Presumably the Justices are better at reading the Constitution than you. See, that part is in the preamble, where the document is introduced. That phrase does not indicate what people the document covers.
Even if it did, how does that apply to the U. S. citizens that are held without their rights?
There's a reason for that. With a good encryption mechanism, the ciphertext will have maximum entropy (one bit of entropy per bit of ciphertext). Random data also has maximum entropy.
The point of compression is to take data that's expressed in a way that doesn't maximize entropy and reexpress it in a way that is higher-entropy (more information per bit). As such, maximum-entropy data is, by its nature, incompressible.
Well, it's possible that a high-school class is too tough for high school students. But both teachers were getting their students, with reasonable-by-high-school-standards amounts of work, to perform at the top of national tests. They got appropriately high grades in the class, too.
In the case of calculus, the complaint was lodged by one girl (well, her parents) and supported by a couple of other students; all of them did very well in both national tests and received good grades in the class.
I can think of four off the top of my head that contributed to my writing that.
In one case (history), it's level of knowledge with the subject, ability to explain it, and amount of time and effort dedicated to the work (all observed firsthand).
In one case (theater), I can't come up with a good measurement offhand. Measuring learning for a theater class empirically is tough.
In two cases (comp sci and calculus), quality is based on empirical performance over multiple years.
In order, they were fired for: enforcing school plagiarism policy, fraternizing with students, student thought the course was too difficult, and student thought the course was too difficult. (Remember the latter two are the ones that empirically were, in statewide and national comparisons, highly successful in teaching the material.)
No, Knuth doesn't read them in paper form, either. He has a secretary process them first and distill them down to only important items -- roughly once a month.
Not really. The reason you have low-quality teachers is you can't offer salaries that would attract good teachers.
Instead of phrasing it "pay teachers more", you should think "enable schools to hire better teachers who command higher salaries".
Of course, a lot of other things would have to change, too. Public school is full of political bullshit where if you don't follow asinine rules as a teacher, they fire you. I know a handful of excellent teachers who were willing to work for the low pay because they enjoyed teaching that were either crushed or fired. Now they do something else that pays more and won't return to education.
Either you got your sentence wrong or you missed the northeast, where things are also reasonably close.
If your bike ride to work takes longer than a reasonable commute, you probably could have lived a lot closer. If not, you're in a rural area, and are in the minority.
For Goodhart's Law to really be relevant, the metric on the system needs to be involved in feedback on the system.
While Goodhart's Law may indicate that using a market model to conduct elections would ultimately fail, it doesn't apply when the model has no feedback (as is the case here).
"and attempts to emulate them in non-financial situations are always disasterous"
If you can show one example where emulating a market in a non-financial situation caused a disaster, I will find a single case where it did not.
Predictive markets are measurably good predictors. However, research has shown that they are an instance of a class of systems that people typically believe could not possibly be successful. (Evolution is another instance of the same class.)
You fail to point out that the votes of the people in those 29 states are already weighted more heavily than the votes of those in the 21 states.
If the candidate you prefer won -- or perhaps I could say, "if the election went with the will of the 29 states" -- would you come here and claim that the will of 40% of the people overrode the will of 60%?
Remember that's probability of winning, not by how much the candidate will win.
If you think those predictions are lofty, you should purchase the opposite result -- the way the system works, the return on a high-probability decision if you bet the opposite way and win are good.
While the labeling is confusing, the term "creationist" does not apply to all people who simply think that God is ultimately responsible for the creation of the Universe.
Your back-of-the-envelope guesses are not science or physics -- they're guesses. While the Sun is a near-perfect black body (Stefan-Bolzmann radiation with emissivity of 1 for all frequencies), the Earth is not so. You cannot simply hand-wave over the many additional factors of how Earth's temperature balance works and pretend to make an argument while ignoring them.
There are more enlightening, though still inaccurate, exercises on terrestrial temperature balance in most physics texts that cover this law.
Yeah! Those sun thermometers are super accurate...until they melt...
