Pardon me for standing up for them, but... it's MICROSOFT. They have a lot of smart talented software engineers who are just as capable of administrating their own computers as those writing for/. - and whatever is missed, like some spyware, gets picked up by the continuous network audit.
I think you put too much faith in the mere words of a CIO.
Peeves me off when the people writing the software are not trusted to administrate their own computer which they are writing software for (or some equivalent thereto).
Why?
Programming knowledge is not the same as networking knowledge or sysadmin knowledge.
What's with this growing American sentiment that nobody should be trusted with tools, that only someone special should be (without noting the perversity that if nobody can be trusted, then nobody can be trusted)?
Nope. The idea is to have the people who are specially trained work with the tools they're specially trained on.
Ideally, all programmers would FIRST be required to work as sysadmins for 2 years and then netadmins for 2 years before being allowed to write their first line of code.
They aren't.
So why do you believe that learning programming automatically gives you the knowledge of a sysadmin and netadmin?
Your assumption, 'that sysadmins know what they are doing and programmers do not' is a fallacy.
Okay, I can see that.
Just as there are inept users, there are inept sysadmins - and even good sysadmins can have their moments.
I'm still with you.
The real answer is for people to become acutely aware of how their actions can effect how a system works, or doesn't work holistically - and know what you are doing before you do it.
Nope. You lost me.
While that is a good theory, it fails in practice.
That's because it requires every developer to also learn the skills of a good sysadmin.
This is particularly important for mission critical servers where one slip of the mouse can put clients offline for hours.
I look at it the opposite way.
I cannot trust those people to have the sysadmin skills so I cannot trust them with the rights to damage that server.
If a user or a sysadmin for that matter consistently screws things up - then you need to start questioning their access to the system to begin with; maybe they are in the wrong line of work?
While I look at it as maybe you have the wrong access policy.
They might be a really good developer, and a crappy sysadmin. Which means they would do very well in a place with a different access policy.
Why do I want to base the access rights on an individual rather than a group?
You said:
You could easily write a several-inches-thick book on the things Group Policy can do. You'll have to excuse me if I don't do that for a/. post.
I replied: You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen people claim "I could do it, but I don't want to".
You replied: I never said I could do it.
Well, that about wraps it up. I kind of thought you couldn't do it.
Yep. I'm sure a typo in a shell script could _never_ do that. Unthinkable.
That would have to be one extreme typo. Yet it is very easy to do with Windows.
A misplaced 'rm -rf' or an incorrectly specified NFS mount in/etc/fstab, or maybe an untested kernel upgrade.
Strange, I've never used "rm -rf" during an patch or an upgrade.
I've used "apt-get update" and I've used "apt-get upgrade". Many times.
In my experience with Linux and Windows, this is functionality Windows doesn't have because Windows doesn't need it. You don't have the massively dependency cascades in Windows you have in Linux distros. You very rarely get situations where upgrading libverysmallandinsignificant.so from version 0.7.1 to 0.7.2 breaks half of the operating environment.
You could easily write a several-inches-thick book on the things Group Policy can do. You'll have to excuse me if I don't do that for a/. post.
You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen people claim "I could do it, but I don't want to".
To paint in extremely broad strokes, (although that seems to be right up your alley, so it should do) Group Policy provides a centralised tool for configuring computers.
It seems you don't even know the tools you mention. That's very common with fan boys.
Evidently you don't pay much attention to people who talk about why unix is so much better then. It's a fairly frequently raised "point".
So you claim. Lots of claims from you, very little content.
In my experience with Linux and Windows, this is functionality Windows doesn't have because Windows doesn't need it.
You should look up the term "dll Hell" sometime.
You don't have the massively dependency cascades in Windows you have in Linux distros. You very rarely get situations where upgrading libverysmallandinsignificant.so from version 0.7.1 to 0.7.2 breaks half of the operating environment.
yes, but ease isn't necessarily that much of an issue, if %90 of the market were Linux machines, no one would care to crack Windows workstations at all, if the majority of the machines were harder to crack, they'd try harder to crack the majority of machines.
