Brit trying to use French is just likely to have their mistakes mocked or be met with feigned incomprehension. It's not like that outside the tourist season, so I suspect it's not Brits as a whole that they loathe, just British tourists.
It works better if you learn a few basic words of French
That worked outside the tourist season, when indeed I found the Parisians friendly and helpful. Once the tourists hit the only effect was that they mocked my bad French.
French fluency used to be more common in England.
Shortly following 1066 it certainly was.
There's nothing ugly about Americans using English. We're quite glad you're learning our language. Some of you are getting fairly good at it.
The closest language to English is French.
Actually, linguists reckon the languages closest to English are the Frisian languages. But of the ones folks here will have heard of French is high on the list.
In my time in Paris (only a week), I didn't meet a single person who spoke English outside of museums or stores close to them.
That's quite likely. I doubt you met anybody who couldn't speak English, but you would meet a lot who didn't. Especially in the holiday season. When I was working in Paris I found that almost everyone spoke English until the tourists arrived, and then nobody did.
Don't you folks also have a law that requires you to buy a TV license for any device that can show TV shows, (including laptops and mobile phones)?
No. The requirement only relates to devices that can show TV as it is broadcast, so only covers laptops with TV receiver cards, and no mobile phones that I know of. And it's the residence that needs to be licensed, not the device; portable devices are covered by the license of the owner's residence. There used to be a similar requirement for radio receiving equipment, but that was dropped in 1971.
Anyway, a simple solution is to buy (or rent) music that includes the license fees for public performance, or use royalty-free music such as available from RoyaltyFreeMusic.com. Even the commercial services from Muzak and 3M are a better bargain than most PRO license arrangements.
Yes, but as others have pointed out, the PRS won't take that lying down, so she'd have a fight on her hands. A fight she should win, but hassle I doubt she needs.
[cough]. If you examine my posting carefully you might note that this Brit at least is aware of the distinction.
As they say: [citation needed]. The Isle of Wight, Lundy, Caldy, Anglesea, North and South Uist, and so on, are all islands that are in Great Britain. Great Britain is many islands (although admittedly one of them is much bigger than all of the rest put together).
But if Scotland left the union, we'd have to import all our shortcake biscuits in tartan boxes! Horrors!
Is it really any more complex than the USA's 46 states and 6 commonwealths, of which two are not part of the USA?
Which is to say that they'll probably just correct you unless they're drunk and waving a St. Andrew's/Confederate flag.
The issue is a bit confused by "Country" having multiple meanings. You're right, of course, that England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales are countries (I'm something of an English nationalist, so it's important to me, too), but within normal usage of the term so is the UK (who, outside of governnment, would use the term "unitary state"?)
The countries that make up the UK stand in a similar relationship to the UK as States in the USA do to the USA as a whole; they have their own legislatures (except Wales) but they work within a centrally decided framework. And I think many Texans will sympathise with Scotland seeing itself as a seperate country under occupation.
I do think you underestimate the power of Scotland in UK politics, though. Many elections come down to a decision of which Scot we want to lead us. And the West Lothian question illustrates the fact that there's an asymmetry in favour of Scotland in UK politics.
It also raises the question of whether you should write England or UK. I was taught to write England as a child, but UK seems to be common these days.
"England" and "UK" are different things. And "Great Britain" is different again. The most general designation is "UK", or, to give it its full designation, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", from which you'll be able to work out that "UK" includes Northern Ireland, "Great Britain" is the rest of the country. Great Britain is, in turn made up of England, Scotland and Wales. Calling somebody from Scotland "English" is likely to go down about as well as calling somebody from the deep south of the USA a "Yankee".
England and Wales have a common legal system; Scotland and Northern Ireland each has its own legal system. So when talking about legal matters, it's best to be specific and say "England", "Scotland" or whatever. When referring to the country, it's "UK". The term "Great Britain" seems only to exist to piss off the Irish, as, for instance, when we refer to our Olympic team as "Team GB" thereby ignoring the Northern Irish contribution.
Seems asinine.
More likely equine, I think.
Tune her radio to the BBC. They paid the fee already, and as a tax payer, she is part owner of the BBC like every other citizen. Let the PRS sort it out with the BBC.
The BBC pays its fee, I'm sure. But playing a BBC station where the public can hear it still counds as a public performance, so a further license is still needed.
It can not be that you have to pay a fee to transit the material by radio, and also a fee to convert the radio to sound waves without it ALSO requiring a fee to convert the sound waves to ear-pressure changes.
It could be the case, but you'll be glad to hear that it isn't. Only the first and third fees you describe are payable. There is no longer a license fee for possessing a radio receiver.
Sure, they could send an army of lawyers and bailiffs after her, but all she has to do in court is say she's unable to pay, and that will pretty much be that.
Considering it's "her stable" she may have difficulty showing that she doesn't have the assets to pay the fine or for the license that she will still need. If the ordinary small business can't cover its liabilities then it goes bankrupt and the creditors take its assets (it has to be a really big business before the government steps in and gives the failed business its creditors assets).
As others have pointed out, it's nothing to do with playing the music to the horses and everything to do with other members of staff being able to hear it. That needs a licence in England and Wales (don't know about Scotland). So scrub the stuff about horses; all this story is is "You need a licence to play a radio in an English workplace", which we don't like (although at least we no longer need a licence to operate a radio receiver anywhere) but isn't news.
Spot on. If kids are not taught to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student" then they're not being taught science at all. Science is the process of critiquing scientific explanations.
This could only be an issue if people fear that the teachers themselves are clueless about science. That might or might not be the case (I don't know any Texan science teachers), but then it wouldn't be an issue for the syllabus, it would be an issue for teacher accreditation.
There's not much chance that the judges will move the law any time soon because they just aren't seeing the cases that could cause them to set new precedent.
Or more likely because judges don't have authority to "move the law" -- that's the legilature's responsibility, not the judiciary's.
No, the UK way is to have the phone covered by the contract but the contract only lasts a single year, after which the companies are obliged to SIM Unlock the phone for a nominal fee.
Or of course just to use pay as you go, if that's your thing.
It ain't necessarily so. Last time I upgraded I had to take an 18-month contract to get the phone I wanted. And being obliged to unlock "for a nominal fee" is news to me -- I have been quoted unlocking fees that were higher than the contract-free price of the handset.
Actually, it's a decent natural filter, any company that wouldn't hire you for such a reason is one you don't want to work for anyways.
On the other hand, the recruitment agencies have a reputation for being fierce age filters, and it could be them doing the blocking. Their client might be fine with older employees, but it's not always easy to find the client without going through the agencies.
Does it please you to believe I am totally not one of them I can trust you?
They also contributed very significantly previously to that from a resources standpoint.
They charged us way over the odd for those resources, though, and we've only just finished paying for them. Which brings us back to capitalism.