If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time. If, as is often the case, experiments are underpowered, you will be wrong most of the time.
And given the low power of most psychology experiments I am not surprised by this result.
Unfortunately, lasers have become so cheap, and super powerful laser-pointers (which has no real world use whatsoever)
I have my physical chemistry students build a Raman spectrometer using a 300 mW green laser pointer. So they absolutely do have a real-world use. The cheapness and power is what makes it a worthwhile and feasible experiment to do.
I am not saying $2.40/episode is ideal, but there are benefits to the streaming model as well: watch whenever, where ever you want, instantaneous gratification, can't be lost, scratched (this is huge in my house with three kids), etc.
The link says that is an "interim rule, to be effective for a period of 120 days from the time of publication", which was December 14, 2006. So it seems that this rule is no longer in effect.
Most resources are recyclable, but simply end up in trash heaps because (for now) the energy and sorting costs of recycling makes it inefficient.
Personally, I like the idea of 21st century miners working in old landfills to get metals instead of chopping off mountaintops.
Exactly.. Every time I throw a "recyclable" tidbit into the regular trash I like to think of some descendant in the far future having his day made when he unearths my piece of valuable trash.
That was certainly the experience I witnessed in both undergraduate and graduate school.
Again I'm calling BS on this, at least in science. Where I work, almost the entire graduate department seems to be Chinese. But these are smart guys, and gals. They have a lot to learn, but they earned their way here.
It is a mixed bag, honestly. And seems a lot of the best and brightest stay here while the dregs return home.
Win what? The ability to stop people from watching your shows? I would have thought people would want their shows to be watched. If they don't, why do they make sell them to the cable company?
Having "the people" review NSF grants, the same people of whom half believe that antibiotics kill viruses (imperiling all of us when they strong arm their spineless doctors into prescribing antibiotics for colds) and think that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, is a freaking ridiculous idea. Furthermore, the idea that targeting grants individually in NSF, whose budget, at $7 billion is 0.2% of the total budget is an effective way of cutting the deficit is asinine. And to top it all off, that measly $7 billion is one of the major reasons the United States is still a power in science and technology at all, especially as private R&D collapses in the face of the recession (in the short term) and Wall Street's fetish for quarterly results.
Fuck you, Eric Cantor. Fuck you, ignorant Republican douche-bags. I am D-O-N-E done. We are going to Hell in a handbasket, and instead of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (which would be bad enough), you are stealing life jackets from children and setting them ablaze because the water is cold and we need to keep warm.
If you are going to link to a graph, you might actually want to look at it in detail first. Notice how almost every year it starts low in January, jumps up in the summer, and then in January it drops back to roughly the same spot it was the previous January? Notice how in 2009 that didn't happen? The summer gain was very, very small, and then the winter drop is way lower than the previous january? Now for 2010 we see that the summer gain was much bigger, pretty much on par what it has been almost every other year (other than 2001 and 2009). So that's a positive indication right there that at least things have stabilized. Yes, employment is dropping, but that's the normal cyclical adjustment. We won't be able to tell for a few more months (probably closer to 6 month) whether things overall are better, worse, or about the same.
Huh? According to the graph, employment was 64% in January 1999. In January 2010 it was 58%. There is a cycle in there, yes, but the over alltrend is down.
Yes. There are lots of examples out there of analyzing titrations and such with Solver. Check JChemEd for starters.
A cool pedagodical aspect is that if you graph your system and step through the Solver iterations students can watch the model function approach the data on the graph.
I don't get why this person is all about hating the CC-PD license. Yes, it is technically unnecessary, but it provides a convenient framework for tagging PD works without having to add something "special". I don't think CC is trying to steal the public domain. They are just giving content providers one stop shopping for all their licensing needs.
This is why I tell people that the leaning of a particular justice even within the same session will not necessarily tell you how that justice will see the matter at hand. Look at Gonzales v. Raich, where Rehnquist and Thomas -- two of the three most conservative leaning justices at the time -- voted in favor of allowing California's legalization of medical marijuana laws to trump federal law, while Kennedy and Scalia voted to let federal law win out.
