Big Corporation: Open Source is bad for everyone.
Open Source Advocate: No, monopolies are bad for everyone.
BC: Open Source leads to piracy.
OSA: No, monopolies lead to piracy.
The difference is, economists can prove the claims about monopolies. (as long as you replace "for everyone" with "for everyone EXCEPT the monopolist")
OS = piracy? I thought OS = communism was pretty stupid...
They're both pretty appropriate. Now we can be commie pirates! The most fearsome scourge the world has ever seen! "Arrrrrrrrgh, comrades! Up with the jolly roger and down with the bourgeoisie!"
On one side of the aisle you have the scummy rent-seeking corporatists. And on the other side you have the anti-corporate socialist 'progressives.' Neither side of the political debate want a free market. Both sides want the government to set rules to benefit special interests.
False. Corporatists seek to benefit special interests, and progressives seek to benefit society generally. You seem to be confusing progressive and liberal.
They already unblocked the account and are doing a "review" of the site apparently.
I think the point is it's inappropriate for the bank ever to have blocked the account in the first place, and that it has no business doing a review of the site. The site's content is frankly none of the bank's business and this calls their professionalism into question.
It's true, but you're omitting how the word got into the American language. It's not through "romance languages like French" (don't you mean roman?), but through the german (as in language group) language Dutch. The German (as in, spoken in Germany) word 'thaler' became our word 'daalder', and was used by Dutch merchants as currency.
Or was it through the Spanish dollar?? Given that this was the closest thing to international currency that existed at the time the word entered English, AND that the US dollar was explicity based on the Spanish dollar (to the extent that US continental currencies had "One Spanish Dollar" printed on them), and that the English word doesn't have a 'd' after the 'l' like daalder does, I'd say it's more likely it came through the Romance languages.
Eventually I could tell I was actually having anxiety attacks when asked simple math questions. Now days these anxiety attacks are actually bad enough to trigger my flight-or-fight response. It's overwhelming and hard to describe, but if I don't focus entirely on calming down, it feels like I will 'lose control'.
I think I have exactly the same problem with writing.
Oh god, how did I make it this far? Was this all some sort of ruse to make me feel good about myself? Has my whole life so far been a lie? How can I major in CS if I can't even count!
Calm down! There's a job waiting for you at Microsoft when you graduate!
Isn't it obvious that the fear of something will have an impact even on the simplest things where something relative to that fear is involved ?
Sure, but just taking obvious things for granted isn't science. Testing everything, even the obvious, is how science progresses. Remember, people once said "Isn't it obvious the sun revolves around the Earth?"
Speaking of which, I notice an uncanny lack of reporting over this incident. It exploded across the internet, but not really through the formal news channels. CNN, which covered the plane crash of a fighter jet into a residential neighborhood for DAYS with live footage, etc, only mentioned the crash briefly in their reports and on their website had only one small link that took you to the story.
Are you watching the same media I am? My CNN (you know, the one on the actual TV, not the one in your head) had nothing but the Stack crash for several hours on the day that it happened, including live footage of the outside of the building for as long as that was available. Then continued to mention it several times every time I've turned CNN on since then. MSNBC and Fox News have been covering it quite a bit as well.
But oh God, Tiger Woods just farted so let's dedicate a good 25% of each hour to THAT.
That's a good point. But when they also devote 30% of every hour to Stack, that pretty much kills your argument.
It's hard to avoid thinking that the government somehow "asked" the press to downplay this, and the press is complying.
Ok, now you're just trolling. We've already established your premise is false.
Also it is VERY slack on her part. You are given multiple opportunities to inform the relevant bodies about any sponsorship agreements you have (so those guys WONT get hassled). And if she didnt inform them of it, then either she will get into shit (if company gets their lawyers) or the company will.
But what if she did inform them of the sponsorship agreement, and they're just being dicks about it? No part of informing the IOC changes the IP relationship, so I'm guessing she did tell them because that in no way indemnifies the sponsor.
