Isn't the standard CEO response to that supposed to be something like, "I don't pay attention to day-to-day fluctuations, I'm focused on the long-term big picture?".
I mean, BS, but they have a standard canned response for that.
I must admit that one of my two greatest professional regrets was not ending an interview where the employer said something like, "All I'm hearing is bullshit" to my face. If I could go back in time I'd say, "I can see that you're not interested in being serious or professional, let's end this now, good day."
Your problem is that promiscuity rates are not usually measured in average partners; they are measured in modes or quartiles or something like that. From the article you link to:
"A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found that 20% of heterosexual men had only one partner, 55% had two to twenty partners, and 25% had more than twenty partners."
See? No average partner numbers. Instead, proportions in a defined class.
Asset forfeiture in the U.S. is absolutely terrifying. The proceeding is actually against the money itself as a defendant; the owner is treated as an unrelated third party, who need not be guilty of anything to lose the property, and has no default right to a lawyer. Historically, this metastasized out of the U.S. seizing pirate craft at sea where the owner may not be present or identifiable.
"There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Approximately half of all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil, although many of those are filed in parallel to a related criminal case. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. The burden is on the Government to establish that the property is subject to forfeiture by a "preponderance of the evidence." If it is successful, the owner may yet prevail by establishing an "innocent owner" defense.
In civil cases, the owner need not be judged guilty of any crime; it is possible for the Government to prevail by proving that someone other than the owner used the property to commit a crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender."
Well... first of all, summary has it wrong. It's not "mean deviation", it's "mean absolute deviation", or just "absolute deviation" from the literature I've seen. (Mean deviation is actually always zero, the most useless thing you could possibly consider.)
Keep in mind that standard deviation is the provably best basis if your goal is to estimate a population *mean*, the most commonly used measure of center. Absolute deviation, on the other hand, is the best basis to use for an estimate of a population *median*, which is maybe fine for finances, which is what the linked paper seems mostly focused on. (Bayesian best estimators, if I recall correctly.)
If the main critique is that economists and social scientists don't know what the F they're doing, then I won't disagree with that. But no need to metastasize the infection to math and statistics in general.
Morally no. But legally yes: in fact, assault is just any reasonable threat. People have been charged with assault for throwing french fries ("hot and oily", sounds like popcorn) on someone.
LOL. Thank you for confirming that you're totally delusion (and saving me from reading any of your other links/articles). Mark Warner will be president? He was a front runner in 2008?
(a) I'm a political junkie and I've never heard of this guy before today. (b) Mark Warner did not even RUN for president in 2008. (c) Neither did he make the cut for vice-presidential candidate. (d) Pssst, let me to introduce you to someone named Clinton.
"In 2006 he was widely expected to pursue the Democratic nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential elections; however, he announced in October 2006 that he would not run, citing a desire not to disrupt his family life. Warner was considered to be a potential vice presidential candidate, but upon receiving the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, he announced that he 'will not accept any other opportunity.'"
That's one of the most losing business strategies I've ever heard.
But it's not alone. There's a lot of failed businesses that at some point when down the lunatic path of "But just imagine if the huge majority of people who don't have any use for service X were converted to using service X! We'd be rich!"
Yeah, that sort of sounds like a bunch of late-night-I've-got-the-munchies BS.
FTA: "Paulo Freire, a radio astronomer at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany... says a violation would be 'a complete revolution.'"
No offense, but I'm going to trust the astronomer at the world-renowned scientific institute over the indie-game artist on this one.
Or rather, assuming that a million people's time is all worthless.
MOOCs have a host of problems. One of the most critical is that their business case relies on serving the millions of students who fail at remedial math and language-arts and can't get started in college. But this goal flies in the face of a mountain of scientific research that those students are the most helpless in this (self-driven, hi-tech) context; those students need personal interventions, counseling, and tutors. The fact that MOOCs provably don't work for the unwashed masses mean MOOCs don't really have a business case.
