It's risk analysis. Password managers are essentially making a bet that the risk of your hard drive being compromised is far less likely than a website being compromised. Most people can't remember more than 5 (strong) passwords at best and they get lazy and reuse them everywhere.
I have one strongish password which I modify in a systematic and easy to remember way based on the website name. For example (and this isn't exactly what I do, obviously), say my core password is ghs78kja: on slashdot I would use as a password/DOTghs78kjaSLASH* on the New Scientist's site I would use/SCIENTISTghs78kjaNEW*. These passwords are all unique, long, very easy to remember, and use all the character classes.
They weren't doing dissections and studying structure. i.e. no anatomy. I don't see a refutation of this in the other dude's link. I'm not lumping acupuncture in with other alternatives medicines, I agree it's likely different and there's probably more to it.
Clearly what the poster intended was that When acupuncture first developed the Chinese did not have knowledge of electricity.
And at the time they also knew no anatomy because they didn't conduct dissections. So acupuncture was practised in China by people who didn't even know what muscles were. Any credible modern research on acupuncture is conducted on the Western version, which is totally different.
I disagree. By learning R I developed a much better grounding in statistics than I had previously. This is because it doesn't hold your hand and you have to actually think in order to use it.
This is somewhat fair, but when I think "statistics" I think fitting a GLM to extract some parameters or test for significance. When I think data science, I think of stats but I also think of dimensionality reduction, visualisation, lots of programming, clustering, etc.
Before we have two cities on Mars which are that far away that a Hyperloop would be needed to reduce travel time, it will most likely need 100 or more years.
You've exactly described my mother's experience with computers. She's been like this for years. Since her 40s. She just memorizes sequence of actions and if anything's changed she is stuck. I don't know what the issue is, as she's smart otherwise. After two years of computer use I realized she still didn't even know about copy and paste. It's taken me about two or three years to get her to use that functionality and she's still not competent with it. I'd love to know why this is so hard for her.
I subscribed to the electronic version of a magazine. Each month I got an e-mail to alert me to the new issue and the e-mail included my plain text password. I contacted them and explained to them why this was a problem. They agreed and got in touch with the company providing the e-magazine service. It took two months, but they stopped the practice. So I think you should just politely inform people.
I submit that there is not a single human being, alive or dead, that can stay true to their promise of integrity AND be in the highest power office in the world. its not possible, its not do-able and we should stop expecting it. abs power corrupts absolutely, we all know this and we can see it, first-hand.
The president doesn't have absolute power, of course, and this quote is getting tired to my mind. I think the way Washington works makes it very hard to maintain integrity, so I agree with you. However, I also think that Washington doesn't have to work the way that it does and were it to work differently it would be easier to maintain integrity. Cleaning the money and professional lobbying out of politics would be a great first step to increasing integrity of elected officials. Maybe reforms to the way votes are counted would also help.
Regarding Obama personally: Perhaps the presidency changed him, or perhaps his campaign was a lie to co-opt the enthusiasm of the masses. I don't think we'll ever really know.
A large chunk of his first campaign was smoke and mirrors. It was defined by soaring speeches promoting "change". It's easy to interpret these in your own personal way. You then get stung when you fantasy vision inevitably doesn't come true. Of course he also failed to do shit that he promised he would, like shut Gitmo.
Much of the problem comes from studies being published whose data is not robust because the sample size is too small to be meaningfully significant. This needs to be headlined in the abstract if it is published at all; the best magazines should refuse anything without a decent sample size, whilst the ones further down the food chain should have statisticans on hand to ask hard questions.
This is too simplistic. In some fields you can only ever get small sample sizes because collecting data is too difficult or expensive. One example is human electrophysiology studies of brain activity: you have to get quite lucky to find the right patients. Further, the term "meaningfully significant" relates to some very thorny issues. Statistical significance is conventionally defined using a p-value and this says nothing about the size of the effect. In fact, if I do a study with a HUGE sample size then I will able to detect very small effect sizes. So I can generate a very small p-value and show what is commonly (and dubiously) called a "highly significant result." Yet, if I look at the size of the effect it may be tiny. In other words, the "highly statistically significant" result may have little or no practical significance. The upshot is that you need to look at the whole study and not over-intepret p-values, or get hung up on sample sizes (although these, of course, do matter).
There will always be shitty studies out there. With the proliferation of these pseudo-journals there will be even more bad science out there. This science is a waste of time of money but I don't think it poses much of a direct threat to progress. The bulk of the wrong studies are likely also the obviously bad and unintersting studies. These are the studies that nobody reads. The quantity of genuinely significant work (stuff that pushes forward a field) is tiny. When something that looks like this comes out it is immediately mobbed: people rush to reproduce the results and/or use the new techniques. If it's wrong we'll know very soon. In practice there is always an attempt to replicate the important stuff, even though the publish or perish nature of science means that pure replication studies are rarely carried out and instead are dressed up as a minor extension of preceeding work. The lesson is that it's dangerous to treat a single study as definitive. Wait for the field to catch up and, where appropriate, wait for the meta-studies.
