Has anybody noticed how consoles are more and more like a computer? I mean they have HDDs, GPUs, memory cards, USB ports. They use DVDs or BDs and have a fucking ethernet connection!
It's ridiculous to talk of PC gaming death if the consoles themselves are becoming PCs. At some point you'll have to choose between buying a crippled Sony PS computer with overpriced Sony accessories such as keyboards or flash drives and no chance of upgrading OR, for a coulpe hundred dollars extra, buy a complete desktop with decent gaming capabilities, with the large advantage that with the PC you can buy accessories anywhere, from any vendor and you can upgrade it when necessary without having to sell your kidneys in order to do so.
You know... that sounds a lot like thought crime. It doesn't matter what the drawing actually shows (or the fact that it's a drawing); it's your sick thoughts that get you in trouble.
Are we talking about the same people who lose everything to a divorce because they posted what they thought was harmless information in their facebook?
Perhaps the problem is not with employers meddling with your personal business, but with insurance companies.
Think about it. The helthier you are, the less your employer has to pay for your medical insurance. It is only natural that they want to penalize your whopper scarfing.
Spend the whole summer in your house, being utterly ignored by your parents 'cause let's face it, they don't want you around 24/7, locked up in your room either playing single player games, internet games with strangers or watching tv?
This camp sounds like a great idea to do what you like with your friends or, even better, socializing with new people who share your same interests. So why are these "experts" against it? Health, they say? The 3-hour dose seems much healthier than the 8hr the kids will get at home. Plus, once the 3hr is over, they'll probably just go play outside with their new friends and have a hell of a time.
Too bad I don't live in Canada (plus a 25yo would exactly fit in, I guess).
Saying "addicted to the internet" is careless. "The internet" is not ONE thing, like smoking tobacco or sniffing cocaine.
Of course people are going to present symptoms of withdrawal when taken away from the internet. I would present symptoms as well if I was taken away from my entire lifestyle for a day!
The Internet is no longer One thing alone; it's a set of things that make a huge part of many people's lives, not because they're addicted, but because there's a lot of activities bundled together ignorantly with one word: internet.
Take away ONE thing (say, blogging) at a time and then talk about addiction if your findings are the same.
If you're talking on the phone in the bus, it is, of course, expected that people will hear what you're saying 'cause... well, sound is funny that way.
Would you be Ok with a company recording all your public-space conversations over the phone?
When a company does it worldwide in an organized fashion it becomes a problem. Even if you were just talking just about the grocery list in every single conversation.
No, which is why I called it a hypothesis and not a theory, which would require some sort of a proof.
That aside, I'm a grad student in science and I know what grants are based on. It's not on your potential prowess, but on your record of published articles (and of course an interesting research proposal). No articles, no grant.
Of course it doesn't go to the extremes. People don't lie just to get a grant. But if you consider China's rush to expand in every front, it wouldn't be unthinkable that their requirements are much insaner than they are here.
Perhaps the scientist's cheating is a response to their government's insane minimum requirements for the number of publications a scientist with a government grant must have.
If working 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, is not enough to meet the requirements from the only funding available, what should they do? Give up and sell hot-dogs in wallstreet?
HSBC, the chinese bank, has been handling my money for a long time. I use a debit card and quite freely, I might add. I had never had a problem until about 6 months ago, when I saw a transaction which I hadn't made.
I called the bank immediatly and told the nice lady my problem. What she said was "Are you sure you didn't buy anything from companyname on that date? Alright. Do you agree to pay any charges that could arise if the company has the signed voucher for that purchase? You do?......... Ok, sir, your money is back in your account. You can use it right away."
It made me feel kind of dizzy to see a company treat me, their client, as a human being. I checked right away and just as she said, the money was back in my account.
A few months later I had some issues with an internet transaction. I clicked the "pay now" button at the end of the process and after a few seconds, the page gave me an error and I just left it there. However, the site did make the charge (even though the company had no record of the transaction when I called them). I had to call the bank again. This time the call took 30 minutes, but the money was back in my account by the end of the week.
Say what you will about the Chinese bank, but they treated me greatly those two times.
I understand what you're saying. When you compare the 83 with the theoretical 50, then the difference is great and it cannot be attributed to mere deviation from the mean.
My point, however, is another. There IS a racial bias (thus the 83). With the Syndrome, of course, you don't get that same 83, you get 64. But then the author goes on to conclude that the 64 is so much closer to the "pure chance", which is 50. What I argue is that it's no closer to the 50 than it is to the 83.
