Your professor also seems to have the whole concept of "statistical significance" wrong. A significance level of 0.05 doesn't mean you have "95% confidence" in the results, it means there would be a 5% chance of the observed data being generated if the null hypothesis was true.
Apologies if I've borked the statistics part of it. Mayhaps I'm referring to a confidence interval, which seems to more closely relate to my (100-x)% recollection.
The anecdote wasn't intended to demonstrate my m4d sk1llz at statistics, but to demonstrate the ineptness of the prof involved.:-P
Go to a concert. They make a whole lot more money that way. The percentage they get from CD sales is minimal.
Not all artists tour near where I live. Almost anyone who is a touring artist doesn't interest me.
Most of the record labels I listen to primarily do compilations of various forms of house, electronica, and world music. I might be a tad old at a rave and everyone would think I'm a narc.;-)
Buying the product is the only direct way I have of supporting them. I'm paying them to sift through a vast amount of music and distill it down to the best -- if I actually buy the CD, the label and the artist at least both get paid. And, importantly, the system that tracks music sales shows that people are listening to their stuff, which at least shows that some of us aren't listening to Britney Spears (or whomever).
Besides, my CD shelves will hold about 750+ CDs, and I've still got a way to go.:-P
For me, there's still no substitute for the real CD. I'll rip it myself and decide what I'm going to do with it. YMMV.
Alarm bells start going off in my head whenever someone claims that they are going to use math to prove the power of teamwork, friendship, love, god, or bagels:P
By eliminating public education, and by reducing the morass of regulations for running a private school, the free market could decide how important math education really is
Not really, all you'd do is create a system whereby the wealthier people could afford education for their children, and all of the children of the rest of the people would be screwed.
How, exactly, do you propose that all of those families who could never afford private school (let alone rent in some cases) educate their children?
Eliminating all forms of public education sounds utterly absurd. Leaving it up to the "free market" to decide if math education is important or not is equally absurd.
As an engineer, I try to design systems which function even when humans behave as humans. The educational system should have similar goals.
Sir, if you can come up with an engineering solution which takes human behavior out of the equation in education and still produces results, then I believe you deserve to make a lot of money with it.
But most of them like the schlager, rather than the gold...
Actually, I think most people like Goldschlager because it comes with the prestige of having actual gold in it.
I don't know how it stands up as far as being a cinnamon schnapps, but I think the marketing trick of putting in real gold contributes more to its success.
In university, I was taking an intro philosophy course on critical reasoning.
We had covered the concept of statistical significance. The example we'd used was a case of "0.05" meaning we had 95% confidence in the statistical results. On the exam, the professor made a typo, and the question read "how much certainty with a statistical confidence of 0.5", to which the correct answer is 50%.
I was marked as wrong, and when I complained, the professor indicated that since we'd never covered that example, and only covered 0.05 in class, it was assumed that was what she meant.
I informed her for someone teaching critical reasoning, she wasn't demonstrating any. I also insisted I get the credit for giving the actual correct answer (which I and everyone who answered it correctly did).
If that's indicative of how math is taught nowadays, we're all hosed.:-P
Apple is doing Ok with their iTunes store because they're doing this (though it's still a bit heavy handed with the DRM - I want files I can put on a USB stick and plug it into my car/HiFI).
I'm sure Apple has absolutely no choice but to keep the DRM as it is. It's the music companies enforcing that. They'd not be able to sell anything at all if they didn't DRM it -- the music companies wouldn't allow that.
The CD sales model? Not so much. The only people I know who still buy CDs are the ones who aren't handy with a PC. This is doomed business model. Period.
I must be one of the last people who still buys CDs. Relatively speaking, I buy a lot of CDs -- something like 150+ over the last 3 years.
I buy the CD because I like to support the artists I'm buying from, and because I like to have the CD. From there I rip it into MP3 format, and use it on my iPod, or make mixes from it, or put them on by GF's iPod, or do whatever I like with it -- and, as far as I'm concerned, that's fair use since I bought the original CD.
For some of us, the CD is still the preferred method of buying music. It's tangible, you can play it on the trip home from the store (or in your hotel room since I bought a lot of my music when traveling), and if something happens to the 'puter, you can re-rip the tracks.
emails are sent in the clear. If you really cared, you'd encrypt it all. Lots more people than the government have been and will be looking at your email, it's inherent in the nature of the system.
Telephone messages are sent in the clear too, but it requires a warrant to listen in on them.
