Could this not have been inferred by the fact there are seven others in plain sight?
Yes, yes it could. The inference even makes a perfectly dandy working hypothesis for testing.
But test it; it might be wrong. I'd be surprised if it were, but the surprises are where the real science happens. Where you encounter things you did not expect and are forced to upgrade your models to account for them.
It can even be infered that because one of the seven planets that is in plain sight has life that out of billions of other planets one in seven of them will have life, but I wouldn't go around doing anything so rash as to believe that one in seven planets has life.
In fact, in this specific instance, there are good reasons for infering that planets in the galactic bulge are not suitable for sustaining life. Radiation and the general chaos of the local enviroment would tend to rip combining molecules apart faster than they could recombine into stable, self-reproductive units.
But test, because it might be:
Life, Jim! But not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know. It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.
In fact, I've always thought the assumption of "Earth like" planets being necessary to support life was a pretty stupid one. If nothing else oxygen is pretty nasty stuff, and I infer that life based on it is comparitively rare.
Half the article on ArsTechnica, which is not the same thing as the real journal article in Pediatrics.?/i>
Yes, I understand that and did not aim that portion of my criticism at the Pediatrics article.
In fact I've posted the exact same criticism myself; although in this case my criticism was aimed at direct quotes rather than at the Ars authors paraphrase. At least Ars provided them. Most science "reporting" these days hardly even bothers to do that.
. . . or are we all real comfortable getting our news from "news analysis" sources like blogs and (most) TV news shows?
Hardly, although I am getting used to being able to discount many, many primary sources by simply reading the abstract, because that gives enough information to discount the methodology. Or a few direct quotes.
The latter article does not appear to be available online, so it's kind of hard to determine how good this assumption may be.
But here's the core; no it isn't really necessary to read that article because the flaws in the methodolgy are known and legion. Self-reporting is grossly inferior to quantitative data and the accuracy of one group self-reporting has no bearing on the accuracy of another group self-reporting. That's the way it is.
The referenced article guaged the self-reporting against actual quantitative data. This one assumed accuracy; discounting the need for checking against actual data, based on that previous work.
And that assumption, because we already know a good deal about the inaccuracies of self-reporting, means that all this guy has measured is what the students report they feel, until he takes the methodological step he refers to himself and correaltes the reports with teacher assessmenet and actual test scores.
I am quite comfortable with the general claim that the average person overestimates their abilities and performance. That is not at all the same thing as applying that assumption to a specific person or group of people.
Note that I labled my own alternative interpretation as pulled out of my ass.
It might be wrong, but there is no way to know it is wrong until tested. Until that test is performed my interpretation stands as quite possible. My justifications of my interpretation based on the many, many, many studies on the inaccuracies of self-reporting are at least as solid as his reliance on a study showing overestimation.
Why doesn't he just measure it and prove me wrong?
Well, I'll tell you why. Because it's quicker and easier to assume. Especially if one is inclined to assume an interpretation.
Half the frickin' article consists of rationalizing the methodology of prefering self-reporting over actual quantitative metrics of performance. I'm getting really tired of this sort of nonsense.
But as long as we're just pulling anectodatal crap out of our ass:
I predict that if correlated with test scores it would be found the actual correlation this survey shows is the children assume they must be doing worse if they're playing games and watching TV, because that is what they have been taught to expect, shown by the fact that the self-reporting does not correlate well with test scores.
But of course I can't know that, can I, if no one bothered to actually check how they were doing in school?
You have neglected to add in the price of the Dell machine that XP came preinstalled on; and which it must remain on.
If they want to install XP on their existing development boxes and maybe get permission to move it from one box to another XP Pro is $280 from Amazon. Microsoft gives unlimited install support for that.
Well, we never defined the quality we were talking about, did we?
The fact of the matter is that if not blowing up was one of the primary design concerns of the Pinto, they wouldn't have started blowing up. The design was not malicious, but the car was as designed. It violated well understood principles of not blowing up. It was stupid, not merely ignorant.
Now when they started blowing up and Ford didn't change the design, that was malicious.
They couldn't, because you are not the atoms "you" are made of. You are a collection of information in the state of the atoms.
Which is a good thing for you, because most of the atoms you are made of today won't be the same atoms you'll be made of next week. That's why you die if you don't drink some water now and again; and maybe a bit of a nosh.
I'm going to Super Glue(tm) thumb tacks all over your driver's seat. Oh sure, I could refrain from doing that, but I think you should just abandon your car and quit your job.
Either that or just drive the damn thing and keep your mouth shut. Don't bitch to me about it if the car is still, technically, useful.
Software sucks by design, not because it innately has to. People realize this. That just increases the annoyance factor of the suckitude tenfold. They get tired of tacks in their ass after awhile.
we have breeding populations of lynx I believe. ..\
Thaaaaaaat's not a big cat. 'Bout the same size as a jackal which isn't even a big dog. I've known a tabby that outweighed most lynx (ok, it was a bit on the tubby side, kinda like a furry beach ball with feet). And breeding populations may be suspected but are unconfirmed. The only actual capture that I'm aware of was taken in . ..somebody's freezer.
