I am a statistician, and reading through the comments hear, am saddened that many readers claim that "statistical significance" could not have been achieved in this study because of a sample size of 30 women. First, that's only part of the random sample in this study, the other part is men sampled to judge the pictures.
Second of all, I have looked up the actual publication in "Hormones and Behavior", and the p-value associated with their main test is.01, which usually signifies statistical significance.
Ultimately, determining whether some difference in populations is due to chance depends on more than just sample size. It depends on how large of a difference you want to detect, and the variance of the measurements within a group. Of course, larger sample sizes help, but it ultimately depends on what you're studying, and the design of the experiment.
So while I definitely applaud being sceptical of all statistics, I urge you to look up the actual publications, read the methodology, and then decide if the results are something you believe. Kneejerk reactions to n = 30 don't really help anyone though.
I have not read through this publication in its entirety yet.
I have Media Center running on my laptop hooked up to a 24" monitor, which doubles as my TV. I can watch DVDs, slide shows, live TV, and recorded TV, it's simple. I can drop recorded shows into a directory which automatically converts them and puts them on my iPod. Even Media Center is not a failed attempt as far as I'm concerned.
If so, let's stop talking about it because we can choose to.
If not, then it has already been determined that we're going to stop talking about it right now, so we can't do anything about it, except stop talking about it.
In outlook I can link to a specific email using a URL from, say, a personal wiki. Is there any protocol to do this in Thunderbird? So that by clicking on a link in a Wiki, it would open up a specific email? That is my #1 request!
Editor: A new scientific study suggests that people who frequently experience positive emotions are less likely to catch colds.
Summary: Although a positive emotional style bore no relation to whether participants became infected...
This is why 'literate' people often score so poorly on literacy tests. They can read a five-line summary of something and believe the exact opposite of the conclusion.
Maybe people with a bad attitude have it because of their tendancy in the past to have greater symptoms of disease. Unless w can randomize positive and negative 'attitude' to people, we'll never know for sure.
This is a great comment. No one is born knowing these things. It is not surprising that CS undergraduate program did not teach you exactly how to write an emulator. But as parent said, don't be scared of not knowing. None of us knew anything until we sat down, invested serious time and thought, and actually did something about it. You don't learn everything overnight, that's not the point. But if you have a goal, just dive in and see where it takes you. You probably know more than you think, just don't fear fear.
Good point, I remember fondly the first time I saw GLQuake on a Voodoo2 card. I was blown away. I wonder now what it will take to make me that amazed again? I can't imagine it happening. I miss playing Quake I also, *that* was a fun game.
If time has no beginning, how long would it have taken to get to the moment you're reading this post? I think in general, scientists (I hate when I have to use this term to mean 'people who use data to draw conclusions', it should be all of us) will believe what the data show them. If that points to a beginning of time, so be it. If that points to 'infinite' time, that's fine to. We can, and do, 'theorize' lots of things, but accepting them ususally requires more than a theory. I don't know why we should "accept time as being infinite" though?
As the others have pointed out, you're entirely incorrect here. Look up Georg Cantor, aleph-0, aleph-1, etc. There's a fascinating world of math out there, set theory is part of it!
What I find amusing are people who call out reporters on being 'illiterate' (now what does that word mean?) about math and then go on do something equally incorrect. The article is of course flawed without taking into account the variation in the estimation technique. But your method is worse than leaving out information, because it is wrong. You use some proper terminology, such as 'sigma', but you estimate it incorrectly. It is not as you say, a 'good approximation', for instance, your method takes no account of the sample size in the study, which any good approximation must, so that it converges to a value as the sample size gets large. So before you knock people for not knowing what they are doing, make sure you know what you yourself are doing.
So you have no problem granting me equal logical standing when I say the following: that I have, as of this moment, created your entire reality. Isn't it possible that if I was the creator, and created the universe, then I could also have created that universe with a false history? You believe me don't you? I have a post that says it's true! All other posts were planted here by me to tempt the faithless.
The problem with the statement is that there is no way to challenge it. You can't prove it, I can't disprove it, at best it's uninteresting, and at worst it's meaningless.
Mod parent up! When a conclusion of a study is something we want to believe, in this case, "Most college students are idiots with computers and information", and this reinforces something we believe about ourselves, "I am smarter than these people", we don't question the methodology as we should. Contrast that to a study which shows something you don't want to believe, the first thing that happens, you question the methodology. Of course, my idea here has not been proven, it's just something I'm guessing.
