but that's only one piece of equipment, you say. well, yes, but imagine how well-armed someone would be once they got to the entire bible, or even just the new testament. i wonder if they'll use in-n-out burgers for rations.
(for completeness: they stopped doing it; probably made a sweet pile of cash on the modification kits to remove the verses, too. there's just no way to lose on a military contract.)
before someone points it out, yes "increases the relative risk by 1.8" is totally wrong. i meant, "has an observed relative risk of 1.8."
there are several well-established causal links with low RR. for example, very moderate alcohol consumption on oral cancer; the RR is ~1.5, but the p-value is near 0, and consuming more alcohol increases the RR. it's pretty convincing, but by your rule i guess since moderate alcohol consumption has RR below 2, alcohol doesn't have a causal effect until you have ~4 drinks a day, even though the RR has an obvious increasing trend with more alcohol consumed.
what the fuck are you talking about? no statistic in and of itself indicates a "cause and effect" relationship. they indicate correlations only, which of course are sometimes suggestive.
and why do you need RR > 3? what if there is a real cause and effect relationship which only increases the relative risk by 1.8? does it just never get published until, by freak chance, the sample happens to give an RR above 2? why don't you use p-value to determine existence of a relationship, and then, if significant, interpret the estimated RR as it is? this is how, oh, everyone else in the world does things.
seriously, this rule, if true, implicitly rewards conducting repeated studies with artificially small sample size (to hopefully get RR>3 with a small p-value). i'm not saying you're lying, but what is the name of your field so i can assiduously avoid working in it? i don't think epidemiologists as a whole are this fucking stupid, so what is the name of the subfield?
it's more like ``the jaded and fatalistic nation.'' we know the social issues are carrots and sticks, but we're not willing to buy into the magical libertarian solution of burning everything down to the ground.
"include a lack of an ethernet port" is weird but correct; "the presence of only being one USB port" is weird and wrong, although easy to read.
i love the english language, but i usually hate grammar nazis even more. still, it's a bit ridiculous what gets onto slashdot's front page. since US-centrism is in their official policy, you'd think they would use english correctly.
man, they don't even need to say anything! american internet libertarianism is so solipsistic that these people will invent their own world out of nothing for free.
it's that old joke: "what do you get when you put eight anarchists in a room?" "nine splinter groups."
i'm talking about how this property would really be defined, by people who think microsoft "led the PC revolution" and that apple invented a market "out of whole cloth," (both direct quotes, btw) convincing a technologically-illiterate congress about how to ratify it.
it's nice that there's a movement in opposition, but it's definitely not "the movement." proof: point me to the last libertarian party presidential candidate who didn't support copyright and patent in their current forms, or quantitatively stronger.
Private property rights on the Internet should exist in limited fashion or not at all, and what is considered to be in the public domain should be greatly expanded.
no, that's not what the Pauls want. it's an example of the ``insidious" agenda of collectivists (page 1).
libertarians really can't get a hold on anything unless there's private property, even if it's established by fiat in the first place! their very idea of online freedom will depend on strong copyright and patent laws. to quote again (page 4), internet regulation will be acceptable if it ``protect[s] property rights," presumably even if the government has to define what is private property in the first place. don't even try going federalist with this, as any state which defects from enforcement will gain a ridiculous advantage and could be federally regulated under reasonable application of commerce laws.
any libertarian opposition to strong copyright and patent will be on the fringe of the fringe, although to be fair the Pauls want the regulation to be ``clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations."
my prediction would be that they will be for stronger patent and copyright enforcement, but hopefully with saner (shorter and more specific) terms.
yeah, there are a few institutions (like mine) which suck the microsoft tit and "officially" prefer windows.
of course, the people who are really getting shit done (applied) tend to use linux or mac os x; and the clusters use linux almost exclusively. even most of the windows people have a secondary redhat or ubuntu box when they need it.
the study included self-report sun exposure; the higher quintiles of caffeine consumption had very slightly higher sun exposure (but not significant).