Except possibly for the fact that the intersection of "People who purchase women's sporting gear" and "Slashdot readers" is going to be pretty close to a null set.
You must be new here. Do I need to explain that kink to you?
(I confess... this was on Facebook) and of course they will all just see it as a victory and continue to reinforce each others' delusion... but I really don't see how I could ever change his or any of their minds on the subject.
Don't try to change his mind, or his fanboys' minds. Try to make them look so ridiculous that you convince all other bystanders (who are not already fans). That's how you do it.
Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins to show signs of melting
How can there be an Eastern Antarctica?? I thought all of the Antarctic coast was Northern Antarctica, the pole was Southern Antarctica, and if you go east you just go in a circle without ever reaching the end...
I don't see that at all, but perhaps that's because I understand statistics, as perhaps the OP does and you, very clearly, do not.
"Not significant at p = 0.05" means "not significant at p = 0.05". Or, given that p = 0.05 is the usual bound on statistical significance in even the fuzziest subjects, it means "not statistically significant."
"There has been an uptrend that is not significant" is more properly interpretable as "there has been no warming" than anything else. Anyone who understands anything about statistics understands this. If you don't, I can only presume it is because you don't understand statistics.
At this point I'm beginning to doubt your understanding of statistics. You sound like someone who took one semester of it and just decided to assume you know it all. There is no well-established bound for determining statistical significance, which is why scientists almost always report their p-values as well as interpreting their significance, so people can draw their own conclusions. Although, as you say, 95% is the usual (or modal) number plenty of peer-reviewed studies conduct significance tests at other significance levels including 98%, 90%, and 97.5%, depending on how strong a claim they are trying to test. Also, there are a number of different tests which return different p-values, including t-tests, Chi-squared tests, and F-tests, all of which are sensitive to the details of the model, so a p-value very close to the threshold almost always means, "this test with this data is inconclusive and the effect needs more examination," and not, as you assert, "there is no effect." And if the "statistically insignificant" deviations are consistently somehow in the same direction (i.e. in the direction of warming) then it's extremely questionable to say this means there is no warming. More likely, we're just using the wrong statistical tools, such as using a linear regression for fundamentally non-linear data, or omitting some small but important confounding variable.
Which is why, by the way, that only someone violently anti-scientific would withhold data from people who might use it to argue against them.
That part is true. I think we can agree that what East Anglia CRU did was reprehensible and a blow to climate science, as well as to the institution of science more generally.
If a ball falls down it is because of gravity.
If it bounces back up it is because of gravity.
If comet flies into the solar system it is because of gravity.
If the comet slingshots around jupiter and permanently exits the solar system it is because of gravity.
If the tide rises it is because of gravity.
If the tide recedes it is because of gravity.
The difference is that all of those behaviors are predictable according to the theory of gravity. You can precisely predict how that ball will bounce, and how that comet will travel through the solar system, given sufficient data.
If the theory of gravity was like the theory of AGW, you couldn't be sure a ball would fall down or up when you let go of it.
If I usually lose in Vegas it's because of probability.
If I sometimes win in Vegas it's because of probability.
If I roll a seven more often than a two, it's because of probability.
If I roll more twos than sevens in a game of monopoly on Tuesday night, it's because of probability.
If 95% of public opinion polls are within the 95% confidence interval, it's because of probability.
If 5% of public opinion polls are outside the 95% confidence interval, it's because of probability.
If the theory of probability can't make precise predictions about the future, it must be worthless. How can I take a theory seriously that claims to describe coin tosses, when by that theory's own admission I can't be sure the coin will fall on heads or tails when I let go of it?
Slashdot Mirror
I've never seen that before.
Big Corporation: Open Source is bad for everyone. Open Source Advocate: No, monopolies are bad for everyone. BC: Open Source leads to piracy. OSA: No, monopolies lead to piracy.
The difference is, economists can prove the claims about monopolies. (as long as you replace "for everyone" with "for everyone EXCEPT the monopolist")
OS = piracy? I thought OS = communism was pretty stupid...
