I was being facetiously generous. To falsify the model, one would `only' need to wait a very long time and observe whether the empirical distribution matches their results. When this happens (and it would), it would mean nothing except that their model is wrong. It would say nothing about whether there is a gene operating on a different model, &c.
No, they just included an explicitly parametrized "defection rate" curve which is a function of the proportional size of the group. As long as they're making up shit, why stop half-way?
The problem is with the term "support." Simulating a model is only useful for developing intuition and exposition. It doesn't count as support for the theory since it IS the theory (or, perhaps, is directly implied by the theory). It is not an empirical or independent verification. Nowadays there's a tendency (esp. among machine learning and ad-hoc statisticians) to call everything that isn't a closed-form equation an "experiment," which is true in a small sense but horribly false overall.
This is a classic 1950s-style quasi-result. Oversimplify the world into an ordinary differential equation (!); spin a story around it; impress everyone whose math-phobia inhibits their natural skepticism (which is like shooting ducks in a barrel...); profit! Still, technically this is a falsifiable result; we'll just have to wait perhaps centuries for the world to approach the limiting state. (rolls eyes)
I always thought that "illegal" covered any violation of the law in the broad sense (including civil actions under contract law, tort law, etc.), while "criminal" specifically refers to violating statutes.
yes, i am quite aware of the limitations. however i still believe that they are (at the very least) ``roughly parallel''. your only concrete objection, that of geographic diversity, is easily patched by a number of methods (the simplest of which is to just conduct parallel estimates, since we presumably know where the species were discovered...).
at any rate, whatever criticisms there are, it would be even more silly to say that there is "no evidence".
yes, you are atypical, in that you apparently haven't yet noticed the goal of intelligent design, &c. (it is to destroy science and the materialistic world-view, since apparently it is such an incredibly irresistable force for socialism and atheism).
"Maybe I'm an atypical chess player, but I don't object to losing my queen, after all the point of the game is to capture the king."
yeah, i wouldn't mind that so much in and of itself. The problem is only that "socialist" has now become code for "wants to drink something other than arsenic water," and people fall for it anyway.
As an atheist, I don't understand the idea of good Christians respecting other religions. Why would you "respect" a practice that is sending innocent people to hell? If I were a Christian, my kid would hate the other religions but put on a calculated appearance in order to convert their followers. Sounds ghastly, really.
Likewise Judaism, where there is still a marginal (admittedly very marginal) debate on whether it is okay to break the Shabbat restrictions in order to save a goy's life.
Of course I would teach my children respect for others' possessions, but I'd also teach them the horrible things that strictly-adhered-to religion would entail. For example, as far as I can figure it, the Westboro Baptist Church is closer to real Christianity than those churches whom they rail against.
Oh, and I do love these slashdot troll articles...
imaginary ones? please state precisely which those are, and then show me a serious free market supporter (Austrian economist, Randian, whatever) who doesn't support any of them.
the meaning of "free" in "free market" is more tortured than that of "free" in "free software".
not that either one is wrong per se, but i just wish we could stop overloading that word. restricting it to individual human freedoms would be a start maybe.
Yes, I have and from my experience I don't see how one couldn't notice immediately. There's a fairly loud snapping sound and both parties have a chance of noticing what's essentially a rubber band snapping against their sex organs. Finally, for the insertive male, the sex suddenly feels a lot better... any guy who says he "didn't notice" that is either lying or missing some serious nerve endings...
And, yes, if I (or Assange) continued and we hadn't agreed to a contingency plan of continuing anyways, it should be considered sexual assault.
But this is all tangential to the main point, the timing of this is just too goddam blatant to take with any decorum. Look, Assange knew the risks on both counts. Get him for rape, if there's serious evidence. Get him for "espionage" if that applies. But don't pull this kind of bullshit; it's just ridiculous.
Then again, since half the US is calling him a terrorist, it seems clear that the time for logic and decorum is long over.
in this case, is this really that much better than an impact-fuse on a larger grenade?
now that i think about it, the primary effect of this will be to reduce civilian casualties. smaller yield at more precise range = cleaner kills. great!
It wasn't funny because the French are cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
It was funny because our government is descending into inconsistent and self-effacing populism; an edifice of illusions. The actual facts, as you condescendingly point out, immediately put the lie to the mutual and polar-opposite hallucinations of France as seen by an American liberal versus a conservative.
The more I think about it, it just seems like an incremental improvement (although a fairly significant one) on an impact- or timed-fuse and not a revolutionary advancement.
Wouldn't this weapon be more useful against an occupying force, than for them? That is, wouldn't urban "insurgents" have more and faster access to mostly-enclosed structures, while the occupiers would tend more to ad-hoc cover?
I suspect that we may regret introducing this, once it's copied and sold cheap by certain other nations which will go unnamed... Maybe it'll give us the advantage in a burned-out dust bowl like Afghanistan, but it would hurt us somewhere like Iraq.
Please correct me, I'm just a cynical jerk, not a tactician.
Slashdot Mirror
I was being facetiously generous. To falsify the model, one would `only' need to wait a very long time and observe whether the empirical distribution matches their results. When this happens (and it would), it would mean nothing except that their model is wrong. It would say nothing about whether there is a gene operating on a different model, &c.
it's more like a database than a creative work so it's not covered yet (there have been some attempts to institute database protection).