Don't airlines already have the same issue with laptops? Those have approximately the same angle from screen to the eyes of person next to you, especially in coach. My guess is it won't be an issue. Perhaps if a polite request doesn't make you stop, they can disable your screen from the front?
At my university, we had a class almost exactly like the one the OP talks about. It went almost exactly like you described. However, you're not forced to finish the project, you simply hand it off to the next group in the class the following semester, they pick up where you left off. Ultimately, the projects get done, having been through several group's hands. Some work out, some don't. I suppose this is perfect training for 'the real world'.
I think there's always room for good people in CS. If you're a type who goes to Stanford/MIT/others and gets a degree in CS because you love learning about computational processes and have a natural drive and curiousty, my guess is that there are plenty of firms willing to hire you.
If, on the other hand, you want to learn CS to get a 'good job' after school, and end up going to a second-rate university where they teach you specific software instead of abstract ideas, you might not have such a good future after college.
I'm sure both types of students attend all universities CS departments, don't get me wrong. I think your attitude going into it is what matters most, if you love CS and work hard, I bet you'll be just fine. If possible, don't choose your major based on what's in fashion, do what you want.
I do! Are you using an LCD to look at Cleartype with? I've never tried it on a CRT, so I can't comment. But on my 24" widescreen LCD in front of me, I've just turned Cleartype off, and then on again. There is no way I could read without Cleartype on this thing.
If we use your technique, I don't think we'd have Ruby for instance. There are far too many different kinds of people and programming tasks and techniques to limit to a few. If no one uses a new language, it dies. I don't see the problem here, it seems we're better off having too many options than too few!
Could be regional, US service has been exceptional every time I've ordered, which is often. They've taken back digital cameras no questions asked, and the one time they sent me an incorrect book, they let me keep it and sent me the right one overnight shipping. YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a statistician, and reading through the comments hear, am saddened that many readers claim that "statistical significance" could not have been achieved in this study because of a sample size of 30 women. First, that's only part of the random sample in this study, the other part is men sampled to judge the pictures.
.01, which usually signifies statistical significance.
Second of all, I have looked up the actual publication in "Hormones and Behavior", and the p-value associated with their main test is
Ultimately, determining whether some difference in populations is due to chance depends on more than just sample size. It depends on how large of a difference you want to detect, and the variance of the measurements within a group. Of course, larger sample sizes help, but it ultimately depends on what you're studying, and the design of the experiment.
So while I definitely applaud being sceptical of all statistics, I urge you to look up the actual publications, read the methodology, and then decide if the results are something you believe. Kneejerk reactions to n = 30 don't really help anyone though.
I have not read through this publication in its entirety yet.
I have Media Center running on my laptop hooked up to a 24" monitor, which doubles as my TV. I can watch DVDs, slide shows, live TV, and recorded TV, it's simple. I can drop recorded shows into a directory which automatically converts them and puts them on my iPod. Even Media Center is not a failed attempt as far as I'm concerned.
Do we have free will?
If so, let's stop talking about it because we can choose to.
If not, then it has already been determined that we're going to stop talking about it right now, so we can't do anything about it, except stop talking about it.
In outlook I can link to a specific email using a URL from, say, a personal wiki. Is there any protocol to do this in Thunderbird? So that by clicking on a link in a Wiki, it would open up a specific email? That is my #1 request!
Read The Fine Summary Editors:
Editor: A new scientific study suggests that people who frequently experience positive emotions are less likely to catch colds.
Summary: Although a positive emotional style bore no relation to whether participants became infected...
This is why 'literate' people often score so poorly on literacy tests. They can read a five-line summary of something and believe the exact opposite of the conclusion.
Maybe people with a bad attitude have it because of their tendancy in the past to have greater symptoms of disease. Unless w can randomize positive and negative 'attitude' to people, we'll never know for sure.
This is a great comment. No one is born knowing these things. It is not surprising that CS undergraduate program did not teach you exactly how to write an emulator. But as parent said, don't be scared of not knowing. None of us knew anything until we sat down, invested serious time and thought, and actually did something about it. You don't learn everything overnight, that's not the point. But if you have a goal, just dive in and see where it takes you. You probably know more than you think, just don't fear fear.
Best post that I've read in this thread (so far), thank you!
