Yeah, no. Schools could be better, yes, but the literature does not indicate that tracking improves outcomes for smarter kids. What it does indicate is that tracking hurts outcomes for the rest. Tracking is, I posit, therefore a bad thing.
As an aside, the probability that any given person posting here is actually 3-4 standard deviations above the average is small. I had the best elementary-school test scores in the town in which I was raised (pop. ~20k), and I doubt I am 3+ sd better than the mean.
I'm waiting for the price to hit $50. $70 isn't bad, though. Maybe I should bite the proverbial bullet.
Re:R in a nutshell = Rpy
on
R In a Nutshell
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Sadly, no. As the other guys said, R does absolutely everyting you claim it doesn't. Every positional function argument is a shortcut you can call explicitly in any order. Don't put any stock into this recommendation.
If you are working in python, have discovered that SciPy's stats functions are not ready for prime time (they aren't), and need drop-in replacements, use rpy. Otherwise, you will find it does not play very well with R. It feeds and returns objects in what I found unintuitive and unuseful ways. Yes, you can make it work, so if you're in python already, you should use it. Otherwise, learn and use R when it makes sense, which is roughly 90% of the time doing data analysis.
I took honors Soph Math at Cal from Bill Kahan in 1988 as a freshman. Despite never changing clothes (I mean, they were always clean, but he always wore blue jeans and a blue shirt -- all semester long), BK was a very engaging lecturer, which the interview should convey. He was also something of a rat bastard as a teacher. If you didn't get it, you were to reapproach the textbook. I went to office hours. He was friendly, but not helpful.
He failed half the class.
Half.
The.
Class.
And these were kids at Cal (selection bias part one) taking a serious math class (two) and having chosen the honors course (three). Among other reasons, the utter lack of this sort of experience explains why I consider Ivy League schools lightweight for undergrads.
He gave us a four-year-old midterm. It happened to have been given in the doctoral version of the course. It was a well-written exam, I grant. I was nineteen, taking a midterm that had been designed for UC Berkeley math doctoral candidates. Sure, no problem.
He made both TAs take the final.
One of two TAs (not mine, she was great) failed it.
Let's just say that was the proudest B of my life.
To Kahan's credit, he convinced me to pony up for the HP 11C calculator and never, ever to take a Cal honors class again. I have a math degree, can you believe it?
Well, here I actually accept the law. Say you write a play. Someone sees it, writes it down, and starts selling it. There's a problem. The bright line has to go somewhere, and it allows authors to control their works, period. That doesn't bother me.
No, what bugs me is what a poor business decision this is (see upthread).
Hooey. This is an awful business decision, simply because no kid sitting in front of his computer picking out Beatles songs is in the market for sheet music or legally published fake books.
There is, then, effectively zero downside.
Publishers apparently do not recognize that they moreover give up substantial upside. The network effect of their compositions being made available by amateurs, for amateurs, is not inconsiderable. OLGA and other resources maintain and extend the hold of a given song on the mass audience's attention. This has several salutary effects. It actually increases the very small likelihood of sheet music sales for their works. It increases the somewhat less tiny probability of the recorded originals being sold. It increases the miniscule (but incredibly lucrative) chance of placing their work in commercials, films, or other directly compensated outlets.
They're not cutting off their nose to spite their face, they're just cutting off their nose.
That said, the music industry has been shooting itself in the gut for decades (since long before "home taping is killing music"). I am not shocked at yet another preternaturally stupid move.
Every EULA in its very first paragraph includes a clause to the effect that if you do not agree to it in all its shrink-wrap glory, you may return it for a full refund. So, just buy any PC you like. If it's bare of an OS, bully. If it comes with Windows, boot it, do not accept the EULA, call the OEM and ask for your refund.
It is my experience that enough time spent with their 800 number on speaker while you do your work will eventually get you about a $50 check from the OEM.
Seconded. Someone needs to mod up this response, since this entire thread is completely missing the point of Rutkowska's work.
Unless her "Blue Pill" changed since it was last linked on Slashdot, it's a virtualization exploit. Since she refused to give any details on her blog when this was announced, I don't know how she gets around attestation. Perhaps that's the Vista-specific part.
For over $15 million smackers in three years -- the equivalent for one of us little people of toiling away for one hundred years at a pretty decent salary of $150,000 -- I wouldn't want to switch places with AMD, either.
I've used that 3M thing since before 3M bought the design. My wife actually got a sample off a guy on an airplane who worked for, or was, the original designer. For me, it's freaking great, as long as I don't try to play games on it. Keeping your hand vertical rather than horizontal is a huge win, and you get used to it quickly.
