Sure thing buddy. Apparently you did not even read my post. The first two years of engineering programs go over the math so quickly and in such high volume, that you only end up with a superficial, macro idea of how things work. My example was in Physics, you are given Newton's law of universal gravitation, and just told "Hey, it works!" rather than why. In my Dynamics class I had to actually derive the equation myself from others and model it with matlab and xppaut. We also had to derive the same law for three bodies. Same thing occurred in my circuits classes. "Hey, this is how you solve an LRC circuit, repeat this procedure for any one you see!". Ok, so I need to go through twenty similar examples to learn how to do this? Nope. Its much more informative to take differential equations and learn why it works that way rather than being given cookie-cutter solution techniques.
The first two years however, is a living hell. I dual majored in applied math and computer engineering. I ended up giving up on computer engineering right at the end of my second year because it seemed like a ton of busy work. They would run through mathematical concepts so fast there was no way to fully appreciate nor understand the foundation of it or the "why" if you will. I guess Im more of a math guy anyway. I used to hate how in my physics and circuits classes they would just give us equations without explaining where it came from. Universal law of gravitation? Guess what, that comes from a differential equation. I learned that and had to derive it myself in a math class on dynamics. Funny thing is, my math classes were harder but they actually were rigorous and the work felt like it was useful, i.e. enhancing my understanding of the subject without making me go through twenty different calculations that had the same procedure to solve them. I regret giving up on the Comp.Eng. because all my old engineering buddies told me the third year was easy because it was a blast programming robots and FPGA's, but all the same the first two years of engineering sucked ass.
Agreed. I hated the general education classes as well, however I suppose the point is that Universities want you to be a well-rounded student. If you never write compositions you will be a shittier writer when you need to write a technical paper. Additionally, some history topics are applicable to solving problems today simply by not making the same mistake. An example is how the Romans legally prohibited machines (levers, pulleys) in favor of human labor (to preserve jobs) and this is one reason they failed long term. Maybe as a Senior Engineer you would consider this when you are upgrading your plant.
On the converse side, I see no reason why art and business majors shouldn't have to take harder math and science. It might enable them to get a better job if they fail as an artist/entrepreneur and/or work better with engineers/scientists they may manage the finance branch for some day.
My university thankfully let you substitute technical writing for composition, and had a larger than average amount of history classes to choose from such as "History of Mathematics", however, just saying, general education has its purpose if its done correctly. Unfortunately many University curriculum boards have their heads up their asses.
I think that is unfair. I have trouble remembering everything in my discipline beyond real analysis and linear algebra, that is why I have a library of reference books in mathematics. I know where to look to find what I need to find when I need to find it and I have the capability of understanding it. That should be the only thing that matters for entry level positions (i.e. only college degree, minimal work experience).
I disagree. Application comes from the job you do after you get out of school or while you are in school. I know quite a bit about math because I have a M.S. in Math, and I also have a Research Assistant position that has taught me how to use computer clusters for scientific computation, how to do image processing, how to use LaTeX, practical knowledge about signal processing, etc. etc. There are opportunities at universities to do these things, its just that students go the easy way out because they think all they need is a degree to get paid the big bucks. Most college students simply don't belong at a university, but thats the fault of the universities being too easy on their students and letting them get away with partying all the time and doing minimal work but still being able to get a degree. Universities have watered the concept of many degrees (such as marketing/business/psychology) down to the point its homogeneous and you may as well not have one.
You are wrong. I used Linux for over a year on a digital audio workstation. I also used it for working with Matlab. I ended up being decent at fixing problems but it seemed like the programs I needed to use were more of a pain to install and make work correctly than on Windows. On Windows I can click several buttons and get everything handled, on Linux I actually had to go down to the command prompt at times and at others do this and also edit config files. It could be the most recent version of Ubuntu is much more streamlined, I don't know as I havent used it for over a year.