The truth is that almost nothing anyone sends via email is worthy of this furor. Again, anything that you don't want others to see you should have encrypted or sent by other means
That doesn't give the government blanket privilege to listen in on them. That's going back to saying only those who are guilty have something to hide.
If one only encrypted the stuff one wanted secret, it would be telegraphing when you're sending something secret.
The harm comes from noise about things that don't matter, drowning out things that do. Complaining about government intrusion into an inherently public protocol makes it harder to notice instances of true abuse of privacy.
With all due respect.... horseshit.
There are constitutional and legal issues which circumscribe what the government can and can't listen in on. Mass reading of e-mail is one of them.
The harm is the government overstepping their legal authority to monitor the conversations of its citizenry when it knows damned well it can get away with it. By saying "well, gee, why should we care", you're just quietly accepting it.
And what, do tell, happens when they expand this program to go slightly beyond purely "national security" issues? How about, tracking your political affiliations? Monitoring if you're having an affair? Secretly gay?
Allowing widespread government intrusion with no rules is just asinine -- especially in a country which still thinks of itself as the "land of the free".
The machine cranks out 1 piece per day, a maximum of 365 pieces per year. At that rate, how many years does it take to recoup the cost of the machine, with at least $500 worth of solar panels?
Dude, they're showing it at an international design show. You know, a bunch of other artists and designers who will think this is cool. I personally thought the lampshades looked really cool -- I'm willing to bet that where these are very unique art pieces, it will be something they can sell for quite a bit if they're willing to part with it.
Heck, looking at the machine, it's likely not that expensive to make one. It's a frigging metal frame with one big solar panel, some pulleys, and the spindle the resin gets wrapped around.
Has everyone on Slashdot lost the ability to appreciate art and technology which doesn't have an immediately practical/profitable use? Because every time a story gets posted like this, a whole slew of people start saying how utterly pointless it was to have done it in the first place.
Have you all spent so long in front of a computer that you've lost sight of the concept of art?
You don't need super-discriminating ears to know that Bose systems sound like shit. It's perfectly obvious.
You know, sound is entirely subjective. Bose figures that to much of the listening public, a shift to the mid range is more pleasing to the ear. ("No highs, no lows, must be Bose" I believe is how it gets phrased.)
They've been in business for over 40 years. Clearly, a measurable percentage of people who aren't you, disagree with you.
Frankly, this isn't really any different that the whinging between Linux and Windows fanboi's around here. It really all does boil down to personal opinion and experience.
In the end, do you really give a shit that I think my speakers sound fine and you feel they could only sound like crap?
Nah, Bose doesn't suck so much as you can get similar quality gear for a better price. It's swanky audio gear for people who don't know anything about audio gear.
Depends on which end of the spectrum you're at.
At the entry-level end, if you're just talking about speakers in a system, it's just a matter of choice. My four matched Bose 201's and VC-10 centre channel cost neither more nor less than other speakers that were available at the time. To my ear, they sound just fine, and I'd know people whose Bose speakers had lasted decades without any problems. To date (~ 10 yrs), they've performed well and can handle what my Yamaha amp throws at them.
At the high-end, however, you're absolutely correct -- it's marketed at people who don't want to know much about stereos. They just want to plug it in and never think about it. Those package systems they sell just have less wiring and take up less space than a full component system.
The reality is, most people don't have super-discriminating ears, and are therefore not really capable of telling much difference between any speakers.
When I was 12 they taught us how to make a moisture trap with a can and some cellophane. Granted we weren't in a desert, but I am surprised if this "new" development surprises anybody.
Clearly, this is on a larger scale and far more impressive than what you did when you were 12.
Seriously, just because you did something which is conceptually similar, doesn't mean that this isn't an advance. Conceptually, flight hasn't changed since the Wright Brothers. Practically, it obviously has.
You would think that with all this money they could come up with a working business model other then abusing the legal system.
Why would they?
As you observed, they can already "bribe judges, hire lawyers, buy congress, complain, make commercials and now train dogs" -- why change your business model when you can do all of that to prop up the one you have?
My 2 cents are: register at another top domain, create a brand for yourself, if things work out fine then trademark that brand, then go ahead and seize any domain violating your trademark.
What the hell? What about people who are legitimately using the domain for their own business.
You're talking about potentially seizing domain from people who also have a right to them. People have a habit of thinking they can extend their trademark into areas of business in which they don't actually conduct business.