The drawbacks:
- your wife will call it "the penis mouse"
- the previous 3M models suffered from permadoubleclick
(but they'll replace those with a phone call)
The advantages:
- less hand and forearm tension
- less temptation to fire up UT2004 when you're bored
All in all, a win-win. I don't see the point of the odd-looking "zero-tension" version when you have 3M's delectably corporate version out there. Go, buy, die happy.
stupid or not, the derivative work clause in the original contracts is be the solitary item of interest. Boies et al. will certainly try to pawn off a theory like the one with failed in the BSD case.
I don't know whether the language of IBM's conract differs materially from Berkeley's, but I doubt it. as a result, I'd expect any rational court to find as in the BSD case, that derivative work free of actual, proprietary, System-V code does not automagically become SCO-owned derivative property.
as for the anthill this suit has stirred up, it baffles me. there is no derivative-work contract between SCO and Torvalds or Stallman.
executive suites should not fear the GPL, but embrace it. nobody will ever come after your own, original work using BSD or GPL terms, but as SCO is demonstrating, closed-source licenses can be dangerous.
Having the Librarian of Congress gut it completely by exempting all works that could be subject to the 'fair use' doctrine -- i.e., all works -- would be a nice end run.
Note, folks: comment period via website starts 19. November, not today.
Rather sickeningly, not only has the IRS wussed out of its (imo) moral and legal duty to revoke Scientology's tax exemption, in 1993 they also caved 200% -- by making payments for auditing and other training by church *members* deductible as well as the charming business-like activities by the church itself against which you posted.
No other US religion's members get deductions for religious instruction, so we taxpayers are quite directly subsidizing Scientology. This would be unfair even if the church hadn't historically done a more-than-usually convincing impersonation of a sociopathic, evil cult.
References detailing how the IRS not only caved, but in so doing broke and continues to break the law follow. Note, I am inserting these URLs as text rather than links, so that they may enjoy the first-amendment protections of speech and avoid any DMCA-derived clowning:
- IRS/Scientology 1993 'secret' agreement is at http://www.xenu.net/archive/IRS/
- IRS's embarrassed, official response to the Journal article in 1997 is right there at the tax boys' web site at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/ir-97-50.txt
- 9th Circuit's view (embedded in a recent decision) is public information at the 9th circuit via http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/27 B565D1754D4E5E88256B50005F20CE/$file/0070753.pdf?o penelement
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, no. Schools could be better, yes, but the literature does not indicate that tracking improves outcomes for smarter kids. What it does indicate is that tracking hurts outcomes for the rest. Tracking is, I posit, therefore a bad thing.
As an aside, the probability that any given person posting here is actually 3-4 standard deviations above the average is small. I had the best elementary-school test scores in the town in which I was raised (pop. ~20k), and I doubt I am 3+ sd better than the mean.
I'm waiting for the price to hit $50. $70 isn't bad, though. Maybe I should bite the proverbial bullet.
Sadly, no. As the other guys said, R does absolutely everyting you claim it doesn't. Every positional function argument is a shortcut you can call explicitly in any order. Don't put any stock into this recommendation.
If you are working in python, have discovered that SciPy's stats functions are not ready for prime time (they aren't), and need drop-in replacements, use rpy. Otherwise, you will find it does not play very well with R. It feeds and returns objects in what I found unintuitive and unuseful ways. Yes, you can make it work, so if you're in python already, you should use it. Otherwise, learn and use R when it makes sense, which is roughly 90% of the time doing data analysis.
The SEC is busting people. Cf http://www.bignose.org/blog/index.php?/archives/24 -The-SEC-has-my-favorite-RSS-feed.html or go to the horse's mouth at http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2006/lr1 9787.htm
This takes me back.
I took honors Soph Math at Cal from Bill Kahan in 1988 as a freshman. Despite never changing clothes (I mean, they were always clean, but he always wore blue jeans and a blue shirt -- all semester long), BK was a very engaging lecturer, which the interview should convey. He was also something of a rat bastard as a teacher. If you didn't get it, you were to reapproach the textbook. I went to office hours. He was friendly, but not helpful.
He failed half the class.
Half.
The.
Class.
And these were kids at Cal (selection bias part one) taking a serious math class (two) and having chosen the honors course (three). Among other reasons, the utter lack of this sort of experience explains why I consider Ivy League schools lightweight for undergrads.
He gave us a four-year-old midterm. It happened to have been given in the doctoral version of the course. It was a well-written exam, I grant. I was nineteen, taking a midterm that had been designed for UC Berkeley math doctoral candidates. Sure, no problem.
He made both TAs take the final.
One of two TAs (not mine, she was great) failed it.
Let's just say that was the proudest B of my life.
To Kahan's credit, he convinced me to pony up for the HP 11C calculator and never, ever to take a Cal honors class again. I have a math degree, can you believe it?
Well, here I actually accept the law. Say you write a play. Someone sees it, writes it down, and starts selling it. There's a problem. The bright line has to go somewhere, and it allows authors to control their works, period. That doesn't bother me.