I will try Debian some time. I would really like Ubuntu to work bit better as Linux fits better with my philosophy anyway. I don't like having to pay for Windows but it tends to work the way I want it 85 percent of the time, annoy me 5-10 percent of the time, and get bogged down 5-10 percent of the time. Ubuntu worked right slightly less than that so I gave up. Also, I do not like Apple so much either out of principal so I won't buy one of their products, with the exception of this damn iPod I don't even use. Lesson learned.;)
No, I never said Mac's ship with bloatware. I said they lock down their OS's so that its harder to use non-approved products. That is a monopoly. Mac PC's themselves are not as bad, but they still have the obligatory iTunes, Mac Store, Quicktime, etc. as well as a marketing campaign used in an effort to steer the consumer towards purchasing more "Apple approved" products. Don't get me wrong, Macs are good machines even if you have to pay 1.5 to 2 times as much for one over a non-Apple PC. Just saying they are also part of the whole oligopoly thesis I had as options are limited. If Apple seriously wanted to out-compete windows machines to wipe them off the face of the planet all they would have to do right now is ride their brand recognition and drop their price to compete with windows machines. It would be bye-bye Microsoft at that point. Why doesn't Apple do that? Oligopoly.
I never said I want an oligopoly, I said the state of the market for OS's is one. As far as desktops go, you can pay less for a Windows machine, more for a MacOS one, or nothing except hardware costs for a Linux one, however, you end up paying for the Linux one with your time by fixing problems as soon as you try to do anything more with it than basic web and word processing. Time is money. I build my own Desktop PC's but sometimes people need laptops. When I purchase a Laptop, I usually get HP. HP is notorious for bloatware, but I can spend 1 hour removing the crap or 5 hours getting Linux to work the way I want it to on the same machine and still be forced to pay for the Windows license and bloatware. OR I can spend 1.5 - 2 times as much for an equally equipped Mac and have the time reduced over Windows to maybe 30 minutes. Point is, a truly free market doesn't exist for very long once someone beats out the competition, and right now in the OS market there is no interest in competition because its either "Go Windows", "Go Apple", or "Pay for Windows anyway and then go Linux". A truly free market doesnt exist for OS's except for a brief time that is almost over in the smart phone market. AND in the smart phone market you are locked into telecomm oligopolies that limit what devices you use, how you can use them, and (starting to make you) paying for obligatory data plans for newly purchased devices at full cost. A truly free market does not exist. Same shit with communism.
You didn't ask the first time. For simple web browsing, email applications, etc. it does have a minimal learning curve until something goes wrong. Then you have to wade through forums, sometimes obscure ones, to figure out what went wrong. Im used to doing that on Windows machines mostly by myself but it always seemed like more of a pain in my ass to fix Linux problems. Sometimes you run into a brick wall where it just says "Sorry, it just wont work until they release a new distribution". Specifically, one problem I had was with a Matlab installation and another was with getting audio drivers to work through JACK and Ardour. I can use a Unix command prompt as I have to for work, and I understand basic Linux (I have read several books on the subject) but I am not a Linux enthusiast nor am I a hardcore CS dude that can code my way out of a problem. I just tried to switch on two occasions to Ubuntu and CentOS and found both severely lacking in ease of use for what I needed my machine to do. Linux (specifically Ubuntu) needs some growth yet for it to be user friendly enough for the people inbetween CS gurus and basic users to be able to do what they want without spending hours handling problems that should be trivial. Granted, its free so I shouldn't be bitching, however it supports my hypothesis that the market is not a free market because you either go with Linux and waste valuable time or go with the Windows/MacOS oligopoly and waste dollars.
Problem is that many companies lock the market down in legalized monopolies or oligopolies, such as Verizon/AT&T/Sprint. You cannot default to a free market argument where none exists. You have Windows 7, which is basically an OS monopoly for consumer Desktops/Laptops, it runs like crap some times and is forced down your throat if you want to purchase a reasonably price laptop/desktop from a manufacturer. Then you have MacOS, whose parent company locks all of their products down so hard that they retain control of the majority of content even after you purchase the hardware for your own use. Then you have Linux, which is so fragmented in distro's and software packages as well as non-intuitive for most users. If you want to go the free-market route you are stuck with Linux which has a significant learning curve and probably will take up more of most peoples time than its worth to them in savings. There does not exist a free market.