Now, if you're talking about people who could only be registering domain names because they are close to an actual company, fine. But, blatantly saying "go ahead, get yourself started and trademarked, and then seize from anyone who was there first", I call bullshit.
And don't forget the animated GIFs of flaming torches and spinning globes!
And a cheezy-looking GIF of a spider, or a web. (For being on the "Web.":p)
And, for the piece de resistance, it needs a MIDI rendition of some cheesy pop song recorded at exceedingly high volumes to make your visitors feel welcome.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
Apologies if I've borked the statistics part of it. Mayhaps I'm referring to a confidence interval, which seems to more closely relate to my (100-x)% recollection.
The anecdote wasn't intended to demonstrate my m4d sk1llz at statistics, but to demonstrate the ineptness of the prof involved. :-P
Cheers
Not all artists tour near where I live. Almost anyone who is a touring artist doesn't interest me.
Most of the record labels I listen to primarily do compilations of various forms of house, electronica, and world music. I might be a tad old at a rave and everyone would think I'm a narc. ;-)
Buying the product is the only direct way I have of supporting them. I'm paying them to sift through a vast amount of music and distill it down to the best -- if I actually buy the CD, the label and the artist at least both get paid. And, importantly, the system that tracks music sales shows that people are listening to their stuff, which at least shows that some of us aren't listening to Britney Spears (or whomever).
Besides, my CD shelves will hold about 750+ CDs, and I've still got a way to go. :-P
For me, there's still no substitute for the real CD. I'll rip it myself and decide what I'm going to do with it. YMMV.
Cheers
Do not underestimate the power of bagels. :-P
Cheers
Not really, all you'd do is create a system whereby the wealthier people could afford education for their children, and all of the children of the rest of the people would be screwed.
How, exactly, do you propose that all of those families who could never afford private school (let alone rent in some cases) educate their children?
Eliminating all forms of public education sounds utterly absurd. Leaving it up to the "free market" to decide if math education is important or not is equally absurd.
Cheers
Sir, if you can come up with an engineering solution which takes human behavior out of the equation in education and still produces results, then I believe you deserve to make a lot of money with it.
Cheers
Actually, I think most people like Goldschlager because it comes with the prestige of having actual gold in it.
I don't know how it stands up as far as being a cinnamon schnapps, but I think the marketing trick of putting in real gold contributes more to its success.
Cheers
Which, if one is decrying the state of education, is a valid concern.
If the teachers are doing it by rote, how the hell can the kids be expected to grasp the underlying concept?
Cheers
Which was well outside of the scope of that class anyway.
Truly, it was ghastly. Especially since it was a course on logic and reasoning.
Cheers
In university, I was taking an intro philosophy course on critical reasoning.
We had covered the concept of statistical significance. The example we'd used was a case of "0.05" meaning we had 95% confidence in the statistical results. On the exam, the professor made a typo, and the question read "how much certainty with a statistical confidence of 0.5", to which the correct answer is 50%.
I was marked as wrong, and when I complained, the professor indicated that since we'd never covered that example, and only covered 0.05 in class, it was assumed that was what she meant.
I informed her for someone teaching critical reasoning, she wasn't demonstrating any. I also insisted I get the credit for giving the actual correct answer (which I and everyone who answered it correctly did).
If that's indicative of how math is taught nowadays, we're all hosed. :-P
Cheers
The NRA and others already fight for those issues.
It doesn't require the ACLU to push for these things when you have Charleton Heston et al.
Hating the ACLU because they're not pushing for gun rights is kinda pointless.
Cheers
I'm sure Apple has absolutely no choice but to keep the DRM as it is. It's the music companies enforcing that. They'd not be able to sell anything at all if they didn't DRM it -- the music companies wouldn't allow that.
I must be one of the last people who still buys CDs. Relatively speaking, I buy a lot of CDs -- something like 150+ over the last 3 years.
I buy the CD because I like to support the artists I'm buying from, and because I like to have the CD. From there I rip it into MP3 format, and use it on my iPod, or make mixes from it, or put them on by GF's iPod, or do whatever I like with it -- and, as far as I'm concerned, that's fair use since I bought the original CD.
For some of us, the CD is still the preferred method of buying music. It's tangible, you can play it on the trip home from the store (or in your hotel room since I bought a lot of my music when traveling), and if something happens to the 'puter, you can re-rip the tracks.
Cheers
This is a civil suit. She's not presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The rules of evidence and procedure are very different. Here's an overview.
Cheers
Telephone messages are sent in the clear too, but it requires a warrant to listen in on them.