They're both pretty appropriate. Now we can be commie pirates! The most fearsome scourge the world has ever seen! "Arrrrrrrrgh, comrades! Up with the jolly roger and down with the bourgeoisie!"
If you think I would prefer a bug report over a beer then you have some serious brain damage.
Well, if you had to transport yourself to my neighborhood to collect the beer, you might prefer the bug report.
On one side of the aisle you have the scummy rent-seeking corporatists. And on the other side you have the anti-corporate socialist 'progressives.' Neither side of the political debate want a free market. Both sides want the government to set rules to benefit special interests.
False. Corporatists seek to benefit special interests, and progressives seek to benefit society generally. You seem to be confusing progressive and liberal.
I thought pirates shuttled old men and their boy toys to Alderaan?
Dude, Solo was a Smuggler. A Smuggler! Never a pirate!
They already unblocked the account and are doing a "review" of the site apparently.
I think the point is it's inappropriate for the bank ever to have blocked the account in the first place, and that it has no business doing a review of the site. The site's content is frankly none of the bank's business and this calls their professionalism into question.
It's true, but you're omitting how the word got into the American language. It's not through "romance languages like French" (don't you mean roman?), but through the german (as in language group) language Dutch. The German (as in, spoken in Germany) word 'thaler' became our word 'daalder', and was used by Dutch merchants as currency.
Or was it through the Spanish dollar?? Given that this was the closest thing to international currency that existed at the time the word entered English, AND that the US dollar was explicity based on the Spanish dollar (to the extent that US continental currencies had "One Spanish Dollar" printed on them), and that the English word doesn't have a 'd' after the 'l' like daalder does, I'd say it's more likely it came through the Romance languages.
I will give y'all credit for inspiring us to declare ourselves an independent Republic, though.
Well, they've scared off this customer by doing that.
Eventually I could tell I was actually having anxiety attacks when asked simple math questions. Now days these anxiety attacks are actually bad enough to trigger my flight-or-fight response. It's overwhelming and hard to describe, but if I don't focus entirely on calming down, it feels like I will 'lose control'.
I think I have exactly the same problem with writing.
This guy was a fundamentalist libertarian terrorist.
BZZZZTTTT! Libertarians don't go around quoting Marx.
Sorry. Try again.
Sure they do. Makes them sound well-read.
Oh god, how did I make it this far? Was this all some sort of ruse to make me feel good about myself? Has my whole life so far been a lie? How can I major in CS if I can't even count!
Calm down! There's a job waiting for you at Microsoft when you graduate!
Isn't it obvious that the fear of something will have an impact even on the simplest things where something relative to that fear is involved ?
Sure, but just taking obvious things for granted isn't science. Testing everything, even the obvious, is how science progresses. Remember, people once said "Isn't it obvious the sun revolves around the Earth?"
The submitter says he works as a security guard. As such, sitting focused at a laptop writing code might not be an option.
I recommend writing programs on a legal pad or in a notebook. That's what I did for several years when I didn't have a laptop.
Coding has nothing to do with language or syntax, but upon having an analytical mind.
Apparently, English is the same way.
Speaking of which, I notice an uncanny lack of reporting over this incident. It exploded across the internet, but not really through the formal news channels. CNN, which covered the plane crash of a fighter jet into a residential neighborhood for DAYS with live footage, etc, only mentioned the crash briefly in their reports and on their website had only one small link that took you to the story.
Are you watching the same media I am? My CNN (you know, the one on the actual TV, not the one in your head) had nothing but the Stack crash for several hours on the day that it happened, including live footage of the outside of the building for as long as that was available. Then continued to mention it several times every time I've turned CNN on since then. MSNBC and Fox News have been covering it quite a bit as well.
But oh God, Tiger Woods just farted so let's dedicate a good 25% of each hour to THAT.
That's a good point. But when they also devote 30% of every hour to Stack, that pretty much kills your argument.
It's hard to avoid thinking that the government somehow "asked" the press to downplay this, and the press is complying.
Ok, now you're just trolling. We've already established your premise is false.