... And the extra money they get for the bloatware passes on to us consumers in the form of savings. Why else do Apple's products cost so much more for the same hardware?;)
Idk about the everyman argument's validity as only a small percentage of the population even owns a tablet. It seems to me you Apple fan boys pretty much use any absurd or fallacious argument they can to justify their own obsession but the same is true for all fan boys. Tablets are a small quickly growing market. Its projected that 1 in 5 Americans will have a tablet by 2014, however by then the competition will make better products. It just so happens that the iPad is a superior tablet right now for functionality, stability and ease of use. You can prefer non-Apple products but still appreciate they products they have. I personally think most of their products are too damn expensive for what you get, with the exception of the iPad. It doesn't have the best hardware, but its also at a price point people can reasonably afford for the level of functionality it has (assuming of course one is in the market for a tablet in the first place).
Ps, I didnt mean "you Apple fan boys" just "Apple fan boys". Typo.
Idk about the everyman argument's validity as only a small percentage of the population even owns a tablet. It seems to me you Apple fan boy's pretty much use any absurd or fallacious argument they can to justify their own obsession but the same is true for all fan boy's. Tablets are a small quickly growing market. Its projected that 1 in 5 Americans will have a tablet by 2014, however by then the competition will make better products. It just so happens that the iPad is a superior tablet right now for functionality, stability and ease of use. You can prefer non-Apple products but still appreciate they products they have. I personally think most of their products are too damn expensive for what you get, with the exception of the iPad. It doesn't have the best hardware, but its also at a price point people can reasonably afford for the level of functionality it has (assuming of course one is in the market for a tablet in the first place).
The value of the stock is meaningless. Its basically nothing other than another imaginary asset like derivatives unless you actually give someone a stake in the company, and that includes profit sharing. Buffet may be a rich man, but hes rich because he exploits things to his advantage, not because he does what's right or fair.
Stocks are imaginary. Without actual ownership of a company, i.e. sharing profits/losses, it seems pointless. Its the same thing as gold in World of Warcraft, it has some "real" money value to people but essentially it means nothing because it cannot actually do anything useful at all. That's only a counter-argument, not necessarily my belief. I hold some stock actually.
This is something I actually agree with. Stock was supposed to be that you actually own a portion of a company. Whats the point in owning a portion of the company if you don't share some of the profits from the company? I suppose the counter-argument would be you should share some of the losses, however you are essentially giving money to the company so if the stock tanks then its like the company defaulting on a loan. I realize that if a company makes more money the stock goes up in value, but frankly a non-dividend stock seems as imaginary as derivatives. Speculation for the sake of speculation is all it is.
But man... How the heck did you go from his (IMHO) fairly neutral (if a little blunt) post to thinking he is putting you down and having a big ego? O_o
IMO you seem to have quite a persecution complex ** and are probably reading too much into things. >.>
His post was not neutral at all. It was a thumb-to-the-nose post. Here, I will paraphrase it for you "Im an engineer that deals with difficult real-world problems that you can't possibly understand. You're just some dumb kid that took a couple college courses in statistics and thinks he knows everything. Whenever I have a problem I can't solve, I go to my friends from college because they will do it for free". That is just a dick-headed way to deal with things IMHO. He should be more humble, and grateful his friends will help him and not make assumptions about people he never met. I probably inserted meaning to some degree, but he also insulted me. I was not trying to be a gloat in my post earlier, I was just trying to refute his idea that I am some dumb kid.