Yes, I see your point. That is why every bank is robbed every day.
It isn't about trying, it's about succeeding.
A good security model means that they don't succeed.
These things are created solely to infect as many as possible, that's their whole motivation.
And if they don't infect the machines, so what?
you may eliminate a few spammers from the field, but the more dedicated and knowlegeable pushers of such trash could quite possibly increase their gains through the heavier difficulty and lack of competition.
Look at the statistics for Apache deployment vs IIS. Yet Apache systems are cracked less than IIS/Windows boxes.
The real world does not seem to reflect your claims.
I'm not assuming that at all, but show me a totally flawless operating system and gladly eat my words.
Nice try. No one said Linux was flawless.
But it doesn't have to be flawless to be better than Windows.
And better means fewer compromises.
To assume that they wouldn't adapt to different bugs and vulnerabilities is naive. Security can be improved, but so can cracking.
Again, you've just stated that there is no such thing as "Security".
No matter how much effort is put into Security, you believe that it will be cracked and that it will be cracked as often as insecure systems are.
Yet, strangely enough, every bank is not robbed every day even though they have lots of money in them and lots of people going into them.
Of course they do, it's the most common operating system. I don't think that if another operating system were to gain popularity above Windows, they wouldn't find some way to exploit it as well.
Ah, the old "Marketshare == Security" claim.
That is based upon the mistaken assumption that all systems have similar bugs and similar vulnerabilities.
In other words, Security cannot ever be improved.
The problem wouldn't be solved if everyone switched to Linux or OSX, because the fact remains that there will always be people who just don't know how to make their computers secure.
But a large portion of that can be handled by the vendor. Just shipping with the ports blocked will prevent worms from cracking your computer.
If 90% of the workstations were running Linux, it would still be easier to crack one of the remaining Windows boxes via worm.
You might see an increase in the percentage of Linux machines that were cracked...
but the total number of cracked units would be a fraction of the number of cracked Windows boxes today.
but *nix is not as great when you have machines that are only occasionally connected to the network (travelling laptops).
So, a well designed Debian network would have the workstations managed one way (remote mount of one thing all the way up to LTSP) and laptops managed a different way.
Fortunately, the modular nature of Debian allows for very small update packages.
I'm struggling to think how it could be much easier and more streamlined than Group Policy and Symantec's "Security Centre".
Don't just rattle off names.
Identify the functionality that each of those provides and WHY it is necessary for an administrator.
Only then can you compare/contrast the two platforms.
It always makes me chuckle when I hear unix people criticising Windows because "you need to login to the machine to admin it" (which is untrue, but that's by the by) and then talk about their admin scripts - which are really doing exactly the same thing (logging into each machine to do things).
I don't see anyone claiming that.
Here's an example: Package management.
On Debian, it is ultra-simple. And every file belongs to a package and that is controlled by the package management system.
On Windows, there isn't any system-based link between the files and what package installed them. Any package can update any file.
This becomes important when you're managing multiple workstations. With Debian, it is trivial to verify files to packages and packages between machines to troubleshoot a problem.
With Windows, it is far more difficult and usually results in the proverbial reboot, reload, re-install.
Bicker over semantics all you want, you made the absurd statement that qualitiative assesments could not come from quantitative data. I proved you wrong with the football example, to which you claimed "No, you would need more data". I pointed out that data would be quantitative as well, you used your "I'm covering my eyes so it doesn't exist" defense.
Hardly. I have thrown more touchdowns, on average, than he has.
Therefore, accourding to your logic, I am a better quarterback than he is.
Nope. Read post #10999565 for your idiotic argument on quantitative and qualitiative data if it does not embarrass you too much.
Maybe you don't understand what those words mean? I've re-read that post of mine and I do not see how it supports your statement (to which the "Since your position is..." statement was a reply to)
You then argued that for some reason quantitative data cannot be used with qualitative data and that apparently your test scores were "qualitative statistics", to which I pointed out (and will prove at the library Monday) you don't know shit about statistics.
No, I have never argued that quantitative data could not be used with qualitative data.
Feel free to post a link to where I have said that.