If the author thinks that 14% can be dismissed as pure deviation from the mean, fine. But then, it's just as close to the 83 that is the real mean (not a theoretical one). So, how is the author so sure that the 64% is deviating from the 50 and not from the 83? I mean, if 14% can be regarded as statistical error (and let's face it, with 20 samples the error must be big), why not think that the mean of that 20 people with the syndrom is not 83 instead? Thus, the 64 would be a deviation from the mean of 83 instead of the mean of 50.
To sum it up, let's consider this: Maybe if you increase the sample from 20 to 20,000, the number will just get closer and closer to 83 instead of going down to 50.
I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I just think the author is doing some very convenient interpretative work there which is far from being correct. Thus, bad statistics.
Out of their responses, 83% were consistent with a pro-white bias. In contrast, the children with Williams syndrome only showed such responses 64% of the time, which wasn’t significantly different from chance.
64% deviates 14% from "pure chance", which would be 50%. The author calls this insignificant difference. But then, add another 19% to that 64% and you get 83%.
So, 14% is insignificant but 19% is an obvious tendency.
That, my friends, is bad statistics.
The truth is that 64% differs from the 50% almost as much as 83% from 64%. Can't jump to conclusions there.
Slashdot Mirror
... so I buy the first book ( the starter ), and then the next books ( DLCs ).
Just like with book publishing, you could do DLC packs with price reductions after they've been out a while....
You mean like the countless games that later have expansion sets and sequels?
Has anybody noticed how consoles are more and more like a computer? I mean they have HDDs, GPUs, memory cards, USB ports. They use DVDs or BDs and have a fucking ethernet connection!
It's ridiculous to talk of PC gaming death if the consoles themselves are becoming PCs. At some point you'll have to choose between buying a crippled Sony PS computer with overpriced Sony accessories such as keyboards or flash drives and no chance of upgrading OR, for a coulpe hundred dollars extra, buy a complete desktop with decent gaming capabilities, with the large advantage that with the PC you can buy accessories anywhere, from any vendor and you can upgrade it when necessary without having to sell your kidneys in order to do so.
You know... that sounds a lot like thought crime. It doesn't matter what the drawing actually shows (or the fact that it's a drawing); it's your sick thoughts that get you in trouble.
Are we talking about the same people who lose everything to a divorce because they posted what they thought was harmless information in their facebook?
Perhaps the problem is not with employers meddling with your personal business, but with insurance companies.
Think about it. The helthier you are, the less your employer has to pay for your medical insurance. It is only natural that they want to penalize your whopper scarfing.
Wearing a Microsoft product to advertise your "health" (as defined by Microsoft) to others would indicate severe brain damage.
So it works!
Well, sounds an awful lot like our muscles. Good enough for you?
You said it yourself; this is as much a loophole to GPL as a criminal getting away with it because he has good lawyers.
It's not a loophole of GPL itself, but rather of the legal system in which it must rely.
To be honest, the Bistro drive seems more likely. Have you ever tried organizing a dinner party at a Bistro?! Man, we're halfway there already!
So I take it you can give me a shitload of examples of slashdot articles covering minor Linux bugs which affect just a handful of individuals.
So a few people have a problem with windows? It's not even widespread!
This wouldn't have made it to slashdot if it weren't for the oh-so-common hatred for windows around these lands.
Spend the whole summer in your house, being utterly ignored by your parents 'cause let's face it, they don't want you around 24/7, locked up in your room either playing single player games, internet games with strangers or watching tv?
This camp sounds like a great idea to do what you like with your friends or, even better, socializing with new people who share your same interests. So why are these "experts" against it? Health, they say? The 3-hour dose seems much healthier than the 8hr the kids will get at home. Plus, once the 3hr is over, they'll probably just go play outside with their new friends and have a hell of a time.
Too bad I don't live in Canada (plus a 25yo would exactly fit in, I guess).
It's kind of funny that this happened around the time when MIT researchers talk about the posible impact of massively deployed wind turbines
Pardon the bad source, but I don't have time to really look into it.
...then its their choice!
Yes, but it's the kids who end up paying the price of their parents' choices.
En libertad, como los pajarillos. En libertad, que nadie me pregunte: a dónde vas?
Is that spanish for "Fuck Arizona!"?
Saying "addicted to the internet" is careless. "The internet" is not ONE thing, like smoking tobacco or sniffing cocaine.