No, they just included an explicitly parametrized "defection rate" curve which is a function of the proportional size of the group. As long as they're making up shit, why stop half-way?
The problem is with the term "support." Simulating a model is only useful for developing intuition and exposition. It doesn't count as support for the theory since it IS the theory (or, perhaps, is directly implied by the theory). It is not an empirical or independent verification. Nowadays there's a tendency (esp. among machine learning and ad-hoc statisticians) to call everything that isn't a closed-form equation an "experiment," which is true in a small sense but horribly false overall.
This is a classic 1950s-style quasi-result. Oversimplify the world into an ordinary differential equation (!); spin a story around it; impress everyone whose math-phobia inhibits their natural skepticism (which is like shooting ducks in a barrel...); profit! Still, technically this is a falsifiable result; we'll just have to wait perhaps centuries for the world to approach the limiting state. (rolls eyes)
nah, he's already affiliated with Norton. they deserve each other.
Don't say that he's hypocritical; say, rather, that he's apolitical.
I always thought that "illegal" covered any violation of the law in the broad sense (including civil actions under contract law, tort law, etc.), while "criminal" specifically refers to violating statutes.
yes, i am quite aware of the limitations. however i still believe that they are (at the very least) ``roughly parallel''. your only concrete objection, that of geographic diversity, is easily patched by a number of methods (the simplest of which is to just conduct parallel estimates, since we presumably know where the species were discovered...).
at any rate, whatever criticisms there are, it would be even more silly to say that there is "no evidence".
yes, it is evidence (of some value) of the latter. see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/German_tank_problem or more to the point http://en.wikipedia.org/Good-Turing_frequency_estimation
yes, you are atypical, in that you apparently haven't yet noticed the goal of intelligent design, &c. (it is to destroy science and the materialistic world-view, since apparently it is such an incredibly irresistable force for socialism and atheism).
"Maybe I'm an atypical chess player, but I don't object to losing my queen, after all the point of the game is to capture the king."
if you really couldn't figure it out from context, you deserve it.
On PBS? Sounds communist to me. I don't trust this elitist liberal Friedman.
yeah, i wouldn't mind that so much in and of itself. The problem is only that "socialist" has now become code for "wants to drink something other than arsenic water," and people fall for it anyway.
he's a CEO; what's left to limit?
As an atheist, I don't understand the idea of good Christians respecting other religions. Why would you "respect" a practice that is sending innocent people to hell? If I were a Christian, my kid would hate the other religions but put on a calculated appearance in order to convert their followers. Sounds ghastly, really.
Likewise Judaism, where there is still a marginal (admittedly very marginal) debate on whether it is okay to break the Shabbat restrictions in order to save a goy's life.
Of course I would teach my children respect for others' possessions, but I'd also teach them the horrible things that strictly-adhered-to religion would entail. For example, as far as I can figure it, the Westboro Baptist Church is closer to real Christianity than those churches whom they rail against.
Oh, and I do love these slashdot troll articles...
You mean, the libertarians?
imaginary ones? please state precisely which those are, and then show me a serious free market supporter (Austrian economist, Randian, whatever) who doesn't support any of them.
i won't hold my breath for a nontrivial answer.
the meaning of "free" in "free market" is more tortured than that of "free" in "free software".
not that either one is wrong per se, but i just wish we could stop overloading that word. restricting it to individual human freedoms would be a start maybe.
Yes, I have and from my experience I don't see how one couldn't notice immediately. There's a fairly loud snapping sound and both parties have a chance of noticing what's essentially a rubber band snapping against their sex organs. Finally, for the insertive male, the sex suddenly feels a lot better... any guy who says he "didn't notice" that is either lying or missing some serious nerve endings...
And, yes, if I (or Assange) continued and we hadn't agreed to a contingency plan of continuing anyways, it should be considered sexual assault.
But this is all tangential to the main point, the timing of this is just too goddam blatant to take with any decorum. Look, Assange knew the risks on both counts. Get him for rape, if there's serious evidence. Get him for "espionage" if that applies. But don't pull this kind of bullshit; it's just ridiculous.
Then again, since half the US is calling him a terrorist, it seems clear that the time for logic and decorum is long over.
and by "think about it," I mean "read your explanation," for which I am grateful.
in this case, is this really that much better than an impact-fuse on a larger grenade?
now that i think about it, the primary effect of this will be to reduce civilian casualties. smaller yield at more precise range = cleaner kills. great!
It wasn't funny because the French are cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
It was funny because our government is descending into inconsistent and self-effacing populism; an edifice of illusions. The actual facts, as you condescendingly point out, immediately put the lie to the mutual and polar-opposite hallucinations of France as seen by an American liberal versus a conservative.
The more I think about it, it just seems like an incremental improvement (although a fairly significant one) on an impact- or timed-fuse and not a revolutionary advancement.
I've found it amusing how much French there is in the military shibboleth/jargon. No one bothered renaming defilade as "freedom cover".
Wouldn't this weapon be more useful against an occupying force, than for them? That is, wouldn't urban "insurgents" have more and faster access to mostly-enclosed structures, while the occupiers would tend more to ad-hoc cover?
I suspect that we may regret introducing this, once it's copied and sold cheap by certain other nations which will go unnamed... Maybe it'll give us the advantage in a burned-out dust bowl like Afghanistan, but it would hurt us somewhere like Iraq.
Please correct me, I'm just a cynical jerk, not a tactician.