This is not a survey about surveys. This is a statistical test of the number of identical responses in a survey, and the likelihood that such uniformity could have resulted by chance. That probably indicates not just fraud, but incompetent fraud (or, to be fair, perhaps people in developing countries are just much more likely to answer independent questions in exactly the same way, and the researchers drastically underestimated the independence of these questions). Seems like grading math or physics homework though - it's a lot harder to demonstrate when the top students are copying answers from each other.
That is quite interesting. Can you link to a paper, etc., that calculates the adjustments for liberal vs. conservative survey-taking patterns? I would be interested to see the magnitude of this effect.
I’m confused. TFA says new entities created by executive order. Then says they're part of budget proposal to congress. Then says they're "driving our executive authority to the limit." Suddenly making more sense why no one reads TFA.
So you would rely completely on the fact-checking and judgement of a nanny service, while hoping that the influence of the criminal justice system significantly deters the actions of pedophiles, and entirely omit any personal vetting of the person who takes care of your kids all day? Good God I hope you don't actually have kids.
Well apparently the killer's brother was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Is that active enough for you AC?
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...
You're arguing that the track record for profit-driven research is far better than the alternative, but it's the results of government-funded basic science research that are described in the article. These results are the ones leading to the potential of the profit you admire at the (arguable, depending on perspective) expense of the entire natural human gene pool. Really, what profit-driven research in the last 30 years has the same potential for changing the world as this basic science discovery? NIH funded science will be working on cures to genetic diseases, no question about it. Profit-based research will be working on how to create the next superkid so that Sally Soccermom can chase some clickbait gene that a profiteer has touted as the gene for fast-twitch muscles, or intelligence, or Cary Grant's facial features.
They seem to demand racial equality, in that the percentage of black students at their university should not be less than the percentage of black students in their state. They further demand that the percentage of black administrators shall not be less than the percentage of black people in their state. There have been demands to increase participation in STEM fields as well. The idea is that these disparities result from the historical white repression of blacks, and reducing these disparities would improve the academic success of the black race. The point is: I've seen the demands, and I do have some appreciation for the rationale. That being said, blacks were also traditionally excluded from athletic programs. The time demands on student athletes, as well as the athletic culture that values athletics over academics, puts them at a disadvantage in an academic environment, and at a disadvantage for jobs that require academic achievement. There are significantly more blacks in athletics than would be expected by the population average, but surprisingly there are no demands to racially equalize this particular subgroup of university students. Even Nate Silver at 538 completely ignores this effect in his statistical analyses. As such, their demands would indeed provide more money to black people, but they should not be expected to improve equality. Even ganja-smoking hippies stumbling around looking for their lost signature (no offense;) are now noticing this, and this is a step backward for people of all races imo.
Interesting, my take-away from the article was that the display isn't being updated with the right information, i.e., perhaps different parts of the visual field should be updated differently due to the feedback from the head motion monitor, and current software isn't yet doing the optimal job given the inputs it gets. That was my impression from wearing one. But yeah, manipulating the vestibular feedback system would be a cool addition to any helmet. I think tcms or eventually optogenetics is up to the job.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not a survey about surveys. This is a statistical test of the number of identical responses in a survey, and the likelihood that such uniformity could have resulted by chance. That probably indicates not just fraud, but incompetent fraud (or, to be fair, perhaps people in developing countries are just much more likely to answer independent questions in exactly the same way, and the researchers drastically underestimated the independence of these questions). Seems like grading math or physics homework though - it's a lot harder to demonstrate when the top students are copying answers from each other.
No. TFA states exactly what they are saying: "About one in five of the surveys failed, indicating a high likelihood of fabricated data."
Exactly, and there is a negative correlation between the amount of incompetence and the amount of funding.
No, 65.6% of these stats appear to be ad hoc but in reality there is an agenda behind them. 76.4% of the time that agenda includes a bad joke. Moo.
That is quite interesting. Can you link to a paper, etc., that calculates the adjustments for liberal vs. conservative survey-taking patterns? I would be interested to see the magnitude of this effect.
Probably not the article you're talking about, but same conclusion, and a good read: http://prospect.org/article/ac...
It is a pronoun. It has been used here to refer to a phrase that is not a logical proposition.
'Slippery slope' cannot be a logical fallacy because it is not a logical proposition.
I’m confused. TFA says new entities created by executive order. Then says they're part of budget proposal to congress. Then says they're "driving our executive authority to the limit." Suddenly making more sense why no one reads TFA.
The number of countries that have been invaded by Texans (who do care, really, let's be honest) is bigger than Texas.
Everything's bigger in Texas my ass!
So you would rely completely on the fact-checking and judgement of a nanny service, while hoping that the influence of the criminal justice system significantly deters the actions of pedophiles, and entirely omit any personal vetting of the person who takes care of your kids all day? Good God I hope you don't actually have kids.
In hell it is called Real Analysis.
You obviously didn't spend any time this morning telling your kids why their school's closed. Saying this didn't scare any students is pure ignorance.
Well apparently the killer's brother was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Is that active enough for you AC? http://thehill.com/policy/nati...
Homeopathy beat you to it.
So you're saying that in this study, there was a real effect for a small minority of sufferers?!? Could you point me to this study?
once upon a time on slashdot you'd get modded troll for even hinting that google might actually be capable of evil. good times.
This data is not sufficient to conclude that the difference between male and female brains is minimal, no matter how you analyze it.
You're arguing that the track record for profit-driven research is far better than the alternative, but it's the results of government-funded basic science research that are described in the article. These results are the ones leading to the potential of the profit you admire at the (arguable, depending on perspective) expense of the entire natural human gene pool. Really, what profit-driven research in the last 30 years has the same potential for changing the world as this basic science discovery? NIH funded science will be working on cures to genetic diseases, no question about it. Profit-based research will be working on how to create the next superkid so that Sally Soccermom can chase some clickbait gene that a profiteer has touted as the gene for fast-twitch muscles, or intelligence, or Cary Grant's facial features.
They seem to demand racial equality, in that the percentage of black students at their university should not be less than the percentage of black students in their state. They further demand that the percentage of black administrators shall not be less than the percentage of black people in their state. There have been demands to increase participation in STEM fields as well. The idea is that these disparities result from the historical white repression of blacks, and reducing these disparities would improve the academic success of the black race. The point is: I've seen the demands, and I do have some appreciation for the rationale. That being said, blacks were also traditionally excluded from athletic programs. The time demands on student athletes, as well as the athletic culture that values athletics over academics, puts them at a disadvantage in an academic environment, and at a disadvantage for jobs that require academic achievement. There are significantly more blacks in athletics than would be expected by the population average, but surprisingly there are no demands to racially equalize this particular subgroup of university students. Even Nate Silver at 538 completely ignores this effect in his statistical analyses. As such, their demands would indeed provide more money to black people, but they should not be expected to improve equality. Even ganja-smoking hippies stumbling around looking for their lost signature (no offense ;) are now noticing this, and this is a step backward for people of all races imo.
Ha ha, man, if a comment like this comes from ganjadude, I'm inclined to believe that something ain't right with them college kids
These summaries are edited for conversion to flamebait. Says so in TFA.
Not oil. A pipeline for natural gas
Interesting, my take-away from the article was that the display isn't being updated with the right information, i.e., perhaps different parts of the visual field should be updated differently due to the feedback from the head motion monitor, and current software isn't yet doing the optimal job given the inputs it gets. That was my impression from wearing one. But yeah, manipulating the vestibular feedback system would be a cool addition to any helmet. I think tcms or eventually optogenetics is up to the job.