. ..there's certainly other big cats around, although they're more to do with zoo escapes and released pets than anything else.
And John kept lions in the Tower. That doesn't make London wild space. That's what chavs are for.
She's been known to "mention" how much she paid for the thing (and overestimates by 100%, I've got the reciept), funny how she never mentions how much I paid for her CS degree. What's wit dat?
. ..gp is slightly correct in that this "advice" is dangerous, at least to some.
Information missapplied is always dangerous, but again, I never advised not taking the SATs.
I have, however, advised people not to attend college at all, but not under this "story," where I am under the assumption the questioner is not interested in such advice.
It does if there used to be forests there until the arrival of the axe.
The UK has plenty of green and plesant land. ..
Never said it didn't.
. ..from the Highlands in the North. ..
Particularly beautiful, my mother is deathly afraid that one day I'll go and not come back, but there are cops now to prevent me sleeping wild in Glen Coe, which is also now devoid of trees so there's no place to hide from them, or the bloody tourists.
You just have to know where to go.
The Adirondacks. Where there are now cops with the authority to prevent me from sleeping wild in the same place more than three days in a row, but they have to find me first. Hard to do. There are so many trees and all. Lots of bears too, although all the large cats are now assumed to be feral. Pity.
There's always Alaska, but beyond the issues of weather it's getting a bit overcrowded these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Wired Magazine: The psuedo-intellectual journal of life at last decade's cutting edge.
Get it while it's Hot! Hot! Hot!
KFG
". . . there will be no music companies in it."
A live band is a music company.
KFG
Isaac Asimov has a good essay. . .
.
.
He always does.
He basically explains how our oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere was formed. .
With anaerobic life as a precursor? Leading to life that didn't take its oxygen in free gaseous form?
Then he explains why life developed to use oxygen. .
I would be loath to predict the abscence of oxygen based life in the universe.
KFG
. . .leave SciFi as it is.
So the schlock horror fans have someplace to go.
KFG
Could this not have been inferred by the fact there are seven others in plain sight?
Yes, yes it could. The inference even makes a perfectly dandy working hypothesis for testing.
But test it; it might be wrong. I'd be surprised if it were, but the surprises are where the real science happens. Where you encounter things you did not expect and are forced to upgrade your models to account for them.
It can even be infered that because one of the seven planets that is in plain sight has life that out of billions of other planets one in seven of them will have life, but I wouldn't go around doing anything so rash as to believe that one in seven planets has life.
In fact, in this specific instance, there are good reasons for infering that planets in the galactic bulge are not suitable for sustaining life. Radiation and the general chaos of the local enviroment would tend to rip combining molecules apart faster than they could recombine into stable, self-reproductive units.
But test, because it might be:
Life, Jim! But not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know. It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.
In fact, I've always thought the assumption of "Earth like" planets being necessary to support life was a pretty stupid one. If nothing else oxygen is pretty nasty stuff, and I infer that life based on it is comparitively rare.
KFG
Half the article on ArsTechnica, which is not the same thing as the real journal article in Pediatrics.?/i>
Yes, I understand that and did not aim that portion of my criticism at the Pediatrics article.
In fact I've posted the exact same criticism myself; although in this case my criticism was aimed at direct quotes rather than at the Ars authors paraphrase. At least Ars provided them. Most science "reporting" these days hardly even bothers to do that.
. . . or are we all real comfortable getting our news from "news analysis" sources like blogs and (most) TV news shows?
Hardly, although I am getting used to being able to discount many, many primary sources by simply reading the abstract, because that gives enough information to discount the methodology. Or a few direct quotes.
The latter article does not appear to be available online, so it's kind of hard to determine how good this assumption may be.
But here's the core; no it isn't really necessary to read that article because the flaws in the methodolgy are known and legion. Self-reporting is grossly inferior to quantitative data and the accuracy of one group self-reporting has no bearing on the accuracy of another group self-reporting. That's the way it is.
The referenced article guaged the self-reporting against actual quantitative data. This one assumed accuracy; discounting the need for checking against actual data, based on that previous work.
And that assumption, because we already know a good deal about the inaccuracies of self-reporting, means that all this guy has measured is what the students report they feel, until he takes the methodological step he refers to himself and correaltes the reports with teacher assessmenet and actual test scores.
I am quite comfortable with the general claim that the average person overestimates their abilities and performance. That is not at all the same thing as applying that assumption to a specific person or group of people.
Note that I labled my own alternative interpretation as pulled out of my ass.
It might be wrong, but there is no way to know it is wrong until tested. Until that test is performed my interpretation stands as quite possible. My justifications of my interpretation based on the many, many, many studies on the inaccuracies of self-reporting are at least as solid as his reliance on a study showing overestimation.
Why doesn't he just measure it and prove me wrong?
Well, I'll tell you why. Because it's quicker and easier to assume. Especially if one is inclined to assume an interpretation.
KFG
Half the frickin' article consists of rationalizing the methodology of prefering self-reporting over actual quantitative metrics of performance. I'm getting really tired of this sort of nonsense.