The summary really emphasizes the minority opinion, "and only a slight majority said it would be a net positive." As if "only a slight majority" is not the majority opinion.
This isn't an election result or referendum where 50% is a magic number. I think it's correct to emphasize whether a majority is slight or not, as it conveys the size of the effect and that's of significance. For instance, if 60% of scientists thought some effect was real then this would be a majority opinion but it would indicate that the issue was under debate. We interpret the degree of consensus differently if told that 95% of scientists agree.
It's a seriously nice laptop - after a year or so of constant use I still really like it but it's not without certain issues, especially for Linux users.
The sort of reasons you list are why I no longer bother running a Linux laptop. In the three or four times I've done it, there have always been issues of this sort and I don't want to spend time trying to fix them. I now use Linux on desktop but my laptop is a Mac. I'm no Apple fanboy (e.g. I prefer Android), but I do appreciate have a *nix latop with features that "just work." My main gripe with OS X is that installing the more unusual Python packages (sometimes compiling those from source) is really annoying and time consuming.
> Home users will receive updates as they come out, rather than queueing them all up on "patch Tuesday."
So random breakage, then, rather than breakage on a particular weekday. Sucks to be a home user.
I'd be surprised if you can't still set the auto-update to work once a week (or whatever you want). It's just that from now on the patches will be sent out constantly.
Is there a valid reason we accept studies that have not been reproduced at least one more time to truly vet them before the community?
I don't think it really works like this. In practice, most studies are totally uninteresting and their only purpose in life is either to not ever be read or to seed more uninteresting studies. Nothing of value is lost if they're wrong (and probably they often are). The studies that do matter are replicated because they're interesting enough that other people try to use them. So if a study discovers an interesting new effect or develops an interesting new tool then other (good) researchers jump on to the badwagon. If the original study was wrong then it'll be obvious pretty quickly. In addition, within every field it's an open secret which high profile papers are actually bollocks. It's usually obvious by just reading them. These papers are generally not contested by others for political reasons, but they are ignored because the field knows them to be crap.
Slashdot Mirror
It's risk analysis. Password managers are essentially making a bet that the risk of your hard drive being compromised is far less likely than a website being compromised. Most people can't remember more than 5 (strong) passwords at best and they get lazy and reuse them everywhere.
I have one strongish password which I modify in a systematic and easy to remember way based on the website name. For example (and this isn't exactly what I do, obviously), say my core password is ghs78kja: on slashdot I would use as a password /DOTghs78kjaSLASH* on the New Scientist's site I would use /SCIENTISTghs78kjaNEW*. These passwords are all unique, long, very easy to remember, and use all the character classes.
They weren't doing dissections and studying structure. i.e. no anatomy. I don't see a refutation of this in the other dude's link. I'm not lumping acupuncture in with other alternatives medicines, I agree it's likely different and there's probably more to it.
Clearly what the poster intended was that When acupuncture first developed the Chinese did not have knowledge of electricity.
And at the time they also knew no anatomy because they didn't conduct dissections. So acupuncture was practised in China by people who didn't even know what muscles were. Any credible modern research on acupuncture is conducted on the Western version, which is totally different.
It also doesn't provide a graph of spam rate over time. Just three pie charts showing changes over the last three months.
I disagree. By learning R I developed a much better grounding in statistics than I had previously. This is because it doesn't hold your hand and you have to actually think in order to use it.
This is somewhat fair, but when I think "statistics" I think fitting a GLM to extract some parameters or test for significance. When I think data science, I think of stats but I also think of dimensionality reduction, visualisation, lots of programming, clustering, etc.
Before we have two cities on Mars which are that far away that a Hyperloop would be needed to reduce travel time, it will most likely need 100 or more years.
Many, many, more years...
You've exactly described my mother's experience with computers. She's been like this for years. Since her 40s. She just memorizes sequence of actions and if anything's changed she is stuck. I don't know what the issue is, as she's smart otherwise. After two years of computer use I realized she still didn't even know about copy and paste. It's taken me about two or three years to get her to use that functionality and she's still not competent with it. I'd love to know why this is so hard for her.
Frank is a deeper fellow than all but a few really grasp.
"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action."
- Frank Herbert.
How perfectly does that describe the Guardian and most of its readership?
Um... not very well?
I subscribed to the electronic version of a magazine. Each month I got an e-mail to alert me to the new issue and the e-mail included my plain text password. I contacted them and explained to them why this was a problem. They agreed and got in touch with the company providing the e-magazine service. It took two months, but they stopped the practice. So I think you should just politely inform people.
You have neatly exemplified why we have a problem.
Still not convinced there is such thing as a "3D printer". There are CNC extruders and CNC milling machines. This is the latter.
I submit that there is not a single human being, alive or dead, that can stay true to their promise of integrity AND be in the highest power office in the world. its not possible, its not do-able and we should stop expecting it. abs power corrupts absolutely, we all know this and we can see it, first-hand.
