I lived through my wife's PhD in education. I helped with the statistics. It was mind curdling stuff. But her thesis had rigor. S-Plus, Excel and everything else doesn't have MANOVAs. R does. We used R.
Right. So you know first hand how ignorant it is to say math and statistics have nothing to with social science.:-)
Your false assumption is that doctors, chemists and physicists get things right with any greater frequency.
Did you mean to reply to me? It's a bit surreal to see you seemingly support what I wrote but tell me about a false assumption I made. In case you were speaking to me, I would like to point out that I made no such assumption. I argued that social scientists were as rigorous as any others but made no claims about either group's infallibility in absolute terms.
Hey there. Again, we're generally on the same page here, and I agreed with your comment, and my counterpoint was directed not so much at you as at the general idea of the folks here with a dismissive view of what social science means. BTW, Interesting your comment about computer science.;-)
I realize now we may not even have been using the same definitions. I was thinking more like psychology (let's say a stress coping training study, for example) versus biology (let's say a cancer treatment study). So, it's funny to me now to realize you are perhaps calling the latter social science as well. Anyhow, in both studies you absolutely can setup valid control groups. In the cancer case, the control might not be "no treatment," but you compare your new treatment to the efficacy of existing conventional ones. In a non-health related area completely, cognitive psychology is filled with countless examples of measuring the effect of priming the brain with images or words associated with different categories of concepts upon reaction times, opinion formation, behavior, etc. That's just one example off the top of my head.
Also, many studies are able to be performed on existing data sets without requiring an interventional experiment. Steven Levitt has received much acclaim over his career performing these types of analyses. For anyone who doubts that social science is a rigorous and fascinating field, they should read (or listen to) some of his work.
Well, I need to read TFA, but I am going to assume they are provding alternatives? I would hope nothing with out any stat test would pass review
Facepalm. Oh goodness, are people reading this headline to think they are removing p-values in favor of just accepting speculation with no statistical analysis!?!
YESSSS, they are forcing submitters to UPGRADE their statistical analysis to employ more robust mathematics.
I agree with you. Yet no need for the quotes around social 'scientists.' Psychologists, socialists, etc. employ the same experimental designs and mathematical techniques in experiments as doctors or others performing drug efficacy or medical outcome experiments, for example.
P-Value: It's intervention versus control group. Standard, basic scientific experimental design and statistical analysis stuff.
It's an uninformed and naive view to think that people looking at the behavior of humans at the level of social organization are somehow intellectually or scientifically less able than those examining them at the biological level.
One of the steps of obtaining a warrant is stating what you're going to be looking for. "Something that can hack an airplane" is really vague, which probably explains why law enforcement is talking to the airplane manufacturers, so they can refine their search.
"Where do you want to look and for what?" We want to look on his computer for evidence of hacking activities against an airplane. It's just like saying, we want to look in Joe's house for evidence of drug dealing (drugs, cash, lab equipment, weapons, etc).
Actually, it is increasing utilization of improved statistical methods leading to the phase-out of earlier, cruder methods. It's standard advancement of the scientific method and applies to all experimental design analysis regardless of field.
That this journal is throwing out the baby with the bath water and abdicating its responsibility to review quality of content in favor of blanket rules is another matter.
As of Friday, Roberts said he has not received a warrant.
It doesn't sound like it should be too hard for them to obtain a warrant, based on his own actions/tweets while on the plane employing said computer equipment.
The real question then is does he comply or take the 5th? Compulsory password divulgence is not yet well-settled case law in the USA.
Social security numbers shouldn't exist. Too much power rests in them. Social security is an oxymoron. Don't shoot the messenger. The root of the problem lies in this system.
It's true... the system needs a rethink, and it will only get worse until it's changed. Those 9 *immutable* digits are way too powerful once they inevitably reach the hands of bad actors.
I wonder what percentage of Americans' SS#'s are in the "public domain" of criminals' databases at this point?
...but we aren’t going to reward people who are better negotiators with more compensation.
And in a nutshell, that is why good negotiators will no longer apply to work at Reddit and they will be left higher mediocre talent!! If you want to hire people who are good at business to work for your business, you have to reward them for being good at business.
FALSE. Actually, you CAN use BitTorrent with Tor, but doing so in some (standard) ways, without setting up an appropriate environment, will likely leak your IP address and possibly more.
Can you provide any link about how to do this? I've understood that one cannot hide oneself properly over Tor because of the BT protocol.
Also, are there any easy ways that don't involve leaching off the Tor network? Someone mentioned I2P?
How safe would someone be if they just deleted all the trackers before starting the torrent? I understood this means that "they" have to snoop real-time and see peoples' IP's because they won't be stored in trackers.
"If this [judgement] is upheld then the days of anonymous pirating may be over," Prof Fraser told ABC TV.