(I'd be extremely surprised to learn that we have the capability to measure a.3% change in solar temperature with our current technology. It's hard to do that on Earth, much less a hot ball of gas 96 million miles away.) Time to be surprised. When we're interested in "the temperature" of the Sun, we're the average temperature of something that emits nearly-ideal black-body radiation. You can measure the Sun's spectral output, fit to it, and get a very accurate measurement of its temperature.
Besides, generally what you're actually interested in is the radiation output of the Sun (the energy that reaches us), which is even easier to measure to high accuracy (as you don't care about temperature variance in the Sun or if it's a perfect black body).
1) You can do it in a program other than LaTeX, which is like a stab in the eye with a sharp stick, generally. (Some math programs make fairly nice equations.) If the format isn't Word, or perhaps if it is, this is a fancy version of (2). 2) You can hand-write it. I don't know offhand of a journal that accepts handwritten articles, but a number of them accept hard-copy images and graphics. A handwritten equation many typesetters are likely to get wrong a couple of times. 3) You write it in some understandable form so the typesetter is sure of what you mean. You might as well use (4). (4) Use LaTeX.
Hell, when we were e-mailing one another discussing theoretical physics, to write equations we just wrote the LaTeX code. It's not like the e-mail client would render it, but everyone knew how to read and write LaTeX-formatted equations.
Actually, it makes us less knowledgeable. Field-specific journals tend to be enormous and almost never reject good science on the grounds of not being "important enough".
Most modern physicists write in LaTeX as well, though a number of experimentalists are moving to Word. Current mathematicians and computer scientists also have a certain love of LaTeX.
[quote]time travel, cats that are both dead and alive when nobody is looking, parallel universes, dimensions that curled up into little balls so tiny as to be unobservable, etc...[/quote]
These are the product of misinterpretation (on your part), not of peer review.
Peer-reviewed journals do not hide science from public scrutiny. These journals are generally publicly available (while usually not directly so online, certainly through free-access libraries) and are certainly not the only place to publish. Among groups whose work tends to run below the typical peer-review standard (or groups who want to make a point), there are plenty of online public journals.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably the Justices are better at reading the Constitution than you. See, that part is in the preamble, where the document is introduced. That phrase does not indicate what people the document covers.
Even if it did, how does that apply to the U. S. citizens that are held without their rights?
There's a reason for that. With a good encryption mechanism, the ciphertext will have maximum entropy (one bit of entropy per bit of ciphertext). Random data also has maximum entropy.
The point of compression is to take data that's expressed in a way that doesn't maximize entropy and reexpress it in a way that is higher-entropy (more information per bit). As such, maximum-entropy data is, by its nature, incompressible.
Well, it's possible that a high-school class is too tough for high school students. But both teachers were getting their students, with reasonable-by-high-school-standards amounts of work, to perform at the top of national tests. They got appropriately high grades in the class, too.
In the case of calculus, the complaint was lodged by one girl (well, her parents) and supported by a couple of other students; all of them did very well in both national tests and received good grades in the class.
I can think of four off the top of my head that contributed to my writing that.
In one case (history), it's level of knowledge with the subject, ability to explain it, and amount of time and effort dedicated to the work (all observed firsthand).
In one case (theater), I can't come up with a good measurement offhand. Measuring learning for a theater class empirically is tough.
In two cases (comp sci and calculus), quality is based on empirical performance over multiple years.
In order, they were fired for: enforcing school plagiarism policy, fraternizing with students, student thought the course was too difficult, and student thought the course was too difficult. (Remember the latter two are the ones that empirically were, in statewide and national comparisons, highly successful in teaching the material.)
No, Knuth doesn't read them in paper form, either. He has a secretary process them first and distill them down to only important items -- roughly once a month.
Not really. The reason you have low-quality teachers is you can't offer salaries that would attract good teachers.
Instead of phrasing it "pay teachers more", you should think "enable schools to hire better teachers who command higher salaries".
Of course, a lot of other things would have to change, too. Public school is full of political bullshit where if you don't follow asinine rules as a teacher, they fire you. I know a handful of excellent teachers who were willing to work for the low pay because they enjoyed teaching that were either crushed or fired. Now they do something else that pays more and won't return to education.