Yes, and I said a) standardized tests won't work for a number of reasons and b) we are not looking at just the graduation rates but a number of other factors.
And you refuse to state what those "other factors" are because you know that they would be standardized tests which would support my position and invalidate your's.
Great. Now it's gone full circle and you still cannot specify what those "other factors" are.
Yes I have and they were not standardized tests. Difficulty of schools, difficulty of courses of study, grades recieved, reasons for dropping out, any of this ringing a bell?
No, you haven't. HOW will you measure the "difficulty of schools" without standardized tests?
HOW will you measure the "difficulty of courses of study" without standardized tests?
Without standardized tests "grades recieved" are meaningless.
And so on and so forth. Been there, gone over that. You still cannot answer the most basic questions.
You then argued that for some reason quantitative data cannot be used with qualitative data and that apparently your test scores were "qualitative statistics", to which I pointed out (and will prove at the library Monday) you don't know shit about statistics.
Since your position is fundamentally flawed, you are now resorting to lies?
Again, my position is that measuring college graduation rates (when paired with high school test scores) did not tell you anything about how well the high school prepared the students for college. Without standardized tests in college a high college graduation rate can indicate "easy" courses while a low college graduation rate can indicate "hard" courses.
Don't go setting up strawmen that are easy for you to disprove.
I pointed out that we were not proposing to only measure college graduation rates but a number of factors including qualitative factors concerning the difficulty of the schools and degree programs and that your standardized tests would not work for a variety of reasons.
I see you are ignoring the three I gave two posts ago. Is this the "I'm closing my eyes so they don't exist" approach? Here they are again:
Nope. But you might want to state what, specifically, they contradict from my link.
Of coruse each of these suffer from the same problems that your link suffered from, even if you are unable to comprehend those problems.
I'll read that as "I have links, but they don't contradict your's, so I'll claim that they're all flawed like your's, but refuse to give details".
Would it make you happy if next time I go to the library (probably Monday) I look up a few true primary sources? I could give you the references to the books, though that would require you to get off your ass and check out those books yourself.
Go for it. But you'll have to do better than a mere list of books.
You'll have to give specific pages and quotations and how those refute the points I have brought up.
I'll even help you with that. The original discussion was about college graduation rates and high school preparation for college.
I said that measuring college graduation rates (when paired with high school test scores) did not tell you anything about how well the high school prepared the students for college. Without standardized tests in college a high college graduation rate can indicate "easy" courses while a low college graduation rate can indicate "hard" courses.
No, I was merely tired of you constantly doging the issue and still pretending to be an authority on statistics. So I forced you to admit that you were not an authority. Your claim was easy to refute, as I did in my last post. I was actually very eager for you to admit that (in fact, normally I would have waited for you to say outright "I am not an expert", I let you slide with what I considered close enough) because I wanted to show you the flaw in your reasoning.
Whatever. My reference still stands and all you have is a dictionary.
Do you seriously expect me to drive down to your house with my stat book in hand to show you a definition almost no one but you disputes?
So I will quote you http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131283&cid=110 62941"Had I wanted to refute your claims with a primary reference I would have dug out my old stat textbook, driven to your house, and pointed out the definitions they gave. However, I don't feel like doing that, so instead I copied and pasted a link to an online dictionary." And I pointed out that a dictionary does not refute a text on the subject. Since you are unable to provide supporting material from anything more than your claims or a dictionary, my reference still stands. Too bad.
First of all, quality is more important than quantity. "I've shown more links" is not a valid argument, I can find dozens of links that argue the dumbest things imaginable.
Yet there has to be at least one link (quantity) to a reference. All you've been able to do is link to a dictionary.
I've linked to an actual text on the subject.
Yes, quality is more important than quantity and you have not provided any quantify of quality links.
Second, you have presented one questionable reference that does nothing to support your claim. In that last post I presented three references that outright refute it. Three is greater than none, or even one if you are still under the impression your site gave contridictory definitions of quantitative or qualitative.
If it is questionable, then refute it with something more than a dictionary and your claims about your education.
That's all that you need to do.
Yet time after time you've been unable to do so.