Statistics isn't hard? Let me guess, you base that on a couple of college courses? As an engineer, I've frequently run into statistical problems that neither I nor my coworkers have even the foggiest notion of how to approach. Things can get really ugly when you start dealing with the real world. You're certainly right about one thing though - most mathematicians do the math because they enjoy it. Those aforementioned problems that were beyond me? I typically recruit some mathematicians and physicists I know from college, and they solve them for free.
Re-read his post. He is stroking his own ego, and his overall tone suggests that he finds it funny to exploit his college scientist friends because they will do it for free. Furthermore, he made an assumption that I am not educated on the subject without any proof whatsoever. I never said I was good at mathematics, I just said that I am educated on the subject and he originally suggested that I "took a couple college courses". Frankly, I think he's kind of being a douche.
Statistics isn't hard? Let me guess, you base that on a couple of college courses? As an engineer, I've frequently run into statistical problems that neither I nor my coworkers have even the foggiest notion of how to approach. Things can get really ugly when you start dealing with the real world.
You're certainly right about one thing though - most mathematicians do the math because they enjoy it. Those aforementioned problems that were beyond me? I typically recruit some mathematicians and physicists I know from college, and they solve them for free.
Re-read his post and tell me that I am being defensive. He is stroking his own ego, and his overall tone suggests that he finds it funny to exploit his college scientist friends because they will do it for free. Furthermore, he made an assumption that I am not educated on the subject without any proof whatsoever. Frankly, I think he's kind of being a douche.
More bad research comes out of idiots or dishonest people manipulating statistics because they are trying to justify their hypothesis. Its extremely common for academics to over-report results through manipulations because that is what gets them published. If you don't get published, you will not become a professor (at least not at a university). This being the case, you get some professors and/or researchers that literally do not deserve their position because they are good at being dishonest and not getting caught. Peer review is one thing that limits the bullshit, but its hard for a reviewer to find every one of the flaws in the research they are critiquing if there are only 5 pages allowed for a conference paper. All I am saying is that flaws in research are not specific to statistics, its a more general problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Why invent words that have a perfect substitute?
Sure thing buddy. Apparently you did not even read my post. The first two years of engineering programs go over the math so quickly and in such high volume, that you only end up with a superficial, macro idea of how things work. My example was in Physics, you are given Newton's law of universal gravitation, and just told "Hey, it works!" rather than why. In my Dynamics class I had to actually derive the equation myself from others and model it with matlab and xppaut. We also had to derive the same law for three bodies. Same thing occurred in my circuits classes. "Hey, this is how you solve an LRC circuit, repeat this procedure for any one you see!". Ok, so I need to go through twenty similar examples to learn how to do this? Nope. Its much more informative to take differential equations and learn why it works that way rather than being given cookie-cutter solution techniques.
The first two years however, is a living hell. I dual majored in applied math and computer engineering. I ended up giving up on computer engineering right at the end of my second year because it seemed like a ton of busy work. They would run through mathematical concepts so fast there was no way to fully appreciate nor understand the foundation of it or the "why" if you will. I guess Im more of a math guy anyway. I used to hate how in my physics and circuits classes they would just give us equations without explaining where it came from. Universal law of gravitation? Guess what, that comes from a differential equation. I learned that and had to derive it myself in a math class on dynamics. Funny thing is, my math classes were harder but they actually were rigorous and the work felt like it was useful, i.e. enhancing my understanding of the subject without making me go through twenty different calculations that had the same procedure to solve them. I regret giving up on the Comp.Eng. because all my old engineering buddies told me the third year was easy because it was a blast programming robots and FPGA's, but all the same the first two years of engineering sucked ass.
Agreed. I hated the general education classes as well, however I suppose the point is that Universities want you to be a well-rounded student. If you never write compositions you will be a shittier writer when you need to write a technical paper. Additionally, some history topics are applicable to solving problems today simply by not making the same mistake. An example is how the Romans legally prohibited machines (levers, pulleys) in favor of human labor (to preserve jobs) and this is one reason they failed long term. Maybe as a Senior Engineer you would consider this when you are upgrading your plant.
