That would be a flaw if I ever discussed "a bunch of people", but I never did.
The interesting thing here is not that the individual can guess a number close to the true value. What's interesting is that if he guesses more than once, the average is closer to the true value than his initial guess. This is unexpected and a little weird.
They have some degree of randomness. You would expect a second guess to be close to the first guess, but there's no reason to expect the average of multiple guesses to be closer to the true value.
You state the really cool thing about this but somehow completely miss it!
You say, "If the guesses are distributed around the correct value...." Well, why would they be? They're guesses! There's no reason to expect one person's guesses to be centered on the correct value if they don't know the correct value. But this study shows that they are centered near the correct value, even though the person doesn't know what that value is.
Yes... so? Your post assumed that few people live on minimum wage because minimum wage is not a living wage. I demonstrated why this is false, thus your post's conclusion is false.
The rate is slow enough that it will keep an atmosphere for tens of millions of years. Even the Moon is big enough to keep a thick atmosphere for millions of years. I don't have any references, but searching for information on Mars terraforming ought to find them for you.
Why is this site full of such dumbfucks? I mean, seriously. You could find a higher average intelligence in an ant farm.
Where did I say that I did no work? Oh that's right, I never said that. You just made it up, then acted like I said it because, I dunno, you're a total jackass.
I worked hard in college, but that was not why I was there. I was there to get an education. The work was a necessary component, not a goal.
And to think, if you had gotten a job at the Kwik-E-Mart instead, not only would you have been competing with co-workers way smarter than you, but you would also have been making five bucks an hour doing it!
I have never met anyone who doesn't screw up royally on their first job, and sometimes that sort of thing can virtually ruin a career. If screwing up on your first job can ruin your career then it's probably a relatively high-end job that you take after you get a degree. You're not going to ruin anything by screwing up a job you get at the age of 18.
If you do it right, college can be like being your own boss, running your own projects, and working in the way that work really should be done. If the experience of being your own boss is what you're after, start a business. Even if it fails spectacularly I guarantee you that it will be cheaper than paying for school, and the experience you gain will be vastly better because it will be with something that actually matters.
I spent five years in school getting a BS and MS. I sure as hell didn't go to learn how to work. I went to get an education, and that's what I got.
I met a lot of people like that in college. Strangely, I've never met any of them in the workforce. My guess is that either the all go into giant faceless corporations producing incredibly boring and inconsequential stuff, and thus I never interact with them, or at some point they realized that they didn't want to do this for the rest of their life and switched to some other field.
College is great because it is, in itself, a great opportunity to learn how to work your ass off in a grown-up environment, but before consequences really come into play. If you're not working your ass off, you're missing out on the best opportunity college can provide. That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day. If this is the best opportunity that college can provide, there's no reason to go. Get a job! Then you can not only learn how to work your ass off in a grown-up environment, you can get paid for it too!
The point of college is to gain an education and grow intellectually. Learning how to get stuff done is certainly part of it, but it's not the only, or even the biggest, part of it. If that's all you need then there's no need to pay for the experience.
Nonsensical. "Living wage" has a specific definition which is not equivalent to "sufficient to survive". A living wage means that you have enough money to live at a certain standard of living while working a normal full-time job, and usually includes supporting a family. Lots of people survive on minimum wage by living below this standard, supporting fewer dependents, or by working more than full time.
Why would it not be outsourcing? Outsourcing refers to anything that you pay someone else to do instead of doing it yourself. It's only in bizarro-world Slashdot land that "outsourcing" has this ridiculously specific definition of "recent activities involving paying overseas software companies instead of using in-house programmers".
You're going to trust the source of the potentially fake e-mail as to whether it's fake or not? If they made up the e-mail then maybe they made up the conversation too!
Of course it's not fake, as has been revealed elsewhere. But your "evidence" isn't.
I'm sure you're correct. As the top speeds go up, the ratio of usage is almost sure to go down. After all, grandma on 5Mbit cable who uses it only to download pictures of her grandchildren will use the exact same amount of bandwidth once she switches to 50Mbit FiOS. Conversely if she downgrades to 50kbit dialup she won't be using much less.
But overselling is always fine, as long as your infrastructure meets actual peak demand. It's just the degree of overselling that changes with speeds. If you're serving people on 256kbps DSL then you won't be able to oversell to nearly the degree that you would on FiOS, but you can probably still oversell by 75% or more.
HTTP form submitting to HTTPS is not secure, because you can subvert the form page to capture or redirect your login info without tripping any alarms. All it does is save you from passive monitoring, which is certainly a big plus, but it's vulnerable to a MITM attack that a pure HTTPS setup will protect you against.
