Sorry, it's their network, and you signed up to use it. You have to play by their rules. In a university setting, the goal should be to promote academic research, and unless administrators see BitTorrent as helping (I don't know whether it does or not), they will probably regulate it. If you have a legitimate academic need for the client, it might be allowed. You'd also probably be surprised about how much p2p traffic there is (music/movies) on campuses, and what kind of cost this incurs on the university.
I can remove the toolbar (Acobat Pro 6) from all the office products I just tried (only word and excel). The first link in this story is something about Visio, which is an add-on to office i think. I don't have that product, so I can't say. The other post is for office for mac osX, so I can't say there either. But the problem doesn't seem to be as big as the write-up suggests, surprised?
No, you have a login and password for applyyourself.com. This lets you fill out applications for various schools, and eventually the site will post whether or not you've been accepted. However, if you know the *hack*, whatever that is, you can somehow trick the system into telling you if you've been accepted before it shows up in the proper area. I don't know how it hurt the school, but it's not a simple matter of just logging in.
"The true installed base of Linux is being undercounted if all we do is look at the server shipments alone. We need to look at what companies actually do with the servers after they have purchased them."
To support these assertions, Pratt cited a recent poll of OSDL members which asked how many had purchased servers with an OS pre-loaded and then removed and replaced it with Linux. Virtually all of them claimed to have taken this action.
"However, going the other way was totally different. We asked how many had swapped out Linux and installed Windows and nobody had," said Pratt.
I am wondering if members of OSDL represent a random sample of server maintainers, or if they have any inherent bias? Anyone know?
Could I ask where you go to school? I'm applying right now for a MQF degree at various places, and I'm interested in your experiences. I come from a Math/Stat background.
I currently am getting a Master's in Statistics (at University of Wisconsin), which is a great degree to complement programming skills. If you can handle the math part of the probability and stats (and it's nowhere near as simple as the undergraduate stuff, so don't kid yourself, if you struggled with calculus, it will take *lots* of work), there are plenty of areas to apply your programming knowledge.
For instance, right now I'm taking a class in decision trees, which has a large overlap with CS ideas. In fact, about half the class aren't stats majors, but CS majors.
If you know stat and CS, there are plenty of new fields you could apply your knowledge, and the two biggest I can think of are biology and finance right now. There are well paid fun positions in both those fields!
In fact, in my inbox right now are open positions for stats people at Intel, Novartus, Pfizer, Merck, to go along with all the other university positions.
So that's my pitch for statistics, check it out, I found my programming background greatly assisted me in almost every class here.
Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner?
I don't believe so. I think that if someone plays a video game, and then goes out and harms another human being, or themselves because of what they just saw in the video game, they were screwed up in the head long before they got their hands on a controller. In my profession I have met thousands and thousands of gamers, all of whom have played the same type of violent video games that I have, and we've managed not to kill each other.
Well, plenty of lifetime smokers don't get lung cancer, does that mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer?
Everyone has to set aside personal beliefs and ingrained ideas when evaluating claims. Outside the context of experiments, and serious statistical analysis of data, drawing conclusions is pointless and tantamount to opinion. So unless you've done your own study, or know enough to understand the one's that are already done, why do you belief so vehemently that video games can't cause violent behavior? Just because it didn't happen to you? Just because it didn't happen to anyone you know? These are ipso facto pathetic reasons for almost any belief.
I would expect more from this readership, which likes to pride itself on rationality and deductive reasoning. I guess when it hits home though, passions arise and it's hard not to draw conclusions when they're unwarranted. Sound familiar?
You know there are things such as designed experiments which can determine causation and not just correlation right? There are myriad books on the subject, maybe you should check one out so you know how scientific studies are accomplished, instead of just spouting off nonsense on online message boards.
Well, I can easily imagine experiments that might statistically "prove" (or suggest) that violent tendencies are *caused* by video games or watching violent matieral, at least in the short run. I'm sure things like this have been studied before, I'm interested in the results. Proving long term causation would of course be very difficult because you can't lock up kids for their whole life and control every thing about them. But with the combination of a well thought out experiment and randomization, it would be simple to show whether there is a causal effect in the short run of violent media on violent behavior.