Of course people are going to present symptoms of withdrawal when taken away from the internet. I would present symptoms as well if I was taken away from my entire lifestyle for a day!
The Internet is no longer One thing alone; it's a set of things that make a huge part of many people's lives, not because they're addicted, but because there's a lot of activities bundled together ignorantly with one word: internet.
Take away ONE thing (say, blogging) at a time and then talk about addiction if your findings are the same.
Maybe the real Mario is waiting patiently so that he can claim more money as compensation!
And he didn't even mention how the iPad is closed! Baffling!
5. Thou Shall Down Mod this any any posts that violate any of the above Commandments.
Your score of 4 suggests that the sinners surpass the pure ones by a margin of 4!
If you're talking on the phone in the bus, it is, of course, expected that people will hear what you're saying 'cause... well, sound is funny that way.
Would you be Ok with a company recording all your public-space conversations over the phone?
When a company does it worldwide in an organized fashion it becomes a problem. Even if you were just talking just about the grocery list in every single conversation.
The difference is subtle but of great importance.
No, which is why I called it a hypothesis and not a theory, which would require some sort of a proof.
That aside, I'm a grad student in science and I know what grants are based on. It's not on your potential prowess, but on your record of published articles (and of course an interesting research proposal). No articles, no grant.
Of course it doesn't go to the extremes. People don't lie just to get a grant. But if you consider China's rush to expand in every front, it wouldn't be unthinkable that their requirements are much insaner than they are here.
Then again, it's just a hypothesis.
Perhaps the scientist's cheating is a response to their government's insane minimum requirements for the number of publications a scientist with a government grant must have.
If working 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, is not enough to meet the requirements from the only funding available, what should they do? Give up and sell hot-dogs in wallstreet?
I don't know, though. This is just a hypothesis.
HSBC, the chinese bank, has been handling my money for a long time. I use a debit card and quite freely, I might add. I had never had a problem until about 6 months ago, when I saw a transaction which I hadn't made.
... ... ... Ok, sir, your money is back in your account. You can use it right away."
I called the bank immediatly and told the nice lady my problem. What she said was "Are you sure you didn't buy anything from companyname on that date? Alright. Do you agree to pay any charges that could arise if the company has the signed voucher for that purchase? You do?
It made me feel kind of dizzy to see a company treat me, their client, as a human being. I checked right away and just as she said, the money was back in my account.
A few months later I had some issues with an internet transaction. I clicked the "pay now" button at the end of the process and after a few seconds, the page gave me an error and I just left it there. However, the site did make the charge (even though the company had no record of the transaction when I called them). I had to call the bank again. This time the call took 30 minutes, but the money was back in my account by the end of the week.
Say what you will about the Chinese bank, but they treated me greatly those two times.
My meaning was lost in my post. I apologize.
I understand what you're saying. When you compare the 83 with the theoretical 50, then the difference is great and it cannot be attributed to mere deviation from the mean.
My point, however, is another. There IS a racial bias (thus the 83). With the Syndrome, of course, you don't get that same 83, you get 64. But then the author goes on to conclude that the 64 is so much closer to the "pure chance", which is 50. What I argue is that it's no closer to the 50 than it is to the 83.
If the author thinks that 14% can be dismissed as pure deviation from the mean, fine. But then, it's just as close to the 83 that is the real mean (not a theoretical one). So, how is the author so sure that the 64% is deviating from the 50 and not from the 83? I mean, if 14% can be regarded as statistical error (and let's face it, with 20 samples the error must be big), why not think that the mean of that 20 people with the syndrom is not 83 instead? Thus, the 64 would be a deviation from the mean of 83 instead of the mean of 50.
To sum it up, let's consider this: Maybe if you increase the sample from 20 to 20,000, the number will just get closer and closer to 83 instead of going down to 50.
I'm not jumping to any conclusions. I just think the author is doing some very convenient interpretative work there which is far from being correct. Thus, bad statistics.
Out of their responses, 83% were consistent with a pro-white bias. In contrast, the children with Williams syndrome only showed such responses 64% of the time, which wasn’t significantly different from chance.
64% deviates 14% from "pure chance", which would be 50%. The author calls this insignificant difference. But then, add another 19% to that 64% and you get 83%.
So, 14% is insignificant but 19% is an obvious tendency.
That, my friends, is bad statistics.
The truth is that 64% differs from the 50% almost as much as 83% from 64%. Can't jump to conclusions there.