But as long as we're just pulling anectodatal crap out of our ass:
I predict that if correlated with test scores it would be found the actual correlation this survey shows is the children assume they must be doing worse if they're playing games and watching TV, because that is what they have been taught to expect, shown by the fact that the self-reporting does not correlate well with test scores.
But of course I can't know that, can I, if no one bothered to actually check how they were doing in school?
And neither can anyone else.
KFG
You have neglected to add in the price of the Dell machine that XP came preinstalled on; and which it must remain on.
If they want to install XP on their existing development boxes and maybe get permission to move it from one box to another XP Pro is $280 from Amazon. Microsoft gives unlimited install support for that.
KFG
And epoxy will do a better job.
Have to keep an eye on the profits. I'm not here to do a better job.
KFG
At Ford, Quality is job 1.
Booooooom!
Well, we never defined the quality we were talking about, did we?
The fact of the matter is that if not blowing up was one of the primary design concerns of the Pinto, they wouldn't have started blowing up. The design was not malicious, but the car was as designed. It violated well understood principles of not blowing up. It was stupid, not merely ignorant.
Now when they started blowing up and Ford didn't change the design, that was malicious.
KFG
Who's to say that original doesn't get the properties of the location it was moved to (like a property trade)
Right, you'll need a pile of entangled goo where you want to go. Now start wondering how that goo got there.
KFG
How could an outsider tell the difference. . .
They couldn't, because you are not the atoms "you" are made of. You are a collection of information in the state of the atoms.
Which is a good thing for you, because most of the atoms you are made of today won't be the same atoms you'll be made of next week. That's why you die if you don't drink some water now and again; and maybe a bit of a nosh.
KFG
Oh yeah, yer like being all smug and shit about it now, but just you wait until the day comes when he opens the door and observes you dead.
KFG
Why would the teleported object melt into goo rather than simply vanishing in a de-atomized puff?
'Cause there's still a hundred and some odd pounds of atoms left hanging around with nothing in particular to do anymore.
You'll also need an equal quantity on the other side that's just been hanging around waiting to be you.
Only the information of particle state is actually transfered, pure "youness," not the particles themselves.
KFG
And if you think Kent isn't overcrowed, then I'm going to have to call you . . .English.
KFG
Do you get better treatment at Wal-Mart for walking out with products that you ignored to pay for?
How the hell should I know? That creepy "greeter" thing they like to do keeps me from bringing my money in in the first place.
KFG
Want quality software? Be willing to wait longer. . .
Well you haven't caught me upgrading to XP yet. When does Microsoft intend to deliver my payoff?
KFG
I'm going to Super Glue(tm) thumb tacks all over your driver's seat. Oh sure, I could refrain from doing that, but I think you should just abandon your car and quit your job.
Either that or just drive the damn thing and keep your mouth shut. Don't bitch to me about it if the car is still, technically, useful.
Software sucks by design, not because it innately has to. People realize this. That just increases the annoyance factor of the suckitude tenfold. They get tired of tacks in their ass after awhile.
KFG
we have breeding populations of lynx I believe. . .\
.somebody's freezer.
.there's certainly other big cats around, although they're more to do with zoo escapes and released pets than anything else.
Thaaaaaaat's not a big cat. 'Bout the same size as a jackal which isn't even a big dog. I've known a tabby that outweighed most lynx (ok, it was a bit on the tubby side, kinda like a furry beach ball with feet). And breeding populations may be suspected but are unconfirmed. The only actual capture that I'm aware of was taken in . .
. .
And John kept lions in the Tower. That doesn't make London wild space. That's what chavs are for.
KFG
She's been known to "mention" how much she paid for the thing (and overestimates by 100%, I've got the reciept), funny how she never mentions how much I paid for her CS degree. What's wit dat?
You know I was kidding before, I presume...
S'OK, so was I.
KFG
. . .gp is slightly correct in that this "advice" is dangerous, at least to some.
Information missapplied is always dangerous, but again, I never advised not taking the SATs.
I have, however, advised people not to attend college at all, but not under this "story," where I am under the assumption the questioner is not interested in such advice.
KFG
Having few forests != overpopulation.
.
.from the Highlands in the North. . .
It does if there used to be forests there until the arrival of the axe.
The UK has plenty of green and plesant land. .
Never said it didn't.
. .
Particularly beautiful, my mother is deathly afraid that one day I'll go and not come back, but there are cops now to prevent me sleeping wild in Glen Coe, which is also now devoid of trees so there's no place to hide from them, or the bloody tourists.
You just have to know where to go.
The Adirondacks. Where there are now cops with the authority to prevent me from sleeping wild in the same place more than three days in a row, but they have to find me first. Hard to do. There are so many trees and all. Lots of bears too, although all the large cats are now assumed to be feral. Pity.
There's always Alaska, but beyond the issues of weather it's getting a bit overcrowded these days.
To each his own.
KFG
Oops. Gift from the spousal unit. She might get pissed, they're like that; and I still actually use it from time to time. Breakout.
KFG
Hey, it ain't my fault, I'm just the messenger.
KFG
. . .we certainly havn't been overpopulated for two centuries.
Then why did Elizabeth have to send to America for trees?
I'm certainly not getting clostraphobic due to the amount of people.
To each his own.
KFG