That's like saying, "Well there was domestic violence before fathers became raging alcoholics, therefore there's no way that alcoholics cause violence."
The matter is, it's not necessarily a matter of direct cause, it's the added effect. There is no way for you to peer into some magic crystal ball to see what your lfie would be like if you hadn't played violent games. That's what studies and papers are written about, and if you are arguing based on pure emotion instead of reading the research and deciding for yourself if their methods were sound, then you're no better than any other FUD spewing person.
So while I'm not really taking a side here, because I haven't read the research, I'm imploring you to do the same, and keep an open mind about things. Just because something doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean there isn't a discernable effect in the entire population.
Well, that first sentence of the article is very, very confusing regarding who is getting hired, who is calling names, and who should have listened to their own advice. It isn't clear at all, and needs to be edited to make any sense. As it stands, it was a complete waste of my time reading and trying to understand it.
I agree with you 100%. By "too much to ask" I meant, most people simply aren't WILLING to put in that much work to become good at something, which I'm sure you'll agree to. Everything you say is correct though.
Replace "largest" with "Merseene" and your sentence would be correct. It is the largest known prime. It is a Mersenne prime. It is not the largest prime number, since there is no largest prime number. It may or may not be the 42nd Mersenne prime since they might have missed some in between (still checking). There, I think that's all the facts.
No, I think people who A) don't have CS degress OR as my original post said, B) "have enough self-motivation to read books on algorithms and do the excercises." probably cannot 1)choose the correct algorithm for a given task 2)even know or care why they should want to pick a good algorithm and 3)couldn't optimize their code anyway, since that usually involves a deeper understanding of what's really going on than does choosing a good algorithm.
But this would require people to actually get computer science degrees, or have enough self-motivation to read books on algorithms and do the excercises. For most, that's too much to ask, since they cannot see how to apply the theory they learn in school to practice. The ones that can apply the theory are the good programmers. The ones that can't or never learned the theory in the first place probably aren't.
Except that statistics does show that over enough time the series will converge into equal numbers. It may take a million times, or ten million, but eventually you'll end up with almost exactly equal number of ones and zeros.
Completely incorrect. Please cite your reasoning for this claim, the opposite is actually true. If in doubt, run some simulations to see why.
So the only thing that's going to get hosed/erased/ruined when I run a bad program in Unix is my home directory? Lucky I don't store anything I care about there. No one does right?
Did those MBA's looking for work go to Wharton, Harvard, or UPenn? I bet they're not looking for work. The one's who went to lesser schools probably are. If you are going to get an advanced degree, you better pony up and pay for it. It will pay off in the long run. Hard work and a degree from a real school will land you a *great* job. No questions.
For statistics software that's free, you're not going to get much better than R. R is an implementation of the S language; so is S-Plus, but that will cost you. R is awesome for many things.
If you have data of any type and want to easily prepare graphical summaries, R is good for that. For beginning students in statistics, it can look up critical values for all the distributions so you don't have to use the blasted tables. It also has functions for everything you'll see in an intro class (regression, ANOVA), although I'd consider learning those first by hand so you know what the computer is doing.
There's also advanced packages for everything and anything statistical. There's an entire package built with R for analyzing bioinformatics data.
I use R daily for lots of different things, it's really a handy tool. However, if you don't know statistics already, I'd suggest a book called "Introductory Statistics with R" by Peter Dalgaard(sp?). It will get you up and running in no time.
Finally, R is also a programming language which is very Lisp/Scheme like, and makes it really fun and easy to write your own statistical functions. If you have to (or want to) take statistics, just get R!
Slashdot Mirror
Wow it's April 15th on Friday, lucky I read Slashdot!
If you have to use this CD in a corporate environment for its intended use, I think you should seek help, because you have a problem!
Why don't they just make a program to print out a bachelors degree. Save me time, money and effort.
Don't bother reinventing the wheel, public universities already exist.