something that struck me though, was that very high caffeine consumption (>600mg/day) was linked with heavy smoking (addicts are addicts across the board). i personally suspect that naively "compensating" for heavy smoking (by doing a non-causal regression) bled over into reduced cancer for the same group, as a statistical artifact. this is consistent with their finding that decaf doesn't have an effect; if you're worried about caffeine, you're probably not smoking much either.
you can't just throw inter-correlated variables into a regression formula and say you've "controlled" for them. well, you can, but you shouldn't. there are betterways.
anyway i don't have a problem with it per se; it just seems like a pattern in the japanese innovations that make it into the press. i don't know if it leads to good science; for instance, this thing seems kind of a dead end to me.
and the drawing contours were manually specified. the robot just learned how to make particular sumi-e strokes.
is all japanese ai/robotics like this? here's a hint, you guys: most of the time, the motor control is the easy part; planning and feature detection are what is interesting. seriously, what's up? the japanese certainly aren't stupid, i guess they just have an obsession with building toys.
speak for yourself; i'm on VM already and considered upgrading to iphone. for whatever reason, VM didn't tell me but cpu6502 did.
but $650 up-front is a bit too much. i'll stick with my short-bus android phone for now; at least it stopped eating paste when i installed cyanogenmod, though it still licks the windows.
as i said above, young earth creationism is irreconcilable with geology; cosmology; and biology. many republicans also have a problem with relativity, presumably because it has "relative" in the name. many of your examples are mostly about ethics and technology (on which, yes, each side makes ideological errors), not outright denial of entire branches of science.
however, quite often people who want people to "analyze words for meaning" already have the "right" meaning in mind and are looking for acquiescence to their meaning. science is an impartial training for criticality which, yes, will help with everything else. of course i don't think that only science should be taught. (i'm basically parrotting chomsky here, but hey, he's right about this.)
frankly, there isn't much sanity left in the media at all; i've concluded that to draw any information from it at all, one must ask questions like "why is this being shown at this moment?"
i meant codify in the dreary sense of modern "education": establish a rubric by which an overworked burned-out public servant or low-level corporate employee can, within a minute or two, consistently assign a letter grade to a student's performance.
much of global warming isn't science, in the strong sense. it's statistics (or, if you want, you can call it an "inverse problem"). i don't mean this as a slur; i am a statistician, after all. it's just not what i was referring to. i was referring to biology; geology; cosmology; and the theory of relativity. but, i'm very glad that you boiled water on a kettle. jumping christ on a pogo stick, it makes me cringe that you even bring that up as if it's some meaningful lesson.
and nasa has been a political slush-fund/component of the spin machine for decades. it's not worthless, but neither does its funding indicate very much.
i'm a liberal and i agree with your point. it's just impossible to codify "critical thinking," even before you add the realities of education: overworked, underpaid and sub-meritorious teachers (btw, i think these problems are endemic to our society; privatization/voucherification will mostly just let parents choose among desired flavors of substandard nutjobbery) who will inevitably use a mix of personal biases and bureaucratic checklists to evaluate "criticalness."
unfortunately, the gop rejects science pretty much as an axiom (science != engineering, though they're both great), and this isn't new, see e.g. hayek's why i am not a conservative. i think that doing a good job of teaching science is the almost the only way to get to real critical thinking. it's not easy, and i don't think the Ds could manage it either, but from what i can see the gop just throws it out immediately.
i can't help thinking that we're just fucked.
and i recommend that everyone read the linked gop pamphlet. it's hilarious in its populist pandering; lines like ``We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species." are almost onion-like. yes, i'm sure that the dems' pamphlets are also full of silliness, but this is the exhibit of the day.
yeah, you've summed it up for me. most of the rage here is people who don't know what they're really doing (so they need fedora and auto-updaters), but they still want their 1337 uptime wankery. fuck 'em.
interesting. i don't use windows, but if it can really find the stuff i look for and at decent bitrates, it could save me some hours. i'll keep it in mind.
Slashdot Mirror
i don't know; there's this: http://policelink.monster.com/news/articles/131311-secrets-out-trijicon-inscribes-bible-verses-on-scopes
but that's only one piece of equipment, you say. well, yes, but imagine how well-armed someone would be once they got to the entire bible, or even just the new testament. i wonder if they'll use in-n-out burgers for rations.