On the converse side, I see no reason why art and business majors shouldn't have to take harder math and science. It might enable them to get a better job if they fail as an artist/entrepreneur and/or work better with engineers/scientists they may manage the finance branch for some day.
My university thankfully let you substitute technical writing for composition, and had a larger than average amount of history classes to choose from such as "History of Mathematics", however, just saying, general education has its purpose if its done correctly. Unfortunately many University curriculum boards have their heads up their asses.
I think that is unfair. I have trouble remembering everything in my discipline beyond real analysis and linear algebra, that is why I have a library of reference books in mathematics. I know where to look to find what I need to find when I need to find it and I have the capability of understanding it. That should be the only thing that matters for entry level positions (i.e. only college degree, minimal work experience).
I disagree. Application comes from the job you do after you get out of school or while you are in school. I know quite a bit about math because I have a M.S. in Math, and I also have a Research Assistant position that has taught me how to use computer clusters for scientific computation, how to do image processing, how to use LaTeX, practical knowledge about signal processing, etc. etc. There are opportunities at universities to do these things, its just that students go the easy way out because they think all they need is a degree to get paid the big bucks. Most college students simply don't belong at a university, but thats the fault of the universities being too easy on their students and letting them get away with partying all the time and doing minimal work but still being able to get a degree. Universities have watered the concept of many degrees (such as marketing/business/psychology) down to the point its homogeneous and you may as well not have one.
One thing I do like about Macs is that its UNIX based so its easier to use all sorts of software from the Linux crowd as well.
Haha. Touché.
You are wrong. I used Linux for over a year on a digital audio workstation. I also used it for working with Matlab. I ended up being decent at fixing problems but it seemed like the programs I needed to use were more of a pain to install and make work correctly than on Windows. On Windows I can click several buttons and get everything handled, on Linux I actually had to go down to the command prompt at times and at others do this and also edit config files. It could be the most recent version of Ubuntu is much more streamlined, I don't know as I havent used it for over a year.
I will try Debian some time. I would really like Ubuntu to work bit better as Linux fits better with my philosophy anyway. I don't like having to pay for Windows but it tends to work the way I want it 85 percent of the time, annoy me 5-10 percent of the time, and get bogged down 5-10 percent of the time. Ubuntu worked right slightly less than that so I gave up. Also, I do not like Apple so much either out of principal so I won't buy one of their products, with the exception of this damn iPod I don't even use. Lesson learned. ;)
No, I never said Mac's ship with bloatware. I said they lock down their OS's so that its harder to use non-approved products. That is a monopoly. Mac PC's themselves are not as bad, but they still have the obligatory iTunes, Mac Store, Quicktime, etc. as well as a marketing campaign used in an effort to steer the consumer towards purchasing more "Apple approved" products. Don't get me wrong, Macs are good machines even if you have to pay 1.5 to 2 times as much for one over a non-Apple PC. Just saying they are also part of the whole oligopoly thesis I had as options are limited. If Apple seriously wanted to out-compete windows machines to wipe them off the face of the planet all they would have to do right now is ride their brand recognition and drop their price to compete with windows machines. It would be bye-bye Microsoft at that point. Why doesn't Apple do that? Oligopoly.
I never said I want an oligopoly, I said the state of the market for OS's is one. As far as desktops go, you can pay less for a Windows machine, more for a MacOS one, or nothing except hardware costs for a Linux one, however, you end up paying for the Linux one with your time by fixing problems as soon as you try to do anything more with it than basic web and word processing. Time is money. I build my own Desktop PC's but sometimes people need laptops. When I purchase a Laptop, I usually get HP. HP is notorious for bloatware, but I can spend 1 hour removing the crap or 5 hours getting Linux to work the way I want it to on the same machine and still be forced to pay for the Windows license and bloatware. OR I can spend 1.5 - 2 times as much for an equally equipped Mac and have the time reduced over Windows to maybe 30 minutes. Point is, a truly free market doesn't exist for very long once someone beats out the competition, and right now in the OS market there is no interest in competition because its either "Go Windows", "Go Apple", or "Pay for Windows anyway and then go Linux". A truly free market doesnt exist for OS's except for a brief time that is almost over in the smart phone market. AND in the smart phone market you are locked into telecomm oligopolies that limit what devices you use, how you can use them, and (starting to make you) paying for obligatory data plans for newly purchased devices at full cost. A truly free market does not exist. Same shit with communism.