If I was wrong, it should be very simple for someone of your advanced education to provide a link (not a dictionary) clearly showing where I was wrong.
I've done that to your claims.
Why do you have such a problem doing that with mine?
I'll take that response as an admittance that you have no actual education in the field of statistics and thus your earlier statements that I should take a course in statistics were disengenous attacks against my character as in reality I have a more extensive statistical education than you.
Take it however you want to.
Your PREVIOUS complaints were:
#1. The material presented is "very basic and over simplified overview of the field".
Yet you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
#2. The material is presented by a "biologist" and not a statistician.
Again, you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
Since you couldn't address those, you decided to switch to an ad hominem attack. Just as I predicted you would.
Had I wanted to refute your claims with a primary reference I would have...
Yeah. You won't believe how many times I see people talking about things the could do if they wanted to. Personally, I prefer to stick to reality and facts.
The facts are that I have presented more references that are not dictionaries while all you have are claims about your education, ad hominem attacks and the eternal "if I wanted to, I could do.... but I don't want to".
This is certainly not an ad hominem argument, you have repeatedly used yourself as an authority in the field of statistics by repeatedly implying you have an extensive education in statistics and thus your knowledge is subject to question.
You are correct that it is not currently an ad hominem attack.
But your repeated refusals to support your use of a dictionary as a reference over a text about that subject while you are demanding info about my past shows that such was your goal.
Ad hominem arguments are those which attack some irrelevant character trait.
Use the URL I gave you.
Thus you must either admit that you yourself are not an expert in the field of statistics and that you are only relying on random websites you find off google and crap you pull out of your ass or support your claim. I'll accept either one.
And there you are wrong. For I have substantiated every one of my claims with a verifiable reference that was not merely a dictionary.
Your position would be correct if I had ONLY stated that I was an expert and that such-and-such is true because I said it.
Much as you continually attempt to do with your claims of graduating soon.
My claims are supported by the referenes I have given. You either refute the references or you lose.
Once again you dodge the question. I'll explain to you why a dictionary is a better resource for the definition of a word than a random webpage once you answer my question.
No. You'll explain why you believe a dictionary is better at explaining the science of statistics than an actual text on that subject or you will have lost the point.
Again, your complaints seem to be:
#1. The material presented is "very basic and over simplified overview of the field".
Yet you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
#2. The material is presented by a "biologist" and not a statistician.
Again, you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
In order to refute my points, you'll have to come up with something better than a dictionary.
Maybe they should teach debate in that high school you're attending. Then you would know better than to try to trap someone in an "ad hominem (circumstantial)" ploy. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
Blaming parents is a cop-out. You can't make parents care. And you certainly can't expect all parents to be educated enough to teach their kids effectively.
Hardly. The parents spend more time with their children than any other adult (except in extreme cases). If the parents are not sufficient, no teacher can be.
If a child wants to learn, he should be able to accomplish that at school. That is nearly impossible in many places.
I went to a crappy high school yet I had no trouble learning more than any of the teachers could teach me. I went to the library and read all the books there. I read all of my text books before the teachers assigned them. And that was years before the 'web.
Teachers need to be accountable, and they need to FAIL kids who don't know. That's what failing is, right? Well, if you don't pass a final exam covering all the material for the year/semester, you should FAIL. Then you retake the class and LEARN it. Then teachers don't waste everyone's time reviewing material.
I agree that a child that cannot pass the exams should fail and repeat the class.
But this is not about failing the child. This is about how to educate the child so he can pass the exams.
Of course, people are too concerned about children's self-esteem. Nobody wants to be the person to tell a child: "You just don't know the material well enough to move to the next level". But how else will they learn?
By the parents taking an interest in their child's education and helping the child to learn the material.
That keeps the kids who want to learn moving, and seperates them from the kids who are holding them back (by demanding review of topics the other kids knew years ago). Everyone can learn at their own pace.
No one is stopping the advanced children from learning on their own. Only you can hold you back.
Maybe that would bring back the antiquated concept of shame? Poorly performing kids would realize "Hey, all the other people my age are moving right past me. Perhaps I should get my act together.". It might also make a high school diploma worth something again.