I think that MOOCs will go the same way as the correspondence course boom of about a century ago. But apparently every school needs to re-learn the lesson for themselves, scientific evidence be damned. Reminds me a lot of all the game companies that crashed trying to make the next WOW about a decade back.
"if it's small enough to burn to a DVD or Bluray disc, do that and store the disc(s) somewhere safe"
Why not use an external hard drive? Literally today I'm snapping and disposing backup CDs from 10 years ago, thinking what a terrible idea it was to have non-reusable media for backups.
Sounds pretty clearly like physical stuff, i.e. hardware ("goods, wares or merchandise"), and not informational stuff, i.e., software ("papers and effects" in the 4th Amendment).
This. I've gotten email responses that were the exact opposite of what I was writing about. In particular, when I wrote to my congressman against draconian copyright regimes (including my role as owner & developer of a small software business), the response was that they sympathized with my professional role, and in light of that would continue to work on strengthening copyright enforcement.
Oh, because it's impossible that a man would initiate that sexual encounter?
Or that monkeys do the same thing, no marketers involved: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700821,00.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
How did parent get a 5 "interesting" score? Even as a joke it's kind of misogynistic.
This does suggest the rather interesting prospect of a "Logan's Run Social Network", where accounts are automatically deleted when the registrant's age hits 21 or 30 or whatever.
Less than 100 years ago, the obvious-accepted colors were reversed:
"In 1918, an article in Ladies Home Journal advised: 'The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.'... In 1927, department stores like Filenes and Marshall Field were still suggesting pink for boys. The current fashion didn’t get established until the 1940s."
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the standard CEO response to that supposed to be something like, "I don't pay attention to day-to-day fluctuations, I'm focused on the long-term big picture?".
I mean, BS, but they have a standard canned response for that.
I must admit that one of my two greatest professional regrets was not ending an interview where the employer said something like, "All I'm hearing is bullshit" to my face. If I could go back in time I'd say, "I can see that you're not interested in being serious or professional, let's end this now, good day."
Your problem is that promiscuity rates are not usually measured in average partners; they are measured in modes or quartiles or something like that. From the article you link to:
"A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found that 20% of heterosexual men had only one partner, 55% had two to twenty partners, and 25% had more than twenty partners."
See? No average partner numbers. Instead, proportions in a defined class.
Asset forfeiture in the U.S. is absolutely terrifying. The proceeding is actually against the money itself as a defendant; the owner is treated as an unrelated third party, who need not be guilty of anything to lose the property, and has no default right to a lawyer. Historically, this metastasized out of the U.S. seizing pirate craft at sea where the owner may not be present or identifiable.
"There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Approximately half of all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil, although many of those are filed in parallel to a related criminal case. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. The burden is on the Government to establish that the property is subject to forfeiture by a "preponderance of the evidence." If it is successful, the owner may yet prevail by establishing an "innocent owner" defense.
In civil cases, the owner need not be judged guilty of any crime; it is possible for the Government to prevail by proving that someone other than the owner used the property to commit a crime. In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States
In Soviet Russia, improper statistics puts you up on mountain.
Well... first of all, summary has it wrong. It's not "mean deviation", it's "mean absolute deviation", or just "absolute deviation" from the literature I've seen. (Mean deviation is actually always zero, the most useless thing you could possibly consider.)
Keep in mind that standard deviation is the provably best basis if your goal is to estimate a population *mean*, the most commonly used measure of center. Absolute deviation, on the other hand, is the best basis to use for an estimate of a population *median*, which is maybe fine for finances, which is what the linked paper seems mostly focused on. (Bayesian best estimators, if I recall correctly.)
If the main critique is that economists and social scientists don't know what the F they're doing, then I won't disagree with that. But no need to metastasize the infection to math and statistics in general.
"Throwing popcorn is NOT assault"
Morally no. But legally yes: in fact, assault is just any reasonable threat. People have been charged with assault for throwing french fries ("hot and oily", sounds like popcorn) on someone.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-the-differences-between-assault-and-battery.htm
http://global.christianpost.com/news/james-hackett-fries-arrest-faces-assault-for-throwing-food-at-stepdaughter-77333/
LOL. Thank you for confirming that you're totally delusion (and saving me from reading any of your other links/articles). Mark Warner will be president? He was a front runner in 2008?