B.S. It would just mean that the BitTorrent protocol would need a tweak more urgently to enhance the anonymity.
It already needs it because I don't think there are currently any anonymizing solutions for BitTorrent: Tor doesn't work with it; VPN's can be subpoenaed. Does anyone know a solution?
You responded to the wrong person. I explained the previous comment to the poor fellow who totally misunderstood it, but I did not express an opinion.
I will do so now...
i think you missed the point. you can customize the *display* of tabs.
Which only matters if all indentation, including alignment, is done with tabs.
Yes that is true.
In addition, terminal windows still display tabs as eight characters
Yes that is true.
You, too, will one day get so frustrated when dealing with impossible-to-read code...
I already have.
I hate tabs (and I'm also very experienced). But I could imagine tolerating a project where at least only tabs were used consistently. People who work for me configure their editors to replace tabs with spaces.
Are you kidding? If you edit code on unix tabs are a nightmare.
Yup.
Be careful inferring causation from correlation in the last paragraph:
45% of respondents prefer tabs, while 33.6% prefer spaces, though the relationship flips at higher experience levels. On average, developers who work remotely earn more than developers who don't. Product managers reported the lowest levels of job satisfaction and the highest levels of caffeinated beverages consumed per day.
There are alternate plausible explanations for all those things other than the one that might first appear.
There's not such a big difference in what we're saying really... We both acknowledge the two sets of words exist. I posted in different places in the thread, so maybe I got confused with some of the things said in different places, but my intent was to say that "American" came to be (and is often still) used because historically it was the dominant word before people thought to get upset about it (after other countries popped up in the Americas). I agree one should realize the potential bad reactions that might come from using it, however, and choose appropriately for their audience and the type of speech they are engaging in!!!
I also intended to argue that it makes perfect historical sense; it is not irrational nor premeditated as a political statement of future world domination. And this usage became widespread not only in native English and by the residents of the USA but equally by the various peoples of Europe. (European peoples routinely referred to Americans, even in formal contexts, during the era of the Revolutionary War.)
Regardless of intent, one should also expect that if you accost a nation (any nation!) and tell the people there, "Hey, I don't like the name that you have used for yourselves for the entire history of your nation, and I want you to use this new word I invented for you that sounds like a half-assed joke," you're going to get a bad reaction. If the intent is to convince, it would be better to sympathetically explain to them why other people get negative connotations from it and ask the people themselves if there isn't a better solution. Stylistic adjustments have happened in government bodies and in the finer outlets of English media already. And the trend will no doubt continue as the world grows more interconnected.
In *English*, I think "US citizen" (as was used in NAFTA for example) sounds perfectly proper and infinitely more pleasant than these new-fangled concoctions, which honestly seem designed more to antagonize than gain adoption. But (as I noted somewhere else), each language/region determines their own word for other peoples/regions, and statunitense, for example, works pretty smoothly in Italian. (I still say without bias, however, that, in my experience, it's 10:1 that people there say americano.;-))
Really, you didn't get the joke? The two sic's were incorrect/nonstandard constructions you hear all the time. Irregardless is a non-standard derivative of regardless. And "I could care less" is a bastardization of "I couldn't care less."
Hope we are on the same page now and can say we agree. I hope to show that I never meant to imply that "American" (and its foreign counterparts) is the best or proper term that one could use.
Peace out, man. All's well that ends well. Pleasure discussing with you.
If you can spare a minute, please do any or all of the following so that we can retain the GPL's power to help the community: - Raise awareness - upvote it, send it to friends or write a blog post about it - Write to Ubiquiti requesting the source - their email addresses are support@ubnt.com and info@ubnt.com. You should try both. - Send me an email telling me what you've done. My email address is riley@openmailbox.org
You're arguing with a straw man. We've been round and round this, and you know perfectly well what I'm saying.
its adoption varies
Exactly.
In closing, irregardless [sic] of what you and your phylologists say, people still use the words you object to, and they could care less [sic] what you wish.
Slashdot Mirror
I lived through my wife's PhD in education. I helped with the statistics. It was mind curdling stuff. But her thesis had rigor. S-Plus, Excel and everything else doesn't have MANOVAs. R does. We used R.
Right. So you know first hand how ignorant it is to say math and statistics have nothing to with social science. :-)
Your false assumption is that doctors, chemists and physicists get things right with any greater frequency.
Did you mean to reply to me? It's a bit surreal to see you seemingly support what I wrote but tell me about a false assumption I made. In case you were speaking to me, I would like to point out that I made no such assumption. I argued that social scientists were as rigorous as any others but made no claims about either group's infallibility in absolute terms.
