Come on now people. Do you honestly think Google would run two pages of ad-like search results?hb
That's not Google. That's scumware. Check your hosts file and/or run hijackthis to clean the scumware off your box. You're being fed ads by a third party that's stealing your Google-bound queries. Check your urls, and I suspect you'll see that you're not really at google.com.
GoClick.com is one known source of this sort of scumware.
You prattling on about how I sneakily left out the important resolution: (...temps down --> Water Re-freezes --> atlantic currents shift back) reveals the truth: you are an idiot. That on a larger level, you may also be a reactionary ostrich, is a point I shall not contest.
It suffices to explain:
Just because it's going to be snowing in Lancashire, doesn't mean that it's getting colder at the pole, or in the north Atlantic. There's no water "re-freezing" involved here. Regardless of whether's there's an ice age in Britain, there's STILL A FUCKING systemic increase in temperature. It's getting hotter where the ice is, sport. Thus, more polar ice melts, not less.
Or were you thinking that all this metling ice would drop the temperature of the ocean would drop low enough that a new ice cap would suddenly appear, floating around in the middle of the atlantic? Where's your re-freezing concept happening, again? Did you leave out a detail, in your ridiculous adventures on the soapbox?
Regardless, it's clear: you may be able to spell 'logically', but you do not think logically. How about you leave the science to the professionals? Because after your display above, you accusing anyone from WHOI (do you even know what WHOI is, sport?) of "scarist propaganda" is utterly ridiculous.
But if you ask me, I think global warming is the trend.
Hey Sherlock, how about you take your foot out of your mouth and read the article? The issue is that global warming *is* melting the polar ice caps, which in turn could cause a local cooling effect in northern Europe -- to the point of ice age.
That global warming doesn't make it hotter everywhere is old news, too. The BBC wrote about about this exact scenario (temps up --> ice melts --> atlantic currents change --> temps down...) years ago. It plays out with a rapid & general failure of agriculture across the British isles and western Scandanavia, due to massive increases in snowcover.
(There is some debate about how the Gulf Stream moving south from the British Isles to Iberia would affect the weather in Spain, and Portugal. One camp thinks it would bring traditionally British rains; another argues the local heating effect of the Gulf Stream would rapidly create more arid/desert conditions. Either change devastates local agricultures however, destroying traditional grape & olive industries of the region.)
After the annoying ad runs, it turns whatever portion of the screen the animation covered into a hyperlink to the advertiser! You can't click on any of the news, pix, or nav bars without getting shanghai'd off to AT&T Broadband (cocksuckers) or whoever else is paying for this crap.
These people should be ashamed of themselves
Try it yourself: http://www.unitedvirtualities.com/demo/at&t2/
If you get a real car, and want to talk about how to remotely shift into neutral, engage the clutch and *then* start the car... well, then we'd have something interesting to talk about.
The box the CPU came was completely shredded, similar to the pictures above. Box literally had no corners, was completely deformed -- it had clearly been soaking wet at some point. Looked like it was crushed in a garbage truck.
Needless to say the computer inside the box was shitboxed. Every piece of styrofoam broken. Case was broken (it's metal), drive non functional, cards loose in the case, keyboard exploded. The only thing that wasn't damaged was the TFT monitor, which was in a similarly beat up box, but survived due to luck... and radical over-insulation from the factory.
UPS basically told me to go stuff it when I flipped out at the pick up window (they made me come pick it up, even!) and were completely unaccountable for their actions. I sent the CPU back to IBM (at my expense, and inconveniance) and they replaced it. It was shipped via FedEX per my request, and arrived in pristine condition. Oh, interestingly -- I had paid extra for rush delivery the first time... and according to the IBM salesperson there was some insurace hidden in the fees for that shipping option, which was the only reason I got a free replacement.
The central principle in our justice system is that it is an adversarial process, where those party to the case or controversy present their side of the story in the most compelling fashion possible, while simultaneously discrediting their adversaries.
It's not about truth, or science, at all.
Truth is objective, and while the search for truth is a good working definition of science, it's not truth that matters in court. It's Justice. Our adversarial process is predicted upon the assumption that in any controversy brought before the courts (i.e. in which there is by definition some essential disagrement fit for adjudication, with guilt or responsibility unassigned) the litigants will do their best to link the facts of the case together into a convincing story, a partisan narrative, which reconstructs reality in the courtroom. Again, this isn't about truth. Both sides tell their own stories, and when the verdict is handed down it doesn't validate the essential truth of anything, it creates the presence, or absence of guilt. That's all. Justice is not a quest for truth, but rather for guilt.