Somehow, I don't see the cheerleaders drooling over the kid in the advanced math class.
The kids who are getting bad grades don't care about getting better grades. They have a different value system.
Now, how do you tell a 16 year old that getting "C's" is a bad thing when he's on the football team, getting drunk with his friends and fucking cheerleaders.
Sure, he could be staying home and studying to get better grades........
Somehow, I don't see how reading the World Book Encyclopedia can match a weekend of drunken sex for a 16 year old. Maybe it's different for you.
And I suppose we should never blame the school system which soaks up 80% of the kids time and energy but offers little of interest to anyone but the least common denominator...
You can blame the schools all you want. But blaming them won't change the results.
Ya, kids are really going to spend 6-7 hours a day sitting in class "learning" nothing, then come home and spend 2-3 hours actually studying something new and interesting. Some might, but that's the minority.
It isn't up to the kids. They're pretty much lazy and looking to coast through life playing games and talking to their friends. Just like kids have always been.
It's up to the parents.
Only the parents can change the outcome.
It is the parent's choice whether to take an active role in their children's education or to abandon them to someone paid by the state to perform that service.
Actually I did. No, it did not provide the definitions you claim. All it did was provide a very basic and over simplified overview of the field. Its not even by a statistician, its by a biologist. I can find dozens of notes like those, many of which are more accurate and more informative. The Internet is a great resource, but doing a google for statistics is not the best way to learn about them.
So, your complaints are:
#1. The material presented is "very basic and over simplified overview of the field".
Yet you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
#2. The material is presented by a "biologist" and not a statistician.
Again, you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
In order to refute my points, you'll have to come up with something better than a dictionary.
Introduction to statistics? Is that the extent of your "massive statistical education"? LOL!
Nope. But I have to start somewhere to explain how you are wrong and an introductory class seems like the most logical choice.
Anyways, sorry, even if an overview of a "statistics for biologists" class was a decent source, nothing on that page refutes the commonly known fact that statistics are by definition quantitative.
Hmmm, now you're quoting a "commonly known fact".
It seems you are confusing the dictionary definition of what a "statistic" is with the practice of the science of statistics.
Whether you are doing that in an intentional effort to confuse the issue or not does not matter. What matters is the fact that I have presented a link to a page about the actual science of statistics and how the variables can be either Quantitative or Qualitative.
All you have are dictionary definitions for those words.
Here's another free clue, you learn about a science by learning the science, not by trying to play with a dictionary.
In statistics, the data is either quantitative or qualitative. As I have shown on the page I linked to.
Slashdot Mirror
Programming knowledge is not the same as networking knowledge or sysadmin knowledge.Nope. The idea is to have the people who are specially trained work with the tools they're specially trained on.
Ideally, all programmers would FIRST be required to work as sysadmins for 2 years and then netadmins for 2 years before being allowed to write their first line of code.
They aren't.
So why do you believe that learning programming automatically gives you the knowledge of a sysadmin and netadmin?
While that is a good theory, it fails in practice.
That's because it requires every developer to also learn the skills of a good sysadmin.I look at it the opposite way.
I cannot trust those people to have the sysadmin skills so I cannot trust them with the rights to damage that server.While I look at it as maybe you have the wrong access policy.
They might be a really good developer, and a crappy sysadmin. Which means they would do very well in a place with a different access policy.
Why do I want to base the access rights on an individual rather than a group?
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/30/193224 5
I've used "apt-get update" and I've used "apt-get upgrade". Many times.
But I've never used "rm -rf".
You are still talking about patching, right?
Here, let me refresh your memory on what you were talking about: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=132574&cid=11
Well, it seems upgrade do cause problems.
Documented, even.
60,000 computers.
At once.
Well, I'm sure Windows doesn't really need a modern package management system. Nope. Not at all.
60,000 computers. Wiped out with one upgrade.
Win2K was cracked almost instantly.
Win2K + sp2 was not.
The Linux box was attacked about twice an hour.
Un-advertised boxes, located by simple scans.Yes, I see your point. That is why every bank is robbed every day.