You can make a general guess, but until the opinion is published, you just don't know.
Huh? The conservatives were upholding states rights (a favorite conservative stance), where-as the liberals were up holding expansive federal government, as they often do. No surprises here.
All software contains bugs. The defense will find some, and even if they only affect accuracy at the 7th decimal point, the case will get thrown out by a jury based on reasonable doubt.
Then the prosecutors are incompetent. If you need to be over 0.08 and the machine says 0.100000, but really that should have been 0.099999 it doesn't matter. You are still over 0.08. You don't need 7 digit accuracy. This is a simple concept that any competent lawyer should be able to teach a jury.
with the goal of ramping up to Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu, and Laloe's "Quantum Mechanics".
Ugh, I HATED that book. It has too be one of the most frustrating, maze-like pieces of work ever created. You can't just read what you need, it is always referring back (or even ahead) to other sections/equations. Trying to learn one thing out of it takes hours of flipping pages and writing out stuff, just so you can see everything in one place. Some may say this is due to the fundamental complexity of the subject, but I suspect it is actually due to disorganization on the part of the authors. (Perhaps too many cooks in the kitchen?)
That said, I use it regularly now, having ponied up the ducats for it and struggled through it I can't justify dropping that investment on another book. It does have pretty much everything thing you need to get started in QM...
Slashdot Mirror
When a country has nuclear weapons, the US stops meddling in its internal affairs and begins to treat it as an equal.
Pakistan begs to differ.
If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time. If, as is often the case, experiments are underpowered, you will be wrong most of the time.
And given the low power of most psychology experiments I am not surprised by this result.
these [newly identified contacts] are not being watched or monitored and are not showing any symptoms of the illness
How does that work? If you are not watching or monitoring them how do you know they aren't showing any symptoms?
Unfortunately, lasers have become so cheap, and super powerful laser-pointers (which has no real world use whatsoever)
I have my physical chemistry students build a Raman spectrometer using a 300 mW green laser pointer. So they absolutely do have a real-world use. The cheapness and power is what makes it a worthwhile and feasible experiment to do.
You forgot being able to watch as many times as you like.
I am not sure what you mean by this. The content in question, Breaking Bad, can be watched as many times as you want.
I am not saying $2.40/episode is ideal, but there are benefits to the streaming model as well: watch whenever, where ever you want, instantaneous gratification, can't be lost, scratched (this is huge in my house with three kids), etc.
I was going to watch season 4 of Breaking Bad on Amazon Prime but it was $4 an episode. Way too much who does Amazon think will pay that?
The one guy who strips off the DRM and then puts it up as a torrent.
Huh? It is $3 an episode, or $31 for the whole season ($2.40/episode). Seems reasonable to me....
Sadly, it's now illegal to melt them down.
The link says that is an "interim rule, to be effective for a period of 120 days from the time of publication", which was December 14, 2006. So it seems that this rule is no longer in effect.
Most resources are recyclable, but simply end up in trash heaps because (for now) the energy and sorting costs of recycling makes it inefficient.
Personally, I like the idea of 21st century miners working in old landfills to get metals instead of chopping off mountaintops.
Exactly.. Every time I throw a "recyclable" tidbit into the regular trash I like to think of some descendant in the far future having his day made when he unearths my piece of valuable trash.
That was certainly the experience I witnessed in both undergraduate and graduate school.
Again I'm calling BS on this, at least in science. Where I work, almost the entire graduate department seems to be Chinese. But these are smart guys, and gals. They have a lot to learn, but they earned their way here.
It is a mixed bag, honestly. And seems a lot of the best and brightest stay here while the dregs return home.
'If we litigate, we have a chance to win.'"
Win what? The ability to stop people from watching your shows? I would have thought people would want their shows to be watched. If they don't, why do they make sell them to the cable company?