The system relies upon everyone involved to do their job -- not to tell the truth, but to tell their side of the story to a judge or jury that is willing and capable of being persuaded. A courtroom is a forum for partisan advocates, and honest witnesses; regardless of the persuasiveness of their opinions or the validity of their science, the presence of an impartial advisor -- no matter how expert -- to a judge, undermines the efficacy of our justice system by complicating the essence of decision. What happens, for instance, when a judge or jury decides that neither the plaintiff nor the defendent is persuasive, because of advice or opinions of an independent science advisor?
Perhaps you might consider an English class?
on
CS vs CIS
·
· Score: 1
I have been told by alot of graduates that CIS and CS majors are being hired for the same job for the same money. Is this true?
Alot is not a word, darling. An error such as this on either your resume or cover letter would essentially end your candidacy for any job I've ever had. Luckily, there are plenty of words in the dictionary, and anyone can use them... with or without a degree!!
Intel could have avoided all of this nonsense by donating a few dozen new boxes.
With the exception of the new Miscrosoft-funded CS building and its flashy new workstations, the vast majority of Harvard's internet kiosks are in a woeful state (the iMacs in the Science Center replaced a decrepit bunch of IIsi's).
But the larger question is what the hell does Harvard need Intel sponsoring anything for? The $14,000,000,000 Harvard endowment generates $2M per day in interest, and I for one will be outraged if there's corporate sponsorship at my commencement next year.
A sample of size 16 is small, yes. But this does not contradict the data, or even imply that the sample is not representative. All that a small n means is that your confidence interval will be larger at any given level of significance.
For what it is worth, sample of size 30 is generally accepted as "large," and will accurately reflect the whole of the sampled population at.05 level of significance, or 95% of the time.
Without more information about this study we can only guess, but I expect that there is a relatively low standard deviaiton in synapse counts (ie, a few more helps a lot) if the population is roughly normally distributed I expect that a 90% C.I. would be something like 10-24%. Now that's blind darts, but a 17% point estimate would be a significant statisical result (ie, contradicts null hypothesis); I'll leave it to the MDs to determine what the threshold for medical significance is... for all I know you might need 8 times as many synapses to be only half again as intelligent.
My point is just that we should not disregard the results just because there were only 16 subjects. 3 subjects, and we would be wasting our time arguing about this.
Doesn't anyone read the papers anymore? This story is old news that was getting coverage in the Boston area in the middle of last week, I am surprised that nobody here is commenting upon that. red_shift
Slashdot Mirror
Come on now people. Do you honestly think Google would run two pages of ad-like search results?hb
That's not Google. That's scumware. Check your hosts file and/or run hijackthis to clean the scumware off your box. You're being fed ads by a third party that's stealing your Google-bound queries. Check your urls, and I suspect you'll see that you're not really at google.com.
GoClick.com is one known source of this sort of scumware.
Sylver Dragon:
You prattling on about how I sneakily left out the important resolution: (...temps down --> Water Re-freezes --> atlantic currents shift back) reveals the truth: you are an idiot. That on a larger level, you may also be a reactionary ostrich, is a point I shall not contest.
It suffices to explain:
Just because it's going to be snowing in Lancashire, doesn't mean that it's getting colder at the pole, or in the north Atlantic. There's no water "re-freezing" involved here. Regardless of whether's there's an ice age in Britain, there's STILL A FUCKING systemic increase in temperature. It's getting hotter where the ice is, sport. Thus, more polar ice melts, not less.
Or were you thinking that all this metling ice would drop the temperature of the ocean would drop low enough that a new ice cap would suddenly appear, floating around in the middle of the atlantic? Where's your re-freezing concept happening, again? Did you leave out a detail, in your ridiculous adventures on the soapbox?
Regardless, it's clear: you may be able to spell 'logically', but you do not think logically. How about you leave the science to the professionals? Because after your display above, you accusing anyone from WHOI (do you even know what WHOI is, sport?) of "scarist propaganda" is utterly ridiculous.
You make me sick to my ass.
But if you ask me, I think global warming is the trend.
Hey Sherlock, how about you take your foot out of your mouth and read the article? The issue is that global warming *is* melting the polar ice caps, which in turn could cause a local cooling effect in northern Europe -- to the point of ice age.
That global warming doesn't make it hotter everywhere is old news, too. The BBC wrote about about this exact scenario (temps up --> ice melts --> atlantic currents change --> temps down...) years ago. It plays out with a rapid & general failure of agriculture across the British isles and western Scandanavia, due to massive increases in snowcover.