It isn't about trying, it's about succeeding.
A good security model means that they don't succeed.And if they don't infect the machines, so what?Look at the statistics for Apache deployment vs IIS. Yet Apache systems are cracked less than IIS/Windows boxes.
The real world does not seem to reflect your claims.Nice try. No one said Linux was flawless.
But it doesn't have to be flawless to be better than Windows.
And better means fewer compromises.Again, you've just stated that there is no such thing as "Security".
No matter how much effort is put into Security, you believe that it will be cracked and that it will be cracked as often as insecure systems are.
Yet, strangely enough, every bank is not robbed every day even though they have lots of money in them and lots of people going into them.
All you see is Marketshare.
Marketshare != Security
That is based upon the mistaken assumption that all systems have similar bugs and similar vulnerabilities.
In other words, Security cannot ever be improved.But a large portion of that can be handled by the vendor. Just shipping with the ports blocked will prevent worms from cracking your computer.
If 90% of the workstations were running Linux, it would still be easier to crack one of the remaining Windows boxes via worm.
You might see an increase in the percentage of Linux machines that were cracked
but the total number of cracked units would be a fraction of the number of cracked Windows boxes today.
Marketshare != Security
Security != Marketshare
but *nix is not as great when you have machines that are only occasionally connected to the network (travelling laptops).
So, a well designed Debian network would have the workstations managed one way (remote mount of one thing all the way up to LTSP) and laptops managed a different way.
Fortunately, the modular nature of Debian allows for very small update packages.
But the majority of your costs are tied up in administration, not the price of software.
If Apache didn't work, you couldn't give it away.
Identify the functionality that each of those provides and WHY it is necessary for an administrator.
Only then can you compare/contrast the two platforms.I don't see anyone claiming that.
Here's an example: Package management.
On Debian, it is ultra-simple. And every file belongs to a package and that is controlled by the package management system.
On Windows, there isn't any system-based link between the files and what package installed them. Any package can update any file.
This becomes important when you're managing multiple workstations. With Debian, it is trivial to verify files to packages and packages between machines to troubleshoot a problem.
With Windows, it is far more difficult and usually results in the proverbial reboot, reload, re-install.
Therefore, accourding to your logic, I am a better quarterback than he is.
Which is the flaw in your "logic".
I'll wait to see what you post on Monday.
Feel free to post a link to where I have said that.And you refuse to state what those "other factors" are because you know that they would be standardized tests which would support my position and invalidate your's.
Great. Now it's gone full circle and you still cannot specify what those "other factors" are.No, you haven't. HOW will you measure the "difficulty of schools" without standardized tests?
HOW will you measure the "difficulty of courses of study" without standardized tests?
Without standardized tests "grades recieved" are meaningless.
And so on and so forth. Been there, gone over that. You still cannot answer the most basic questions.
I'll see what you can come up with on Monday.
Again, my position is that measuring college graduation rates (when paired with high school test scores) did not tell you anything about how well the high school prepared the students for college. Without standardized tests in college a high college graduation rate can indicate "easy" courses while a low college graduation rate can indicate "hard" courses.
Don't go setting up strawmen that are easy for you to disprove.
My position is here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131283&cid=11
No you did not. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131283&cid=10
If you feel that I am wrong about that, please post a link and quote where you said such.
You have continually stated that multiple factors be considered in addition to the college graduation rates.
I said that if any of those "multiple factors" were standardized tests, then you were supporting my position.
You have never specified what "multiple factors" you'd be measuring. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131283&cid=10
Nice try with the lies and the strawman. But I expected as much from you.
You'll have to give specific pages and quotations and how those refute the points I have brought up.
I'll even help you with that. The original discussion was about college graduation rates and high school preparation for college.
I said that measuring college graduation rates (when paired with high school test scores) did not tell you anything about how well the high school prepared the students for college. Without standardized tests in college a high college graduation rate can indicate "easy" courses while a low college graduation rate can indicate "hard" courses.
You claimed that I was wrong.