(for completeness: they stopped doing it; probably made a sweet pile of cash on the modification kits to remove the verses, too. there's just no way to lose on a military contract.)
copyright?
here ya go: http://www.biblegateway.com/
no registration necessary!
i wonder if the incidence of rape and violence was actually higher than average. i mean, as you point out, they did stay quite awhile.
before someone points it out, yes "increases the relative risk by 1.8" is totally wrong. i meant, "has an observed relative risk of 1.8."
there are several well-established causal links with low RR. for example, very moderate alcohol consumption on oral cancer; the RR is ~1.5, but the p-value is near 0, and consuming more alcohol increases the RR. it's pretty convincing, but by your rule i guess since moderate alcohol consumption has RR below 2, alcohol doesn't have a causal effect until you have ~4 drinks a day, even though the RR has an obvious increasing trend with more alcohol consumed.
what the fuck are you talking about? no statistic in and of itself indicates a "cause and effect" relationship. they indicate correlations only, which of course are sometimes suggestive.
and why do you need RR > 3? what if there is a real cause and effect relationship which only increases the relative risk by 1.8? does it just never get published until, by freak chance, the sample happens to give an RR above 2? why don't you use p-value to determine existence of a relationship, and then, if significant, interpret the estimated RR as it is? this is how, oh, everyone else in the world does things.
seriously, this rule, if true, implicitly rewards conducting repeated studies with artificially small sample size (to hopefully get RR>3 with a small p-value). i'm not saying you're lying, but what is the name of your field so i can assiduously avoid working in it? i don't think epidemiologists as a whole are this fucking stupid, so what is the name of the subfield?
it's more like ``the jaded and fatalistic nation.'' we know the social issues are carrots and sticks, but we're not willing to buy into the magical libertarian solution of burning everything down to the ground.
"include a lack of an ethernet port" is weird but correct; "the presence of only being one USB port" is weird and wrong, although easy to read.
i love the english language, but i usually hate grammar nazis even more. still, it's a bit ridiculous what gets onto slashdot's front page. since US-centrism is in their official policy, you'd think they would use english correctly.
man, they don't even need to say anything! american internet libertarianism is so solipsistic that these people will invent their own world out of nothing for free.
it's that old joke: "what do you get when you put eight anarchists in a room?" "nine splinter groups."
yes, this is a nice fantasy.
i'm talking about how this property would really be defined, by people who think microsoft "led the PC revolution" and that apple invented a market "out of whole cloth," (both direct quotes, btw) convincing a technologically-illiterate congress about how to ratify it.
it's nice that there's a movement in opposition, but it's definitely not "the movement." proof: point me to the last libertarian party presidential candidate who didn't support copyright and patent in their current forms, or quantitatively stronger.
no, that's not what the Pauls want. it's an example of the ``insidious" agenda of collectivists (page 1).
libertarians really can't get a hold on anything unless there's private property, even if it's established by fiat in the first place! their very idea of online freedom will depend on strong copyright and patent laws. to quote again (page 4), internet regulation will be acceptable if it ``protect[s] property rights," presumably even if the government has to define what is private property in the first place. don't even try going federalist with this, as any state which defects from enforcement will gain a ridiculous advantage and could be federally regulated under reasonable application of commerce laws.
any libertarian opposition to strong copyright and patent will be on the fringe of the fringe, although to be fair the Pauls want the regulation to be ``clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations."
my prediction would be that they will be for stronger patent and copyright enforcement, but hopefully with saner (shorter and more specific) terms.
what the hell are you talking about?
yeah, there are a few institutions (like mine) which suck the microsoft tit and "officially" prefer windows.
of course, the people who are really getting shit done (applied) tend to use linux or mac os x; and the clusters use linux almost exclusively. even most of the windows people have a secondary redhat or ubuntu box when they need it.
the study included self-report sun exposure; the higher quintiles of caffeine consumption had very slightly higher sun exposure (but not significant).