Good point, I remember fondly the first time I saw GLQuake on a Voodoo2 card. I was blown away. I wonder now what it will take to make me that amazed again? I can't imagine it happening. I miss playing Quake I also, *that* was a fun game.
If time has no beginning, how long would it have taken to get to the moment you're reading this post? I think in general, scientists (I hate when I have to use this term to mean 'people who use data to draw conclusions', it should be all of us) will believe what the data show them. If that points to a beginning of time, so be it. If that points to 'infinite' time, that's fine to. We can, and do, 'theorize' lots of things, but accepting them ususally requires more than a theory. I don't know why we should "accept time as being infinite" though?
As the others have pointed out, you're entirely incorrect here. Look up Georg Cantor, aleph-0, aleph-1, etc. There's a fascinating world of math out there, set theory is part of it!
What I find amusing are people who call out reporters on being 'illiterate' (now what does that word mean?) about math and then go on do something equally incorrect. The article is of course flawed without taking into account the variation in the estimation technique. But your method is worse than leaving out information, because it is wrong. You use some proper terminology, such as 'sigma', but you estimate it incorrectly. It is not as you say, a 'good approximation', for instance, your method takes no account of the sample size in the study, which any good approximation must, so that it converges to a value as the sample size gets large. So before you knock people for not knowing what they are doing, make sure you know what you yourself are doing.
So you have no problem granting me equal logical standing when I say the following: that I have, as of this moment, created your entire reality. Isn't it possible that if I was the creator, and created the universe, then I could also have created that universe with a false history? You believe me don't you? I have a post that says it's true! All other posts were planted here by me to tempt the faithless.
The problem with the statement is that there is no way to challenge it. You can't prove it, I can't disprove it, at best it's uninteresting, and at worst it's meaningless.
Of course, another question that should be asked is: Is High School really the problem, or is it America's Educational system as a whole?
The capitalization in your sentence is evidence for the latter.
Mod parent up! When a conclusion of a study is something we want to believe, in this case, "Most college students are idiots with computers and information", and this reinforces something we believe about ourselves, "I am smarter than these people", we don't question the methodology as we should. Contrast that to a study which shows something you don't want to believe, the first thing that happens, you question the methodology. Of course, my idea here has not been proven, it's just something I'm guessing.
Don't airlines already have the same issue with laptops? Those have approximately the same angle from screen to the eyes of person next to you, especially in coach. My guess is it won't be an issue. Perhaps if a polite request doesn't make you stop, they can disable your screen from the front?
At my university, we had a class almost exactly like the one the OP talks about. It went almost exactly like you described. However, you're not forced to finish the project, you simply hand it off to the next group in the class the following semester, they pick up where you left off. Ultimately, the projects get done, having been through several group's hands. Some work out, some don't. I suppose this is perfect training for 'the real world'.
I think there's always room for good people in CS. If you're a type who goes to Stanford/MIT/others and gets a degree in CS because you love learning about computational processes and have a natural drive and curiousty, my guess is that there are plenty of firms willing to hire you.
If, on the other hand, you want to learn CS to get a 'good job' after school, and end up going to a second-rate university where they teach you specific software instead of abstract ideas, you might not have such a good future after college.
I'm sure both types of students attend all universities CS departments, don't get me wrong. I think your attitude going into it is what matters most, if you love CS and work hard, I bet you'll be just fine. If possible, don't choose your major based on what's in fashion, do what you want.
I give you props for the quote, but it really should be "It's a trick, get an axe".
What a great movie!
I do! Are you using an LCD to look at Cleartype with? I've never tried it on a CRT, so I can't comment. But on my 24" widescreen LCD in front of me, I've just turned Cleartype off, and then on again. There is no way I could read without Cleartype on this thing.
If we use your technique, I don't think we'd have Ruby for instance. There are far too many different kinds of people and programming tasks and techniques to limit to a few. If no one uses a new language, it dies. I don't see the problem here, it seems we're better off having too many options than too few!
Thus proving:
Myspace: For 14 year old girls and the 40 year old men that love them
(don't know where i heard this , so i don't take credit)
Number 1: Spelling 'capital' incorrectly on their business plan.
Could be regional, US service has been exceptional every time I've ordered, which is often. They've taken back digital cameras no questions asked, and the one time they sent me an incorrect book, they let me keep it and sent me the right one overnight shipping. YMMV.
Shadowgate.