And I pointed out that a dictionary does not refute a text on the subject. Since you are unable to provide supporting material from anything more than your claims or a dictionary, my reference still stands. Too bad.Yet there has to be at least one link (quantity) to a reference. All you've been able to do is link to a dictionary.
I've linked to an actual text on the subject.
Yes, quality is more important than quantity and you have not provided any quantify of quality links.If it is questionable, then refute it with something more than a dictionary and your claims about your education.
That's all that you need to do.
Yet time after time you've been unable to do so.
If I was wrong, it should be very simple for someone of your advanced education to provide a link (not a dictionary) clearly showing where I was wrong.
I've done that to your claims.
Why do you have such a problem doing that with mine?
Your PREVIOUS complaints were:
#1. The material presented is "very basic and over simplified overview of the field".
Yet you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
#2. The material is presented by a "biologist" and not a statistician.
Again, you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
Since you couldn't address those, you decided to switch to an ad hominem attack. Just as I predicted you would. Yeah. You won't believe how many times I see people talking about things the could do if they wanted to. Personally, I prefer to stick to reality and facts.
The facts are that I have presented more references that are not dictionaries while all you have are claims about your education, ad hominem attacks and the eternal "if I wanted to, I could do
Whatever.
But your repeated refusals to support your use of a dictionary as a reference over a text about that subject while you are demanding info about my past shows that such was your goal.Use the URL I gave you.And there you are wrong. For I have substantiated every one of my claims with a verifiable reference that was not merely a dictionary.
Your position would be correct if I had ONLY stated that I was an expert and that such-and-such is true because I said it.
Much as you continually attempt to do with your claims of graduating soon.
My claims are supported by the referenes I have given. You either refute the references or you lose.
Again, your complaints seem to be:
#1. The material presented is "very basic and over simplified overview of the field".
Yet you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
#2. The material is presented by a "biologist" and not a statistician.
Again, you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
In order to refute my points, you'll have to come up with something better than a dictionary.
Maybe they should teach debate in that high school you're attending. Then you would know better than to try to trap someone in an "ad hominem (circumstantial)" ploy. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
Looks like you lose on BOTH points.
#1. The material presented is "very basic and over simplified overview of the field".
Yet you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
#2. The material is presented by a "biologist" and not a statistician.
Again, you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
In order to refute my points, you'll have to come up with something better than a dictionary.
FF 1.0 on Win2K.
Middle-click to open citibank page in new tab YOU WILL NOT BE VULNERABLE.
Left click and allow citibank page to open in new window YOU WILL BE VULNERABLE.
At least, that's the behaviour I see on this box.
But this is not about failing the child. This is about how to educate the child so he can pass the exams.By the parents taking an interest in their child's education and helping the child to learn the material.No one is stopping the advanced children from learning on their own. Only you can hold you back.Somehow, I don't see the cheerleaders drooling over the kid in the advanced math class.
The kids who are getting bad grades don't care about getting better grades. They have a different value system.
Now, how do you tell a 16 year old that getting "C's" is a bad thing when he's on the football team, getting drunk with his friends and fucking cheerleaders.
Sure, he could be staying home and studying to get better grades
Somehow, I don't see how reading the World Book Encyclopedia can match a weekend of drunken sex for a 16 year old. Maybe it's different for you.
It's up to the parents.
Only the parents can change the outcome.
It is the parent's choice whether to take an active role in their children's education or to abandon them to someone paid by the state to perform that service.
#1. The material presented is "very basic and over simplified overview of the field".
Yet you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
#2. The material is presented by a "biologist" and not a statistician.
Again, you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference.
In order to refute my points, you'll have to come up with something better than a dictionary.
And that is more accurate than your dictionary definitions.
It seems you are confusing the dictionary definition of what a "statistic" is with the practice of the science of statistics.
Whether you are doing that in an intentional effort to confuse the issue or not does not matter. What matters is the fact that I have presented a link to a page about the actual science of statistics and how the variables can be either Quantitative or Qualitative.
All you have are dictionary definitions for those words.
Here's another free clue, you learn about a science by learning the science, not by trying to play with a dictionary.
In statistics, the data is either quantitative or qualitative. As I have shown on the page I linked to.