You didn't ask the first time. For simple web browsing, email applications, etc. it does have a minimal learning curve until something goes wrong. Then you have to wade through forums, sometimes obscure ones, to figure out what went wrong. Im used to doing that on Windows machines mostly by myself but it always seemed like more of a pain in my ass to fix Linux problems. Sometimes you run into a brick wall where it just says "Sorry, it just wont work until they release a new distribution". Specifically, one problem I had was with a Matlab installation and another was with getting audio drivers to work through JACK and Ardour. I can use a Unix command prompt as I have to for work, and I understand basic Linux (I have read several books on the subject) but I am not a Linux enthusiast nor am I a hardcore CS dude that can code my way out of a problem. I just tried to switch on two occasions to Ubuntu and CentOS and found both severely lacking in ease of use for what I needed my machine to do. Linux (specifically Ubuntu) needs some growth yet for it to be user friendly enough for the people inbetween CS gurus and basic users to be able to do what they want without spending hours handling problems that should be trivial. Granted, its free so I shouldn't be bitching, however it supports my hypothesis that the market is not a free market because you either go with Linux and waste valuable time or go with the Windows/MacOS oligopoly and waste dollars.
Problem is that many companies lock the market down in legalized monopolies or oligopolies, such as Verizon/AT&T/Sprint. You cannot default to a free market argument where none exists. You have Windows 7, which is basically an OS monopoly for consumer Desktops/Laptops, it runs like crap some times and is forced down your throat if you want to purchase a reasonably price laptop/desktop from a manufacturer. Then you have MacOS, whose parent company locks all of their products down so hard that they retain control of the majority of content even after you purchase the hardware for your own use. Then you have Linux, which is so fragmented in distro's and software packages as well as non-intuitive for most users. If you want to go the free-market route you are stuck with Linux which has a significant learning curve and probably will take up more of most peoples time than its worth to them in savings. There does not exist a free market.
... And the extra money they get for the bloatware passes on to us consumers in the form of savings. Why else do Apple's products cost so much more for the same hardware? ;)
Idk about the everyman argument's validity as only a small percentage of the population even owns a tablet. It seems to me you Apple fan boys pretty much use any absurd or fallacious argument they can to justify their own obsession but the same is true for all fan boys. Tablets are a small quickly growing market. Its projected that 1 in 5 Americans will have a tablet by 2014, however by then the competition will make better products. It just so happens that the iPad is a superior tablet right now for functionality, stability and ease of use. You can prefer non-Apple products but still appreciate they products they have. I personally think most of their products are too damn expensive for what you get, with the exception of the iPad. It doesn't have the best hardware, but its also at a price point people can reasonably afford for the level of functionality it has (assuming of course one is in the market for a tablet in the first place).
Ps, I didnt mean "you Apple fan boys" just "Apple fan boys". Typo.
Idk about the everyman argument's validity as only a small percentage of the population even owns a tablet. It seems to me you Apple fan boy's pretty much use any absurd or fallacious argument they can to justify their own obsession but the same is true for all fan boy's. Tablets are a small quickly growing market. Its projected that 1 in 5 Americans will have a tablet by 2014, however by then the competition will make better products. It just so happens that the iPad is a superior tablet right now for functionality, stability and ease of use. You can prefer non-Apple products but still appreciate they products they have. I personally think most of their products are too damn expensive for what you get, with the exception of the iPad. It doesn't have the best hardware, but its also at a price point people can reasonably afford for the level of functionality it has (assuming of course one is in the market for a tablet in the first place).