(a) I'm a political junkie and I've never heard of this guy before today. (b) Mark Warner did not even RUN for president in 2008. (c) Neither did he make the cut for vice-presidential candidate. (d) Pssst, let me to introduce you to someone named Clinton.
"In 2006 he was widely expected to pursue the Democratic nomination in the 2008 U.S. presidential elections; however, he announced in October 2006 that he would not run, citing a desire not to disrupt his family life. Warner was considered to be a potential vice presidential candidate, but upon receiving the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, he announced that he 'will not accept any other opportunity.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Warner
These words are all crystallized truth.
Keep waiting. For all the usual reasons.
I agree. The comments at Yahoo take the lead for Lovecraftian mind-melting horror.
That's one of the most losing business strategies I've ever heard.
But it's not alone. There's a lot of failed businesses that at some point when down the lunatic path of "But just imagine if the huge majority of people who don't have any use for service X were converted to using service X! We'd be rich!"
Yeah, that sort of sounds like a bunch of late-night-I've-got-the-munchies BS.
FTA: "Paulo Freire, a radio astronomer at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany... says a violation would be 'a complete revolution.'"
No offense, but I'm going to trust the astronomer at the world-renowned scientific institute over the indie-game artist on this one.
Or rather, assuming that a million people's time is all worthless.
MOOCs have a host of problems. One of the most critical is that their business case relies on serving the millions of students who fail at remedial math and language-arts and can't get started in college. But this goal flies in the face of a mountain of scientific research that those students are the most helpless in this (self-driven, hi-tech) context; those students need personal interventions, counseling, and tutors. The fact that MOOCs provably don't work for the unwashed masses mean MOOCs don't really have a business case.
I think that MOOCs will go the same way as the correspondence course boom of about a century ago. But apparently every school needs to re-learn the lesson for themselves, scientific evidence be damned. Reminds me a lot of all the game companies that crashed trying to make the next WOW about a decade back.
"if it's small enough to burn to a DVD or Bluray disc, do that and store the disc(s) somewhere safe"
Why not use an external hard drive? Literally today I'm snapping and disposing backup CDs from 10 years ago, thinking what a terrible idea it was to have non-reusable media for backups.
Sounds pretty clearly like physical stuff, i.e. hardware ("goods, wares or merchandise"), and not informational stuff, i.e., software ("papers and effects" in the 4th Amendment).
This. I've gotten email responses that were the exact opposite of what I was writing about. In particular, when I wrote to my congressman against draconian copyright regimes (including my role as owner & developer of a small software business), the response was that they sympathized with my professional role, and in light of that would continue to work on strengthening copyright enforcement.
Oh, because it's impossible that a man would initiate that sexual encounter?
Or that monkeys do the same thing, no marketers involved:
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700821,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
How did parent get a 5 "interesting" score? Even as a joke it's kind of misogynistic.
This does suggest the rather interesting prospect of a "Logan's Run Social Network", where accounts are automatically deleted when the registrant's age hits 21 or 30 or whatever.
"Time of day" would seem to be the weak link there. How does the bank-end machine know that exact value so as to replicate the sha1 calculation?
Thanks for the clarification.
Good story, thanks for sharing it.
"A good example of this is the Boston Globe's site [bostonglobe.com]"
Great example, thanks for pointing it out.
Less than 100 years ago, the obvious-accepted colors were reversed:
"In 1918, an article in Ladies Home Journal advised: 'The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.' ... In 1927, department stores like Filenes and Marshall Field were still suggesting pink for boys. The current fashion didn’t get established until the 1940s."
http://brooks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/pink-and-blue/
Now think about how many other behaviors which are "obviously" biological may not be.
"You can run DOS apps from the 1990s on Windows 7."
I actually just tried that and it failed. You mean in an emulator?