Equating that to the bank actually being who they say they are, requires infinite trust in Verisign and their honesty. It requires no such thing. I do not have infinite trust in Verisign and their compatriots. On the other hand I trust them vastly more than I trust my ISP not to fall victim to a DNS poisoning attack, and thus I am vastly more secure this way.
Ridiculous. Any hacker who feels like poisoning your DNS can generate a self-signed certificate in five seconds flat. Subverting the infrastructure for keys signed by certificate authorities is vastly more difficult. When I visit my bank I can have reasonable (note, not absolute) assurance that I am talking to them, due to how the certificate authority system is set up. If they used a self-signed certificate then I would have to trust my ISP's routers and DNS servers to be doing the proper thing that day.
I didn't say that ISPs actually have, right now, in reality, the capacity to support peak demand. I only said that it is possible to have this capacity while still having far below what you would need to support the theoretical max. This is overselling. As evidence, see nearly every ISP in history which was able to support peak demand, which is most of them.
Also, as a user of Youtube, you're part of the problem I'm afraid I have no idea what you're saying here. My use of Youtube does not max out my connection except for a couple of minutes at a time. In the long term (minutes or hours) my connection is still used at 10% or less of its full capacity.
Sounds pretty good to me. My understanding is that a lot of European countries with "socialized" medicine are actually on a sort of dual-track system much like you describe, and it seems to work fairly well. In addition to your observations on plastic surgery, also consider other non-essential medical procedures such as dentistry and elective eye care, both of which are also extremely cheap compared to "real" medicine.
Luckily I never talked about how health care Should Be Done. My "this is the way to go" statement was just a personal thing, as in "you should really consider this". I in no way think that it's some kind of cure-all. In particular, really poor people are going to be unable to pay for the premiums on the high-deductible plans, much less cover the full deductible in the event that something really bad happens.
HSAs won't save you if you're too poor to afford coverage at all. What they do is make your life generally simpler and cheaper if you can. They're not a cure-all, just one of the better solutions available within the system as it stands now.
Of course the bigger problem with HSAs is that they require people to be financially responsible. In a perfect world, your employer could start you out with a full HSA and a bit of extra pay that comes from the reduced premium, and then you manage your money wisely to keep the HSA full. In reality, people will spend that extra money on something useless, and then when they blow through their HSA they'll be screwed and whiney. But this doesn't change the truth of my advice, because I'm proposing it as an individual solution, not a cure-all.
So how about you don't switch until you can afford to pay?
Or you explain to the hospital that you have no money right now but since you're saving $X/month on your health plan, would it be alright if you paid them this much plus whatever you can spare on the side until the bill is paid off?
There are lots of options. Saying that HSAs are useless for people with no money is true but not a very interesting statement to make.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a flaw if I ever discussed "a bunch of people", but I never did.
The interesting thing here is not that the individual can guess a number close to the true value. What's interesting is that if he guesses more than once, the average is closer to the true value than his initial guess. This is unexpected and a little weird.
They have some degree of randomness. You would expect a second guess to be close to the first guess, but there's no reason to expect the average of multiple guesses to be closer to the true value.
You don't trust statistics but you'll trust a single meaningless anecdote? And you're in college? God help us all.
And let's not forget that you can write applets in any language which can be compiled to run on a JVM, of which there are many.
You state the really cool thing about this but somehow completely miss it!
You say, "If the guesses are distributed around the correct value...." Well, why would they be? They're guesses! There's no reason to expect one person's guesses to be centered on the correct value if they don't know the correct value. But this study shows that they are centered near the correct value, even though the person doesn't know what that value is.
Yes... so? Your post assumed that few people live on minimum wage because minimum wage is not a living wage. I demonstrated why this is false, thus your post's conclusion is false.
The rate is slow enough that it will keep an atmosphere for tens of millions of years. Even the Moon is big enough to keep a thick atmosphere for millions of years. I don't have any references, but searching for information on Mars terraforming ought to find them for you.
Why is this site full of such dumbfucks? I mean, seriously. You could find a higher average intelligence in an ant farm.
Where did I say that I did no work? Oh that's right, I never said that. You just made it up, then acted like I said it because, I dunno, you're a total jackass.
I worked hard in college, but that was not why I was there. I was there to get an education. The work was a necessary component, not a goal.
And to think, if you had gotten a job at the Kwik-E-Mart instead, not only would you have been competing with co-workers way smarter than you, but you would also have been making five bucks an hour doing it!
I spent five years in school getting a BS and MS. I sure as hell didn't go to learn how to work. I went to get an education, and that's what I got.