That doesn't give the government blanket privilege to listen in on them. That's going back to saying only those who are guilty have something to hide.
If one only encrypted the stuff one wanted secret, it would be telegraphing when you're sending something secret.
With all due respect .... horseshit.
There are constitutional and legal issues which circumscribe what the government can and can't listen in on. Mass reading of e-mail is one of them.
The harm is the government overstepping their legal authority to monitor the conversations of its citizenry when it knows damned well it can get away with it. By saying "well, gee, why should we care", you're just quietly accepting it.
And what, do tell, happens when they expand this program to go slightly beyond purely "national security" issues? How about, tracking your political affiliations? Monitoring if you're having an affair? Secretly gay?
Allowing widespread government intrusion with no rules is just asinine -- especially in a country which still thinks of itself as the "land of the free".
Cheers
Assuming of course you wanted perfectly uniform and consistent furniture all of the time.
Given that the entire point was to create something which varied in a more organic manner, they obviously didn't want to do what you suggest.
They didn't create the machine to come up with a new way of creating furniture, they did it to make one-of-a-kind pieces.
Cheers
Dude, they're showing it at an international design show. You know, a bunch of other artists and designers who will think this is cool. I personally thought the lampshades looked really cool -- I'm willing to bet that where these are very unique art pieces, it will be something they can sell for quite a bit if they're willing to part with it.
Heck, looking at the machine, it's likely not that expensive to make one. It's a frigging metal frame with one big solar panel, some pulleys, and the spindle the resin gets wrapped around.
Has everyone on Slashdot lost the ability to appreciate art and technology which doesn't have an immediately practical/profitable use? Because every time a story gets posted like this, a whole slew of people start saying how utterly pointless it was to have done it in the first place.
Have you all spent so long in front of a computer that you've lost sight of the concept of art?
Cheers
You know, sound is entirely subjective. Bose figures that to much of the listening public, a shift to the mid range is more pleasing to the ear. ("No highs, no lows, must be Bose" I believe is how it gets phrased.)
They've been in business for over 40 years. Clearly, a measurable percentage of people who aren't you, disagree with you.
Frankly, this isn't really any different that the whinging between Linux and Windows fanboi's around here. It really all does boil down to personal opinion and experience.
In the end, do you really give a shit that I think my speakers sound fine and you feel they could only sound like crap?
Cheers
Depends on which end of the spectrum you're at.
At the entry-level end, if you're just talking about speakers in a system, it's just a matter of choice. My four matched Bose 201's and VC-10 centre channel cost neither more nor less than other speakers that were available at the time. To my ear, they sound just fine, and I'd know people whose Bose speakers had lasted decades without any problems. To date (~ 10 yrs), they've performed well and can handle what my Yamaha amp throws at them.
At the high-end, however, you're absolutely correct -- it's marketed at people who don't want to know much about stereos. They just want to plug it in and never think about it. Those package systems they sell just have less wiring and take up less space than a full component system.
The reality is, most people don't have super-discriminating ears, and are therefore not really capable of telling much difference between any speakers.
Cheers
Clearly, this is on a larger scale and far more impressive than what you did when you were 12.
Seriously, just because you did something which is conceptually similar, doesn't mean that this isn't an advance. Conceptually, flight hasn't changed since the Wright Brothers. Practically, it obviously has.
Cheers
I think this works better. ;-)
Cheers
Man, I hope so. I'm turning 40 this year. :-P
Cheers
Completely unexpected ability to find new penguin colonies and better understand the population. Cool!
Just because it's obvious in hindsight, doesn't mean that it was expected or even thought of before.
Cheers
Why would they?
As you observed, they can already "bribe judges, hire lawyers, buy congress, complain, make commercials and now train dogs" -- why change your business model when you can do all of that to prop up the one you have?
Cheers
What the hell? What about people who are legitimately using the domain for their own business.
You're talking about potentially seizing domain from people who also have a right to them. People have a habit of thinking they can extend their trademark into areas of business in which they don't actually conduct business.
Now, if you're talking about people who could only be registering domain names because they are close to an actual company, fine. But, blatantly saying "go ahead, get yourself started and trademarked, and then seize from anyone who was there first", I call bullshit.
Trademark isn't a magic wand.
Cheers
Well, Canada and the US for example.
Cheers
And, for the piece de resistance, it needs a MIDI rendition of some cheesy pop song recorded at exceedingly high volumes to make your visitors feel welcome. :-P
Cheers