Theres incomplete statistical data, incomplete statistical data, and incomplete statistical data in this case.
How is any of this data valuable to anyone? no comparison between alternate goods out there, no verifying beyond the gross dollar value....
This entire article has the feel of "Pot To Kettle", which really sucks because I wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA's numbers WERE entirely hot air (in fact i'm pretty sure they are). You cant fight bad methodology with bad methodology or you just end up with the climate change debate or the war on drugs debate...
Genesis 1: 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Oh?
Actually, to state any debate is ever over would be scientifically inaccurate. There is no proving right, there is only proving 'not wrong based on what we know at the moment'.
And it is that kind of science that is the Bad Science the article is stating is wrong, whether they use that example or not.
Anyone, who for any reason, does the above is merely hurting the scientists trying to put actual information out there. People just seem to assume that "putting into laymans terms" means "stretch to an extreme you think the layman will agree with regardless of the facts", and I agree with you on that front. Its entirely dispicable.
A true climatologist should simply state "I see this data here, and this data here, and based on these interactions I believe this is whats up. (and then the key part) Here is my methodology of how i obtained these results, and these are the reasons I am reaching this conclusion in my opinion".
This is true research results, which will never get further funding.
That really is the part that burns me up; We have people spinning on many sides, while ACTUAL USEFUL INFORMATION would never get funding which places scientists dangerously close to the Alinsky 'non-doers' side of things. This aggravates the whole conflict as those influencing the final "We found out this!" headlines just end up polarizing the debate into only two sides, who then spend the whole debate bitching about the other extreme advocates poor methodologies. Then people suddenly seem to think that IS the basis of the debate to begin with.
This is especially pronounced when you look at the other side of "How many people would actually listen to such dry and boring data".
damnit, wanted to make some pointlessly far reaching reference to becoming death and destroying worlds but i just cant make it work without an "er" at the end.
Proof positive the recording industries tactics are stifling creativity!
Heh, proof positive of how bent it must be to browse slashdot at >0, or even -1 eh? I do not get how i keep getting modded up well AFTER you properly shot my argument right to hell heh.
Yeah, I hate believing people are innocent until proven guilty too.
Oh yeah, and why waste time investigating another possible lead when its easier to just mount a better case against the guy in question.
wait.
As i've said in other posts, i'm not saying i think he is guilty nor not guilty. The fact of the matter remains that there is no body, and the evidence is pretty highly stacked and yet localized in a slightly suspect fashion (IE: the books on crime in the vehicle?). Granted the circumstancial evidence is pretty damning, especially the removed seat and such that another post mentioned and the fact that he picked up his kids at school when it was supposed to be their mothers turn to do so.
It still all boils down to inference based on circumstantial evidence. Now, if there was further investigation into sturgeon and they found nothing to go on whatsoever, THEN it would all be downright damning.
What the hell has happened to the concept of justice, when did it become "once in the courts, its a versus b and ignore the rest".
So no one should bother looking into it because this is the easiest answer?
The fact that she was a physician means that she would know of extracting blood samples and such, and as the defense stated and the expert witness agreed, there is no way to conclude the time at which the samples were applied to the locations, nor how. That is the only point i meant by that. I'm not saying this is PROOF of anything, simply that in comjuction with the rest of this, it provides reason to at least friggan look into it.
Well the books on crime bit, i wouldnt even require a programmer or a geek to think that that would be a bad idea.
Hell if i saw the same shit with an elementary school dropout who went straight to mcdonalds for the rest of his life versus the other half of the equation, i'd still say it warrants investigation.
Are you saying they shouldn't bother to make sure, simply because geeks can make mistakes too?
Despite the fact that Sean Sturgeon is a known killer, Nina Reiser was a physician, and the fact that apparently they found "Books on Crime" along with the sleeping bag and blood samples on the pillar in his garage? With no body, no witnesses, and no direct evidence?
Who the hell commits a crime with pair of books on crime in their vehicle, and then leave it all there for someone to find. Programmers know too much about allocation and management of objects to not destroy them when its detrimental they no longer exist.
I'm not saying I think he is innocent NOR that i think hes guilty. I simply think it all warrants much further investigation.
No, they found items containing her blood (sleeping bag), and there was blood samples in Reisers garage.
Strangely enough though, this is one case where i would expect it to warrant further investigation as A) Nina Reiser was a physician and B) as the GP stated, Sean Sturgeon is one frightening fucking individual. That gives the knowledge necessary for such things to be possible, combined with a nature that has done such things before.
I'm not saying for sure one way or the other, but don't you think the friggan BOOKS ON CRIME they found along with it all as rather like someone padding the bill? (Plus what kind of programmer wouldn't think to properly destroy those objects so no one finds them wasting in memory heh). Not certainty by any means, but worthy of investigation.
I think the real question would be more "will anyone WANT to develop software for it" as you could write an extremely simple OS that use very strict scheduling and such, but to keep it simple you'd have to reduce the functionality of the API and developers would want to stab you in the face.
Slashdot Mirror
Theres incomplete statistical data, incomplete statistical data, and incomplete statistical data in this case.
How is any of this data valuable to anyone? no comparison between alternate goods out there, no verifying beyond the gross dollar value....
This entire article has the feel of "Pot To Kettle", which really sucks because I wouldn't be surprised if the MPAA's numbers WERE entirely hot air (in fact i'm pretty sure they are). You cant fight bad methodology with bad methodology or you just end up with the climate change debate or the war on drugs debate...
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Oh?
Actually, to state any debate is ever over would be scientifically inaccurate. There is no proving right, there is only proving 'not wrong based on what we know at the moment'.
Those are advocates. Not scientists.
And it is that kind of science that is the Bad Science the article is stating is wrong, whether they use that example or not.