Look up logistic curve. It's a lot easier to grow fast when you're small.
I met a lot of people like that in college. Strangely, I've never met any of them in the workforce. My guess is that either the all go into giant faceless corporations producing incredibly boring and inconsequential stuff, and thus I never interact with them, or at some point they realized that they didn't want to do this for the rest of their life and switched to some other field.
The point of college is to gain an education and grow intellectually. Learning how to get stuff done is certainly part of it, but it's not the only, or even the biggest, part of it. If that's all you need then there's no need to pay for the experience.
Nonsensical. "Living wage" has a specific definition which is not equivalent to "sufficient to survive". A living wage means that you have enough money to live at a certain standard of living while working a normal full-time job, and usually includes supporting a family. Lots of people survive on minimum wage by living below this standard, supporting fewer dependents, or by working more than full time.
Why would it not be outsourcing? Outsourcing refers to anything that you pay someone else to do instead of doing it yourself. It's only in bizarro-world Slashdot land that "outsourcing" has this ridiculously specific definition of "recent activities involving paying overseas software companies instead of using in-house programmers".
You're going to trust the source of the potentially fake e-mail as to whether it's fake or not? If they made up the e-mail then maybe they made up the conversation too!
Of course it's not fake, as has been revealed elsewhere. But your "evidence" isn't.
I'm sure you're correct. As the top speeds go up, the ratio of usage is almost sure to go down. After all, grandma on 5Mbit cable who uses it only to download pictures of her grandchildren will use the exact same amount of bandwidth once she switches to 50Mbit FiOS. Conversely if she downgrades to 50kbit dialup she won't be using much less.
But overselling is always fine, as long as your infrastructure meets actual peak demand. It's just the degree of overselling that changes with speeds. If you're serving people on 256kbps DSL then you won't be able to oversell to nearly the degree that you would on FiOS, but you can probably still oversell by 75% or more.
HTTP form submitting to HTTPS is not secure, because you can subvert the form page to capture or redirect your login info without tripping any alarms. All it does is save you from passive monitoring, which is certainly a big plus, but it's vulnerable to a MITM attack that a pure HTTPS setup will protect you against.
Ridiculous. Any hacker who feels like poisoning your DNS can generate a self-signed certificate in five seconds flat. Subverting the infrastructure for keys signed by certificate authorities is vastly more difficult. When I visit my bank I can have reasonable (note, not absolute) assurance that I am talking to them, due to how the certificate authority system is set up. If they used a self-signed certificate then I would have to trust my ISP's routers and DNS servers to be doing the proper thing that day.
I didn't say that ISPs actually have, right now, in reality, the capacity to support peak demand. I only said that it is possible to have this capacity while still having far below what you would need to support the theoretical max. This is overselling. As evidence, see nearly every ISP in history which was able to support peak demand, which is most of them.
Also, as a user of Youtube, you're part of the problem I'm afraid I have no idea what you're saying here. My use of Youtube does not max out my connection except for a couple of minutes at a time. In the long term (minutes or hours) my connection is still used at 10% or less of its full capacity.Sounds pretty good to me. My understanding is that a lot of European countries with "socialized" medicine are actually on a sort of dual-track system much like you describe, and it seems to work fairly well. In addition to your observations on plastic surgery, also consider other non-essential medical procedures such as dentistry and elective eye care, both of which are also extremely cheap compared to "real" medicine.
Luckily I never talked about how health care Should Be Done. My "this is the way to go" statement was just a personal thing, as in "you should really consider this". I in no way think that it's some kind of cure-all. In particular, really poor people are going to be unable to pay for the premiums on the high-deductible plans, much less cover the full deductible in the event that something really bad happens.
HSAs won't save you if you're too poor to afford coverage at all. What they do is make your life generally simpler and cheaper if you can. They're not a cure-all, just one of the better solutions available within the system as it stands now.
Of course the bigger problem with HSAs is that they require people to be financially responsible. In a perfect world, your employer could start you out with a full HSA and a bit of extra pay that comes from the reduced premium, and then you manage your money wisely to keep the HSA full. In reality, people will spend that extra money on something useless, and then when they blow through their HSA they'll be screwed and whiney. But this doesn't change the truth of my advice, because I'm proposing it as an individual solution, not a cure-all.
So how about you don't switch until you can afford to pay?
Or you explain to the hospital that you have no money right now but since you're saving $X/month on your health plan, would it be alright if you paid them this much plus whatever you can spare on the side until the bill is paid off?
There are lots of options. Saying that HSAs are useless for people with no money is true but not a very interesting statement to make.