Everyone has their own limit of what's crazy, I guess. :-)
Oh, it can. But only if the terrorist with a jetpack is also The Hulk.
You still ride a bike. I set my limit for riding to -10 F or ice on the roads. It's invigorating. :-P
Either you got your sentence wrong or you missed the northeast, where things are also reasonably close.
If your bike ride to work takes longer than a reasonable commute, you probably could have lived a lot closer. If not, you're in a rural area, and are in the minority.
For Goodhart's Law to really be relevant, the metric on the system needs to be involved in feedback on the system.
While Goodhart's Law may indicate that using a market model to conduct elections would ultimately fail, it doesn't apply when the model has no feedback (as is the case here).
Another "always" with no substantiation.
"and attempts to emulate them in non-financial situations are always disasterous"
If you can show one example where emulating a market in a non-financial situation caused a disaster, I will find a single case where it did not.
Predictive markets are measurably good predictors. However, research has shown that they are an instance of a class of systems that people typically believe could not possibly be successful. (Evolution is another instance of the same class.)
You fail to point out that the votes of the people in those 29 states are already weighted more heavily than the votes of those in the 21 states.
If the candidate you prefer won -- or perhaps I could say, "if the election went with the will of the 29 states" -- would you come here and claim that the will of 40% of the people overrode the will of 60%?
Remember that's probability of winning, not by how much the candidate will win.
If you think those predictions are lofty, you should purchase the opposite result -- the way the system works, the return on a high-probability decision if you bet the opposite way and win are good.
Antibacterial soaps actually use different antibacterial agents than medicines.
While the labeling is confusing, the term "creationist" does not apply to all people who simply think that God is ultimately responsible for the creation of the Universe.
Your back-of-the-envelope guesses are not science or physics -- they're guesses. While the Sun is a near-perfect black body (Stefan-Bolzmann radiation with emissivity of 1 for all frequencies), the Earth is not so. You cannot simply hand-wave over the many additional factors of how Earth's temperature balance works and pretend to make an argument while ignoring them.
There are more enlightening, though still inaccurate, exercises on terrestrial temperature balance in most physics texts that cover this law.
(I'd be extremely surprised to learn that we have the capability to measure a
Besides, generally what you're actually interested in is the radiation output of the Sun (the energy that reaches us), which is even easier to measure to high accuracy (as you don't care about temperature variance in the Sun or if it's a perfect black body).
The facts have a well-known liberal bias.
Well, there are basically four options.
1) You can do it in a program other than LaTeX, which is like a stab in the eye with a sharp stick, generally. (Some math programs make fairly nice equations.) If the format isn't Word, or perhaps if it is, this is a fancy version of (2).
2) You can hand-write it. I don't know offhand of a journal that accepts handwritten articles, but a number of them accept hard-copy images and graphics. A handwritten equation many typesetters are likely to get wrong a couple of times.
3) You write it in some understandable form so the typesetter is sure of what you mean. You might as well use (4).
(4) Use LaTeX.
Hell, when we were e-mailing one another discussing theoretical physics, to write equations we just wrote the LaTeX code. It's not like the e-mail client would render it, but everyone knew how to read and write LaTeX-formatted equations.
If only there were some sort of such online publishing system (arxiv).
Actually, it makes us less knowledgeable. Field-specific journals tend to be enormous and almost never reject good science on the grounds of not being "important enough".
Most modern physicists write in LaTeX as well, though a number of experimentalists are moving to Word. Current mathematicians and computer scientists also have a certain love of LaTeX.
[quote]time travel, cats that are both dead and alive when nobody is looking, parallel universes, dimensions that curled up into little balls so tiny as to be unobservable, etc...[/quote]
These are the product of misinterpretation (on your part), not of peer review.
Peer-reviewed journals do not hide science from public scrutiny. These journals are generally publicly available (while usually not directly so online, certainly through free-access libraries) and are certainly not the only place to publish. Among groups whose work tends to run below the typical peer-review standard (or groups who want to make a point), there are plenty of online public journals.