Anyone, who for any reason, does the above is merely hurting the scientists trying to put actual information out there. People just seem to assume that "putting into laymans terms" means "stretch to an extreme you think the layman will agree with regardless of the facts", and I agree with you on that front. Its entirely dispicable.
A true climatologist should simply state "I see this data here, and this data here, and based on these interactions I believe this is whats up. (and then the key part) Here is my methodology of how i obtained these results, and these are the reasons I am reaching this conclusion in my opinion".
This is true research results, which will never get further funding.
That really is the part that burns me up; We have people spinning on many sides, while ACTUAL USEFUL INFORMATION would never get funding which places scientists dangerously close to the Alinsky 'non-doers' side of things. This aggravates the whole conflict as those influencing the final "We found out this!" headlines just end up polarizing the debate into only two sides, who then spend the whole debate bitching about the other extreme advocates poor methodologies. Then people suddenly seem to think that IS the basis of the debate to begin with.
This is especially pronounced when you look at the other side of "How many people would actually listen to such dry and boring data".
Hm.
Bender: Hey baby, wanna kill all humans?
Blackboard, The company people create when someone says "Well its not like we can break into the textbook publishing business eh?".
damnit, wanted to make some pointlessly far reaching reference to becoming death and destroying worlds but i just cant make it work without an "er" at the end.
Proof positive the recording industries tactics are stifling creativity!
I'd answer if i knew how B and C were mutually exclusive heh. If the brain who gives the go-ahead to continue the process is at all rational, then a.
i'm betting b + c for some reason.
Heh, proof positive of how bent it must be to browse slashdot at >0, or even -1 eh? I do not get how i keep getting modded up well AFTER you properly shot my argument right to hell heh.
Touche, I just think they should look into it as part of discovery.
Heh, honesty meets /. anal retentiveness.
Kudos dude for putting that out there.
Yeah, I hate believing people are innocent until proven guilty too.
Oh yeah, and why waste time investigating another possible lead when its easier to just mount a better case against the guy in question.
wait.
As i've said in other posts, i'm not saying i think he is guilty nor not guilty. The fact of the matter remains that there is no body, and the evidence is pretty highly stacked and yet localized in a slightly suspect fashion (IE: the books on crime in the vehicle?). Granted the circumstancial evidence is pretty damning, especially the removed seat and such that another post mentioned and the fact that he picked up his kids at school when it was supposed to be their mothers turn to do so.
It still all boils down to inference based on circumstantial evidence. Now, if there was further investigation into sturgeon and they found nothing to go on whatsoever, THEN it would all be downright damning.
What the hell has happened to the concept of justice, when did it become "once in the courts, its a versus b and ignore the rest".
ack, sorry for the commaclasm.
So no one should bother looking into it because this is the easiest answer?
The fact that she was a physician means that she would know of extracting blood samples and such, and as the defense stated and the expert witness agreed, there is no way to conclude the time at which the samples were applied to the locations, nor how. That is the only point i meant by that. I'm not saying this is PROOF of anything, simply that in comjuction with the rest of this, it provides reason to at least friggan look into it.
Well the books on crime bit, i wouldnt even require a programmer or a geek to think that that would be a bad idea.
Hell if i saw the same shit with an elementary school dropout who went straight to mcdonalds for the rest of his life versus the other half of the equation, i'd still say it warrants investigation.
Are you saying they shouldn't bother to make sure, simply because geeks can make mistakes too?
Yeah, of archetypes I expect to decide to murder me, i'd have to place cross-dressers waaaayyyy the hell down on the list.
Despite the fact that Sean Sturgeon is a known killer, Nina Reiser was a physician, and the fact that apparently they found "Books on Crime" along with the sleeping bag and blood samples on the pillar in his garage? With no body, no witnesses, and no direct evidence?
Who the hell commits a crime with pair of books on crime in their vehicle, and then leave it all there for someone to find. Programmers know too much about allocation and management of objects to not destroy them when its detrimental they no longer exist.
I'm not saying I think he is innocent NOR that i think hes guilty. I simply think it all warrants much further investigation.
Unless you're pushing the button from your newly colonized extraterrestrial planet with a nice self-sustaining biosphere of its own =)
No, they found items containing her blood (sleeping bag), and there was blood samples in Reisers garage.
Strangely enough though, this is one case where i would expect it to warrant further investigation as A) Nina Reiser was a physician and B) as the GP stated, Sean Sturgeon is one frightening fucking individual. That gives the knowledge necessary for such things to be possible, combined with a nature that has done such things before.
I'm not saying for sure one way or the other, but don't you think the friggan BOOKS ON CRIME they found along with it all as rather like someone padding the bill? (Plus what kind of programmer wouldn't think to properly destroy those objects so no one finds them wasting in memory heh). Not certainty by any means, but worthy of investigation.
Yeah, High population density + low land surface area is definitely not a position to start a nuclear war from heh.
Wait, shouldn't the barber be the artist and the hair be the medium?
and seriously, how many times do we have to read permutations of "Your analogy is flawed" today!
Worse still would be the increase in downloads if he did another My Life as a Bosom...
Course the physicist demographic would plummet sharply.
wow, good call.
and another tally on the mind-is-dying meter.
=)
Exactly, While this could be useful for bulk mobile file transfers, this definitely wont be used for anything real time.
I believe geosync orbit has a MINIMUM lightspeed latency of 119.4ms.
Not a fun starting point BEFORE collisions and noise.
Touche, I wasnt thinking of the other dangers we DO have when there is no atmosphere present =).
I think the real question would be more "will anyone WANT to develop software for it" as you could write an extremely simple OS that use very strict scheduling and such, but to keep it simple you'd have to reduce the functionality of the API and developers would want to stab you in the face.