Sorry, it's their network, and you signed up to use it. You have to play by their rules. In a university setting, the goal should be to promote academic research, and unless administrators see BitTorrent as helping (I don't know whether it does or not), they will probably regulate it. If you have a legitimate academic need for the client, it might be allowed. You'd also probably be surprised about how much p2p traffic there is (music/movies) on campuses, and what kind of cost this incurs on the university.
I can remove the toolbar (Acobat Pro 6) from all the office products I just tried (only word and excel). The first link in this story is something about Visio, which is an add-on to office i think. I don't have that product, so I can't say. The other post is for office for mac osX, so I can't say there either. But the problem doesn't seem to be as big as the write-up suggests, surprised?
Well with such a robust and consistent estimating technique, who can deny your claim?
No, you have a login and password for applyyourself.com. This lets you fill out applications for various schools, and eventually the site will post whether or not you've been accepted. However, if you know the *hack*, whatever that is, you can somehow trick the system into telling you if you've been accepted before it shows up in the proper area. I don't know how it hurt the school, but it's not a simple matter of just logging in.
"The true installed base of Linux is being undercounted if all we do is look at the server shipments alone. We need to look at what companies actually do with the servers after they have purchased them." To support these assertions, Pratt cited a recent poll of OSDL members which asked how many had purchased servers with an OS pre-loaded and then removed and replaced it with Linux. Virtually all of them claimed to have taken this action. "However, going the other way was totally different. We asked how many had swapped out Linux and installed Windows and nobody had," said Pratt.
I am wondering if members of OSDL represent a random sample of server maintainers, or if they have any inherent bias? Anyone know?
Could I ask where you go to school? I'm applying right now for a MQF degree at various places, and I'm interested in your experiences. I come from a Math/Stat background.
I currently am getting a Master's in Statistics (at University of Wisconsin), which is a great degree to complement programming skills. If you can handle the math part of the probability and stats (and it's nowhere near as simple as the undergraduate stuff, so don't kid yourself, if you struggled with calculus, it will take *lots* of work), there are plenty of areas to apply your programming knowledge.
For instance, right now I'm taking a class in decision trees, which has a large overlap with CS ideas. In fact, about half the class aren't stats majors, but CS majors.
If you know stat and CS, there are plenty of new fields you could apply your knowledge, and the two biggest I can think of are biology and finance right now. There are well paid fun positions in both those fields!
In fact, in my inbox right now are open positions for stats people at Intel, Novartus, Pfizer, Merck, to go along with all the other university positions.
So that's my pitch for statistics, check it out, I found my programming background greatly assisted me in almost every class here.
From the article:
Is there a correlation between playing violent video games and acting in a violent manner? I don't believe so. I think that if someone plays a video game, and then goes out and harms another human being, or themselves because of what they just saw in the video game, they were screwed up in the head long before they got their hands on a controller. In my profession I have met thousands and thousands of gamers, all of whom have played the same type of violent video games that I have, and we've managed not to kill each other.
Well, plenty of lifetime smokers don't get lung cancer, does that mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer? Everyone has to set aside personal beliefs and ingrained ideas when evaluating claims. Outside the context of experiments, and serious statistical analysis of data, drawing conclusions is pointless and tantamount to opinion. So unless you've done your own study, or know enough to understand the one's that are already done, why do you belief so vehemently that video games can't cause violent behavior? Just because it didn't happen to you? Just because it didn't happen to anyone you know? These are ipso facto pathetic reasons for almost any belief. I would expect more from this readership, which likes to pride itself on rationality and deductive reasoning. I guess when it hits home though, passions arise and it's hard not to draw conclusions when they're unwarranted. Sound familiar?
You know there are things such as designed experiments which can determine causation and not just correlation right? There are myriad books on the subject, maybe you should check one out so you know how scientific studies are accomplished, instead of just spouting off nonsense on online message boards.