The value of the stock is meaningless. Its basically nothing other than another imaginary asset like derivatives unless you actually give someone a stake in the company, and that includes profit sharing. Buffet may be a rich man, but hes rich because he exploits things to his advantage, not because he does what's right or fair.
Stocks are imaginary. Without actual ownership of a company, i.e. sharing profits/losses, it seems pointless. Its the same thing as gold in World of Warcraft, it has some "real" money value to people but essentially it means nothing because it cannot actually do anything useful at all. That's only a counter-argument, not necessarily my belief. I hold some stock actually.
This is something I actually agree with. Stock was supposed to be that you actually own a portion of a company. Whats the point in owning a portion of the company if you don't share some of the profits from the company? I suppose the counter-argument would be you should share some of the losses, however you are essentially giving money to the company so if the stock tanks then its like the company defaulting on a loan. I realize that if a company makes more money the stock goes up in value, but frankly a non-dividend stock seems as imaginary as derivatives. Speculation for the sake of speculation is all it is.
But man ... How the heck did you go from his (IMHO) fairly neutral (if a little blunt) post to thinking he is putting you down and having a big ego? O_o
IMO you seem to have quite a persecution complex ** and are probably reading too much into things. >.>
His post was not neutral at all. It was a thumb-to-the-nose post. Here, I will paraphrase it for you "Im an engineer that deals with difficult real-world problems that you can't possibly understand. You're just some dumb kid that took a couple college courses in statistics and thinks he knows everything. Whenever I have a problem I can't solve, I go to my friends from college because they will do it for free". That is just a dick-headed way to deal with things IMHO. He should be more humble, and grateful his friends will help him and not make assumptions about people he never met. I probably inserted meaning to some degree, but he also insulted me. I was not trying to be a gloat in my post earlier, I was just trying to refute his idea that I am some dumb kid.
You're a cocksucker. I can shout insults too without bothering with real arguments.
Statistics isn't hard? Let me guess, you base that on a couple of college courses? As an engineer, I've frequently run into statistical problems that neither I nor my coworkers have even the foggiest notion of how to approach. Things can get really ugly when you start dealing with the real world. You're certainly right about one thing though - most mathematicians do the math because they enjoy it. Those aforementioned problems that were beyond me? I typically recruit some mathematicians and physicists I know from college, and they solve them for free.
Re-read his post. He is stroking his own ego, and his overall tone suggests that he finds it funny to exploit his college scientist friends because they will do it for free. Furthermore, he made an assumption that I am not educated on the subject without any proof whatsoever. I never said I was good at mathematics, I just said that I am educated on the subject and he originally suggested that I "took a couple college courses". Frankly, I think he's kind of being a douche.
Statistics isn't hard? Let me guess, you base that on a couple of college courses? As an engineer, I've frequently run into statistical problems that neither I nor my coworkers have even the foggiest notion of how to approach. Things can get really ugly when you start dealing with the real world. You're certainly right about one thing though - most mathematicians do the math because they enjoy it. Those aforementioned problems that were beyond me? I typically recruit some mathematicians and physicists I know from college, and they solve them for free.
Re-read his post and tell me that I am being defensive. He is stroking his own ego, and his overall tone suggests that he finds it funny to exploit his college scientist friends because they will do it for free. Furthermore, he made an assumption that I am not educated on the subject without any proof whatsoever. Frankly, I think he's kind of being a douche.
More bad research comes out of idiots or dishonest people manipulating statistics because they are trying to justify their hypothesis. Its extremely common for academics to over-report results through manipulations because that is what gets them published. If you don't get published, you will not become a professor (at least not at a university). This being the case, you get some professors and/or researchers that literally do not deserve their position because they are good at being dishonest and not getting caught. Peer review is one thing that limits the bullshit, but its hard for a reviewer to find every one of the flaws in the research they are critiquing if there are only 5 pages allowed for a conference paper. All I am saying is that flaws in research are not specific to statistics, its a more general problem.