something that struck me though, was that very high caffeine consumption (>600mg/day) was linked with heavy smoking (addicts are addicts across the board). i personally suspect that naively "compensating" for heavy smoking (by doing a non-causal regression) bled over into reduced cancer for the same group, as a statistical artifact. this is consistent with their finding that decaf doesn't have an effect; if you're worried about caffeine, you're probably not smoking much either.
you can't just throw inter-correlated variables into a regression formula and say you've "controlled" for them. well, you can, but you shouldn't. there are better ways.
perception=feature detection, so i covered that.
anyway i don't have a problem with it per se; it just seems like a pattern in the japanese innovations that make it into the press. i don't know if it leads to good science; for instance, this thing seems kind of a dead end to me.
and the drawing contours were manually specified. the robot just learned how to make particular sumi-e strokes.
is all japanese ai/robotics like this? here's a hint, you guys: most of the time, the motor control is the easy part; planning and feature detection are what is interesting. seriously, what's up? the japanese certainly aren't stupid, i guess they just have an obsession with building toys.
speak for yourself; i'm on VM already and considered upgrading to iphone. for whatever reason, VM didn't tell me but cpu6502 did.
but $650 up-front is a bit too much. i'll stick with my short-bus android phone for now; at least it stopped eating paste when i installed cyanogenmod, though it still licks the windows.
as i said above, young earth creationism is irreconcilable with geology; cosmology; and biology. many republicans also have a problem with relativity, presumably because it has "relative" in the name. many of your examples are mostly about ethics and technology (on which, yes, each side makes ideological errors), not outright denial of entire branches of science.
i agree to an extent.
however, quite often people who want people to "analyze words for meaning" already have the "right" meaning in mind and are looking for acquiescence to their meaning. science is an impartial training for criticality which, yes, will help with everything else. of course i don't think that only science should be taught. (i'm basically parrotting chomsky here, but hey, he's right about this.)
frankly, there isn't much sanity left in the media at all; i've concluded that to draw any information from it at all, one must ask questions like "why is this being shown at this moment?"
i meant codify in the dreary sense of modern "education": establish a rubric by which an overworked burned-out public servant or low-level corporate employee can, within a minute or two, consistently assign a letter grade to a student's performance.
much of global warming isn't science, in the strong sense. it's statistics (or, if you want, you can call it an "inverse problem"). i don't mean this as a slur; i am a statistician, after all. it's just not what i was referring to. i was referring to biology; geology; cosmology; and the theory of relativity. but, i'm very glad that you boiled water on a kettle. jumping christ on a pogo stick, it makes me cringe that you even bring that up as if it's some meaningful lesson.
and nasa has been a political slush-fund/component of the spin machine for decades. it's not worthless, but neither does its funding indicate very much.
i'm a liberal and i agree with your point. it's just impossible to codify "critical thinking," even before you add the realities of education: overworked, underpaid and sub-meritorious teachers (btw, i think these problems are endemic to our society; privatization/voucherification will mostly just let parents choose among desired flavors of substandard nutjobbery) who will inevitably use a mix of personal biases and bureaucratic checklists to evaluate "criticalness."
unfortunately, the gop rejects science pretty much as an axiom (science != engineering, though they're both great), and this isn't new, see e.g. hayek's why i am not a conservative. i think that doing a good job of teaching science is the almost the only way to get to real critical thinking. it's not easy, and i don't think the Ds could manage it either, but from what i can see the gop just throws it out immediately.
i can't help thinking that we're just fucked.
and i recommend that everyone read the linked gop pamphlet. it's hilarious in its populist pandering; lines like ``We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species." are almost onion-like. yes, i'm sure that the dems' pamphlets are also full of silliness, but this is the exhibit of the day.
it's true! once we get rid of invasive state copyright protection, we'd be one step closer to true competition among broadcasters.
i'd say nessus, just to make it even more confusing.
yeah, you've summed it up for me. most of the rage here is people who don't know what they're really doing (so they need fedora and auto-updaters), but they still want their 1337 uptime wankery. fuck 'em.
interesting. i don't use windows, but if it can really find the stuff i look for and at decent bitrates, it could save me some hours. i'll keep it in mind.