No, what bugs me is what a poor business decision this is (see upthread).
Hooey. This is an awful business decision, simply because no kid sitting in front of his computer picking out Beatles songs is in the market for sheet music or legally published fake books.
There is, then, effectively zero downside.
Publishers apparently do not recognize that they moreover give up substantial upside. The network effect of their compositions being made available by amateurs, for amateurs, is not inconsiderable. OLGA and other resources maintain and extend the hold of a given song on the mass audience's attention. This has several salutary effects. It actually increases the very small likelihood of sheet music sales for their works. It increases the somewhat less tiny probability of the recorded originals being sold. It increases the miniscule (but incredibly lucrative) chance of placing their work in commercials, films, or other directly compensated outlets.
They're not cutting off their nose to spite their face, they're just cutting off their nose.
That said, the music industry has been shooting itself in the gut for decades (since long before "home taping is killing music"). I am not shocked at yet another preternaturally stupid move.
Every EULA in its very first paragraph includes a clause to the effect that if you do not agree to it in all its shrink-wrap glory, you may return it for a full refund. So, just buy any PC you like. If it's bare of an OS, bully. If it comes with Windows, boot it, do not accept the EULA, call the OEM and ask for your refund.
It is my experience that enough time spent with their 800 number on speaker while you do your work will eventually get you about a $50 check from the OEM.
You have to be a real pest, though.
Seconded. Someone needs to mod up this response, since this entire thread is completely missing the point of Rutkowska's work.
Unless her "Blue Pill" changed since it was last linked on Slashdot, it's a virtualization exploit. Since she refused to give any details on her blog when this was announced, I don't know how she gets around attestation. Perhaps that's the Vista-specific part.
Ottelini (INTC) made $25M from 2003-2005.
Ruiz (AMD) earned less than a third as much.
For over $15 million smackers in three years -- the equivalent for one of us little people of toiling away for one hundred years at a pretty decent salary of $150,000 -- I wouldn't want to switch places with AMD, either.
Always be careful to parse the words of CEOs.
I've used that 3M thing since before 3M bought the design. My wife actually got a sample off a guy on an airplane who worked for, or was, the original designer. For me, it's freaking great, as long as I don't try to play games on it. Keeping your hand vertical rather than horizontal is a huge win, and you get used to it quickly.
The drawbacks:
- your wife will call it "the penis mouse"
- the previous 3M models suffered from permadoubleclick
(but they'll replace those with a phone call)
The advantages:
- less hand and forearm tension
- less temptation to fire up UT2004 when you're bored
All in all, a win-win. I don't see the point of the odd-looking "zero-tension" version when you have 3M's delectably corporate version out there. Go, buy, die happy.
stupid or not, the derivative work clause in the original contracts is be the solitary item of interest. Boies et al. will certainly try to pawn off a theory like the one with failed in the BSD case.
I don't know whether the language of IBM's conract differs materially from Berkeley's, but I doubt it. as a result, I'd expect any rational court to find as in the BSD case, that derivative work free of actual, proprietary, System-V code does not automagically become SCO-owned derivative property.
as for the anthill this suit has stirred up, it baffles me. there is no derivative-work contract between SCO and Torvalds or Stallman.
executive suites should not fear the GPL, but embrace it. nobody will ever come after your own, original work using BSD or GPL terms, but as SCO is demonstrating, closed-source licenses can be dangerous.
Having the Librarian of Congress gut it completely by exempting all works that could be subject to the 'fair use' doctrine -- i.e., all works -- would be a nice end run.
Note, folks: comment period via website starts 19. November, not today.
Rather sickeningly, not only has the IRS wussed out of its (imo) moral and legal duty to revoke Scientology's tax exemption, in 1993 they also caved 200% -- by making payments for auditing and other training by church *members* deductible as well as the charming business-like activities by the church itself against which you posted.
7 B565D1754D4E5E88256B50005F20CE/$file/0070753.pdf?o penelement
No other US religion's members get deductions for religious instruction, so we taxpayers are quite directly subsidizing Scientology. This would be unfair even if the church hadn't historically done a more-than-usually convincing impersonation of a sociopathic, evil cult.
References detailing how the IRS not only caved, but in so doing broke and continues to break the law follow. Note, I am inserting these URLs as text rather than links, so that they may enjoy the first-amendment protections of speech and avoid any DMCA-derived clowning:
- IRS/Scientology 1993 'secret' agreement is at http://www.xenu.net/archive/IRS/
- IRS's embarrassed, official response to the Journal article in 1997 is right there at the tax boys' web site at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-news/ir-97-50.txt
- 9th Circuit's view (embedded in a recent decision) is public information at the 9th circuit via http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2
Yow.
-mb