Well, I can easily imagine experiments that might statistically "prove" (or suggest) that violent tendencies are *caused* by video games or watching violent matieral, at least in the short run. I'm sure things like this have been studied before, I'm interested in the results. Proving long term causation would of course be very difficult because you can't lock up kids for their whole life and control every thing about them. But with the combination of a well thought out experiment and randomization, it would be simple to show whether there is a causal effect in the short run of violent media on violent behavior.
That's like saying, "Well there was domestic violence before fathers became raging alcoholics, therefore there's no way that alcoholics cause violence."
The matter is, it's not necessarily a matter of direct cause, it's the added effect. There is no way for you to peer into some magic crystal ball to see what your lfie would be like if you hadn't played violent games. That's what studies and papers are written about, and if you are arguing based on pure emotion instead of reading the research and deciding for yourself if their methods were sound, then you're no better than any other FUD spewing person.
So while I'm not really taking a side here, because I haven't read the research, I'm imploring you to do the same, and keep an open mind about things. Just because something doesn't happen to you, doesn't mean there isn't a discernable effect in the entire population.
Well, that first sentence of the article is very, very confusing regarding who is getting hired, who is calling names, and who should have listened to their own advice. It isn't clear at all, and needs to be edited to make any sense. As it stands, it was a complete waste of my time reading and trying to understand it.
I agree with you 100%. By "too much to ask" I meant, most people simply aren't WILLING to put in that much work to become good at something, which I'm sure you'll agree to. Everything you say is correct though.
Replace "largest" with "Merseene" and your sentence would be correct. It is the largest known prime. It is a Mersenne prime. It is not the largest prime number, since there is no largest prime number. It may or may not be the 42nd Mersenne prime since they might have missed some in between (still checking). There, I think that's all the facts.
No, I think people who A) don't have CS degress OR as my original post said, B) "have enough self-motivation to read books on algorithms and do the excercises." probably cannot 1)choose the correct algorithm for a given task 2)even know or care why they should want to pick a good algorithm and 3)couldn't optimize their code anyway, since that usually involves a deeper understanding of what's really going on than does choosing a good algorithm.
But this would require people to actually get computer science degrees, or have enough self-motivation to read books on algorithms and do the excercises. For most, that's too much to ask, since they cannot see how to apply the theory they learn in school to practice. The ones that can apply the theory are the good programmers. The ones that can't or never learned the theory in the first place probably aren't.
Except that statistics does show that over enough time the series will converge into equal numbers. It may take a million times, or ten million, but eventually you'll end up with almost exactly equal number of ones and zeros.
Completely incorrect. Please cite your reasoning for this claim, the opposite is actually true. If in doubt, run some simulations to see why.
So the only thing that's going to get hosed/erased/ruined when I run a bad program in Unix is my home directory? Lucky I don't store anything I care about there. No one does right?
Did those MBA's looking for work go to Wharton, Harvard, or UPenn? I bet they're not looking for work. The one's who went to lesser schools probably are. If you are going to get an advanced degree, you better pony up and pay for it. It will pay off in the long run. Hard work and a degree from a real school will land you a *great* job. No questions.
I was honestly surprised to see 'nothing to lose' instead of the more likely 'nothing to loose' in the ad.
For statistics software that's free, you're not going to get much better than R. R is an implementation of the S language; so is S-Plus, but that will cost you. R is awesome for many things.
If you have data of any type and want to easily prepare graphical summaries, R is good for that. For beginning students in statistics, it can look up critical values for all the distributions so you don't have to use the blasted tables. It also has functions for everything you'll see in an intro class (regression, ANOVA), although I'd consider learning those first by hand so you know what the computer is doing.
There's also advanced packages for everything and anything statistical. There's an entire package built with R for analyzing bioinformatics data.
I use R daily for lots of different things, it's really a handy tool. However, if you don't know statistics already, I'd suggest a book called "Introductory Statistics with R" by Peter Dalgaard(sp?). It will get you up and running in no time.
Finally, R is also a programming language which is very Lisp/Scheme like, and makes it really fun and easy to write your own statistical functions. If you have to (or want to) take statistics, just get R!
Well if it's true for your daughter, it must be true of the general population right?