The president doesn't have absolute power, of course, and this quote is getting tired to my mind. I think the way Washington works makes it very hard to maintain integrity, so I agree with you. However, I also think that Washington doesn't have to work the way that it does and were it to work differently it would be easier to maintain integrity. Cleaning the money and professional lobbying out of politics would be a great first step to increasing integrity of elected officials. Maybe reforms to the way votes are counted would also help.
Regarding Obama personally: Perhaps the presidency changed him, or perhaps his campaign was a lie to co-opt the enthusiasm of the masses. I don't think we'll ever really know.
A large chunk of his first campaign was smoke and mirrors. It was defined by soaring speeches promoting "change". It's easy to interpret these in your own personal way. You then get stung when you fantasy vision inevitably doesn't come true. Of course he also failed to do shit that he promised he would, like shut Gitmo.
Maybe that's what happened...
When was it not driven by consensus? It always has been.
Much of the problem comes from studies being published whose data is not robust because the sample size is too small to be meaningfully significant. This needs to be headlined in the abstract if it is published at all; the best magazines should refuse anything without a decent sample size, whilst the ones further down the food chain should have statisticans on hand to ask hard questions.
This is too simplistic. In some fields you can only ever get small sample sizes because collecting data is too difficult or expensive. One example is human electrophysiology studies of brain activity: you have to get quite lucky to find the right patients. Further, the term "meaningfully significant" relates to some very thorny issues. Statistical significance is conventionally defined using a p-value and this says nothing about the size of the effect. In fact, if I do a study with a HUGE sample size then I will able to detect very small effect sizes. So I can generate a very small p-value and show what is commonly (and dubiously) called a "highly significant result." Yet, if I look at the size of the effect it may be tiny. In other words, the "highly statistically significant" result may have little or no practical significance. The upshot is that you need to look at the whole study and not over-intepret p-values, or get hung up on sample sizes (although these, of course, do matter).
There will always be shitty studies out there. With the proliferation of these pseudo-journals there will be even more bad science out there. This science is a waste of time of money but I don't think it poses much of a direct threat to progress. The bulk of the wrong studies are likely also the obviously bad and unintersting studies. These are the studies that nobody reads. The quantity of genuinely significant work (stuff that pushes forward a field) is tiny. When something that looks like this comes out it is immediately mobbed: people rush to reproduce the results and/or use the new techniques. If it's wrong we'll know very soon. In practice there is always an attempt to replicate the important stuff, even though the publish or perish nature of science means that pure replication studies are rarely carried out and instead are dressed up as a minor extension of preceeding work. The lesson is that it's dangerous to treat a single study as definitive. Wait for the field to catch up and, where appropriate, wait for the meta-studies.
Which anti-government Youtube videos have been blocked in the UK?
The summary really emphasizes the minority opinion, "and only a slight majority said it would be a net positive." As if "only a slight majority" is not the majority opinion.
This isn't an election result or referendum where 50% is a magic number. I think it's correct to emphasize whether a majority is slight or not, as it conveys the size of the effect and that's of significance. For instance, if 60% of scientists thought some effect was real then this would be a majority opinion but it would indicate that the issue was under debate. We interpret the degree of consensus differently if told that 95% of scientists agree.
It's a seriously nice laptop - after a year or so of constant use I still really like it but it's not without certain issues, especially for Linux users.
The sort of reasons you list are why I no longer bother running a Linux laptop. In the three or four times I've done it, there have always been issues of this sort and I don't want to spend time trying to fix them. I now use Linux on desktop but my laptop is a Mac. I'm no Apple fanboy (e.g. I prefer Android), but I do appreciate have a *nix latop with features that "just work." My main gripe with OS X is that installing the more unusual Python packages (sometimes compiling those from source) is really annoying and time consuming.
> Home users will receive updates as they come out, rather than queueing them all up on "patch Tuesday."
So random breakage, then, rather than breakage on a particular weekday. Sucks to be a home user.
I'd be surprised if you can't still set the auto-update to work once a week (or whatever you want). It's just that from now on the patches will be sent out constantly.
Is there a valid reason we accept studies that have not been reproduced at least one more time to truly vet them before the community?
I don't think it really works like this. In practice, most studies are totally uninteresting and their only purpose in life is either to not ever be read or to seed more uninteresting studies. Nothing of value is lost if they're wrong (and probably they often are). The studies that do matter are replicated because they're interesting enough that other people try to use them. So if a study discovers an interesting new effect or develops an interesting new tool then other (good) researchers jump on to the badwagon. If the original study was wrong then it'll be obvious pretty quickly. In addition, within every field it's an open secret which high profile papers are actually bollocks. It's usually obvious by just reading them. These papers are generally not contested by others for political reasons, but they are ignored because the field knows them to be crap.
In Europe, yes, this is a useful comparison. In the US the train system is slow and crap and has poor coverage.
Yes but these gripes by *contributors*. You also see users behaving in this way. Users haven't shared these frustrations.