Helium-2 has a negative binding energy. That makes it pretty impossible to me.
I think you mean helium-3. Helium-2 is quite impossible.
This makes me want to throw-up.
Having "the people" review NSF grants, the same people of whom half believe that antibiotics kill viruses (imperiling all of us when they strong arm their spineless doctors into prescribing antibiotics for colds) and think that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, is a freaking ridiculous idea. Furthermore, the idea that targeting grants individually in NSF, whose budget, at $7 billion is 0.2% of the total budget is an effective way of cutting the deficit is asinine. And to top it all off, that measly $7 billion is one of the major reasons the United States is still a power in science and technology at all, especially as private R&D collapses in the face of the recession (in the short term) and Wall Street's fetish for quarterly results.
Fuck you, Eric Cantor. Fuck you, ignorant Republican douche-bags. I am D-O-N-E done. We are going to Hell in a handbasket, and instead of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic (which would be bad enough), you are stealing life jackets from children and setting them ablaze because the water is cold and we need to keep warm.
If you are going to link to a graph, you might actually want to look at it in detail first. Notice how almost every year it starts low in January, jumps up in the summer, and then in January it drops back to roughly the same spot it was the previous January? Notice how in 2009 that didn't happen? The summer gain was very, very small, and then the winter drop is way lower than the previous january? Now for 2010 we see that the summer gain was much bigger, pretty much on par what it has been almost every other year (other than 2001 and 2009). So that's a positive indication right there that at least things have stabilized. Yes, employment is dropping, but that's the normal cyclical adjustment. We won't be able to tell for a few more months (probably closer to 6 month) whether things overall are better, worse, or about the same.
Huh? According to the graph, employment was 64% in January 1999. In January 2010 it was 58%. There is a cycle in there, yes, but the over alltrend is down.
That is one of the funniest exchanges I have ever read.
just take one of the most famous graphs from his book, and reproduce it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Napoleon's_Invasion_of_Russia
relabel the advancing french soldiers "good intentions for accountable government"
relabel the retreating french soldiers "obfuscation by entrenched special interests"
job done
Brilliant
Yes. There are lots of examples out there of analyzing titrations and such with Solver. Check JChemEd for starters.
A cool pedagodical aspect is that if you graph your system and step through the Solver iterations students can watch the model function approach the data on the graph.
One word: Solver. I have yet to find a suitable replacement for Excel's Solver anywhere else. Its uses in chemistry are extensive and educational.
BTW, if any of y'all know of an alternative, I would love to hear about it.
I use tuxcards.
Another chemist here.
What predictions does Bohmian mechanics make that traditional (Copenhagen) QM does not?
I don't get why this person is all about hating the CC-PD license. Yes, it is technically unnecessary, but it provides a convenient framework for tagging PD works without having to add something "special". I don't think CC is trying to steal the public domain. They are just giving content providers one stop shopping for all their licensing needs.
Huh? The conservatives were upholding states rights (a favorite conservative stance), where-as the liberals were up holding expansive federal government, as they often do. No surprises here.
Then the prosecutors are incompetent. If you need to be over 0.08 and the machine says 0.100000, but really that should have been 0.099999 it doesn't matter. You are still over 0.08. You don't need 7 digit accuracy. This is a simple concept that any competent lawyer should be able to teach a jury.
Ugh, I HATED that book. It has too be one of the most frustrating, maze-like pieces of work ever created. You can't just read what you need, it is always referring back (or even ahead) to other sections/equations. Trying to learn one thing out of it takes hours of flipping pages and writing out stuff, just so you can see everything in one place. Some may say this is due to the fundamental complexity of the subject, but I suspect it is actually due to disorganization on the part of the authors. (Perhaps too many cooks in the kitchen?)
That said, I use it regularly now, having ponied up the ducats for it and struggled through it I can't justify dropping that investment on another book. It does have pretty much everything thing you need to get started in QM...