Like chess, playing is easy. Being good takes a while.
If that's true of chess, how come my wife still can't learn the rules?
Also it is VERY slack on her part. You are given multiple opportunities to inform the relevant bodies about any sponsorship agreements you have (so those guys WONT get hassled). And if she didnt inform them of it, then either she will get into shit (if company gets their lawyers) or the company will.
But what if she did inform them of the sponsorship agreement, and they're just being dicks about it? No part of informing the IOC changes the IP relationship, so I'm guessing she did tell them because that in no way indemnifies the sponsor.
Except possibly for the fact that the intersection of "People who purchase women's sporting gear" and "Slashdot readers" is going to be pretty close to a null set.
You must be new here. Do I need to explain that kink to you?
- More girls on slashdot
I'd like to see your raw data.
(I confess... this was on Facebook) and of course they will all just see it as a victory and continue to reinforce each others' delusion... but I really don't see how I could ever change his or any of their minds on the subject.
Don't try to change his mind, or his fanboys' minds. Try to make them look so ridiculous that you convince all other bystanders (who are not already fans). That's how you do it.
Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins to show signs of melting
How can there be an Eastern Antarctica?? I thought all of the Antarctic coast was Northern Antarctica, the pole was Southern Antarctica, and if you go east you just go in a circle without ever reaching the end...
I don't see that at all, but perhaps that's because I understand statistics, as perhaps the OP does and you, very clearly, do not.
"Not significant at p = 0.05" means "not significant at p = 0.05". Or, given that p = 0.05 is the usual bound on statistical significance in even the fuzziest subjects, it means "not statistically significant."
"There has been an uptrend that is not significant" is more properly interpretable as "there has been no warming" than anything else. Anyone who understands anything about statistics understands this. If you don't, I can only presume it is because you don't understand statistics.
At this point I'm beginning to doubt your understanding of statistics. You sound like someone who took one semester of it and just decided to assume you know it all. There is no well-established bound for determining statistical significance, which is why scientists almost always report their p-values as well as interpreting their significance, so people can draw their own conclusions. Although, as you say, 95% is the usual (or modal) number plenty of peer-reviewed studies conduct significance tests at other significance levels including 98%, 90%, and 97.5%, depending on how strong a claim they are trying to test. Also, there are a number of different tests which return different p-values, including t-tests, Chi-squared tests, and F-tests, all of which are sensitive to the details of the model, so a p-value very close to the threshold almost always means, "this test with this data is inconclusive and the effect needs more examination," and not, as you assert, "there is no effect." And if the "statistically insignificant" deviations are consistently somehow in the same direction (i.e. in the direction of warming) then it's extremely questionable to say this means there is no warming. More likely, we're just using the wrong statistical tools, such as using a linear regression for fundamentally non-linear data, or omitting some small but important confounding variable.
Which is why, by the way, that only someone violently anti-scientific would withhold data from people who might use it to argue against them.
That part is true. I think we can agree that what East Anglia CRU did was reprehensible and a blow to climate science, as well as to the institution of science more generally.
The difference is that all of those behaviors are predictable according to the theory of gravity. You can precisely predict how that ball will bounce, and how that comet will travel through the solar system, given sufficient data.
If the theory of gravity was like the theory of AGW, you couldn't be sure a ball would fall down or up when you let go of it.
If I usually lose in Vegas it's because of probability.
If I sometimes win in Vegas it's because of probability.
If I roll a seven more often than a two, it's because of probability.
If I roll more twos than sevens in a game of monopoly on Tuesday night, it's because of probability.
If 95% of public opinion polls are within the 95% confidence interval, it's because of probability.
If 5% of public opinion polls are outside the 95% confidence interval, it's because of probability.
If the theory of probability can't make precise predictions about the future, it must be worthless. How can I take a theory seriously that claims to describe coin tosses, when by that theory's own admission I can't be sure the coin will fall on heads or tails when I let go of it?
In other words, the raw has been tampered with.
I think it's your English writing capacity that's been tampered with.