(There is some debate about how the Gulf Stream moving south from the British Isles to Iberia would affect the weather in Spain, and Portugal. One camp thinks it would bring traditionally British rains; another argues the local heating effect of the Gulf Stream would rapidly create more arid/desert conditions. Either change devastates local agricultures however, destroying traditional grape & olive industries of the region.)
After the annoying ad runs, it turns whatever portion of the screen the animation covered into a hyperlink to the advertiser! You can't click on any of the news, pix, or nav bars without getting shanghai'd off to AT&T Broadband (cocksuckers) or whoever else is paying for this crap.
These people should be ashamed of themselves
Try it yourself: http://www.unitedvirtualities.com/demo/at&t2/
Isaac in Cambridge
If you get a real car, and want to talk about how to remotely shift into neutral, engage the clutch and *then* start the car... well, then we'd have something interesting to talk about.
Isaac in Cambridge
The box the CPU came was completely shredded, similar to the pictures above. Box literally had no corners, was completely deformed -- it had clearly been soaking wet at some point. Looked like it was crushed in a garbage truck.
Needless to say the computer inside the box was shitboxed. Every piece of styrofoam broken. Case was broken (it's metal), drive non functional, cards loose in the case, keyboard exploded. The only thing that wasn't damaged was the TFT monitor, which was in a similarly beat up box, but survived due to luck... and radical over-insulation from the factory.
UPS basically told me to go stuff it when I flipped out at the pick up window (they made me come pick it up, even!) and were completely unaccountable for their actions. I sent the CPU back to IBM (at my expense, and inconveniance) and they replaced it. It was shipped via FedEX per my request, and arrived in pristine condition. Oh, interestingly -- I had paid extra for rush delivery the first time... and according to the IBM salesperson there was some insurace hidden in the fees for that shipping option, which was the only reason I got a free replacement.
Isaac Taylor
Cambridge, Massachusetts
It's not about truth, or science, at all.
Truth is objective, and while the search for truth is a good working definition of science, it's not truth that matters in court. It's Justice. Our adversarial process is predicted upon the assumption that in any controversy brought before the courts (i.e. in which there is by definition some essential disagrement fit for adjudication, with guilt or responsibility unassigned) the litigants will do their best to link the facts of the case together into a convincing story, a partisan narrative, which reconstructs reality in the courtroom. Again, this isn't about truth. Both sides tell their own stories, and when the verdict is handed down it doesn't validate the essential truth of anything, it creates the presence, or absence of guilt. That's all. Justice is not a quest for truth, but rather for guilt.
The system relies upon everyone involved to do their job -- not to tell the truth, but to tell their side of the story to a judge or jury that is willing and capable of being persuaded. A courtroom is a forum for partisan advocates, and honest witnesses; regardless of the persuasiveness of their opinions or the validity of their science, the presence of an impartial advisor -- no matter how expert -- to a judge, undermines the efficacy of our justice system by complicating the essence of decision. What happens, for instance, when a judge or jury decides that neither the plaintiff nor the defendent is persuasive, because of advice or opinions of an independent science advisor?
Alot is not a word, darling. An error such as this on either your resume or cover letter would essentially end your candidacy for any job I've ever had. Luckily, there are plenty of words in the dictionary, and anyone can use them... with or without a degree!!
With the exception of the new Miscrosoft-funded CS building and its flashy new workstations, the vast majority of Harvard's internet kiosks are in a woeful state (the iMacs in the Science Center replaced a decrepit bunch of IIsi's).
But the larger question is what the hell does Harvard need Intel sponsoring anything for? The $14,000,000,000 Harvard endowment generates $2M per day in interest, and I for one will be outraged if there's corporate sponsorship at my commencement next year.
Don't bother boycotting in silence; express yourself.
jmcgrath@azleg.state.az.us
For what it is worth, sample of size 30 is generally accepted as "large," and will accurately reflect the whole of the sampled population at
Without more information about this study we can only guess, but I expect that there is a relatively low standard deviaiton in synapse counts (ie, a few more helps a lot) if the population is roughly normally distributed I expect that a 90% C.I. would be something like 10-24%. Now that's blind darts, but a 17% point estimate would be a significant statisical result (ie, contradicts null hypothesis); I'll leave it to the MDs to determine what the threshold for medical significance is... for all I know you might need 8 times as many synapses to be only half again as intelligent.
My point is just that we should not disregard the results just because there were only 16 subjects. 3 subjects, and we would be wasting our time arguing about this.
Doesn't anyone read the papers anymore?
This story is old news that was getting coverage in the Boston area in the middle of last week,
I am surprised that nobody here is commenting upon that. red_shift