Hey there. Again, we're generally on the same page here, and I agreed with your comment, and my counterpoint was directed not so much at you as at the general idea of the folks here with a dismissive view of what social science means. BTW, Interesting your comment about computer science. ;-)
I realize now we may not even have been using the same definitions. I was thinking more like psychology (let's say a stress coping training study, for example) versus biology (let's say a cancer treatment study). So, it's funny to me now to realize you are perhaps calling the latter social science as well. Anyhow, in both studies you absolutely can setup valid control groups. In the cancer case, the control might not be "no treatment," but you compare your new treatment to the efficacy of existing conventional ones. In a non-health related area completely, cognitive psychology is filled with countless examples of measuring the effect of priming the brain with images or words associated with different categories of concepts upon reaction times, opinion formation, behavior, etc. That's just one example off the top of my head.
Also, many studies are able to be performed on existing data sets without requiring an interventional experiment. Steven Levitt has received much acclaim over his career performing these types of analyses. For anyone who doubts that social science is a rigorous and fascinating field, they should read (or listen to) some of his work.
The lot of it is put into a box and paraded into court as Joe is charged with "intent to manufacture controlled substances".
Yes, and that gets settled during the trial phase to the standard of "reasonable doubt." It has no bearing on the search phase.
Well, I need to read TFA, but I am going to assume they are provding alternatives? I would hope nothing with out any stat test would pass review
Facepalm. Oh goodness, are people reading this headline to think they are removing p-values in favor of just accepting speculation with no statistical analysis!?!
YESSSS, they are forcing submitters to UPGRADE their statistical analysis to employ more robust mathematics.
I agree with you. Yet no need for the quotes around social 'scientists.' Psychologists, socialists, etc. employ the same experimental designs and mathematical techniques in experiments as doctors or others performing drug efficacy or medical outcome experiments, for example.
P-Value: It's intervention versus control group. Standard, basic scientific experimental design and statistical analysis stuff.
It's an uninformed and naive view to think that people looking at the behavior of humans at the level of social organization are somehow intellectually or scientifically less able than those examining them at the biological level.
One of the steps of obtaining a warrant is stating what you're going to be looking for. "Something that can hack an airplane" is really vague, which probably explains why law enforcement is talking to the airplane manufacturers, so they can refine their search.
"Where do you want to look and for what?"
We want to look on his computer for evidence of hacking activities against an airplane.
It's just like saying, we want to look in Joe's house for evidence of drug dealing (drugs, cash, lab equipment, weapons, etc).
Actually, it is increasing utilization of improved statistical methods leading to the phase-out of earlier, cruder methods. It's standard advancement of the scientific method and applies to all experimental design analysis regardless of field.
That this journal is throwing out the baby with the bath water and abdicating its responsibility to review quality of content in favor of blanket rules is another matter.
This is social science. Mathematics and statistics aren't even relevant.
Correlation between low intelligence and uninformed statements of this nature is p<0.01.
As of Friday, Roberts said he has not received a warrant.
It doesn't sound like it should be too hard for them to obtain a warrant, based on his own actions/tweets while on the plane employing said computer equipment.
The real question then is does he comply or take the 5th? Compulsory password divulgence is not yet well-settled case law in the USA.
Social security numbers shouldn't exist. Too much power rests in them. Social security is an oxymoron. Don't shoot the messenger. The root of the problem lies in this system.
It's true... the system needs a rethink, and it will only get worse until it's changed. Those 9 *immutable* digits are way too powerful once they inevitably reach the hands of bad actors.
I wonder what percentage of Americans' SS#'s are in the "public domain" of criminals' databases at this point?
I always through that WL was about meaningful leaks for journalism/public good not just anything private that randomly gets leaked.
Ha ha. I'd give you a mod up funny, if I had any.
...but we aren’t going to reward people who are better negotiators with more compensation.
And in a nutshell, that is why good negotiators will no longer apply to work at Reddit and they will be left higher mediocre talent!!
If you want to hire people who are good at business to work for your business, you have to reward them for being good at business.
> You can't use BitTorrent with Tor.
FALSE. Actually, you CAN use BitTorrent with Tor, but doing so in some (standard) ways, without setting up an appropriate environment, will likely leak your IP address and possibly more.
Can you provide any link about how to do this? I've understood that one cannot hide oneself properly over Tor because of the BT protocol.
Also, are there any easy ways that don't involve leaching off the Tor network? Someone mentioned I2P?
How safe would someone be if they just deleted all the trackers before starting the torrent? I understood this means that "they" have to snoop real-time and see peoples' IP's because they won't be stored in trackers.
The article ends with this:
"If this [judgement] is upheld then the days of anonymous pirating may be over," Prof Fraser told ABC TV.
B.S. It would just mean that the BitTorrent protocol would need a tweak more urgently to enhance the anonymity.
It already needs it because I don't think there are currently any anonymizing solutions for BitTorrent: Tor doesn't work with it; VPN's can be subpoenaed.
Does anyone know a solution?
And now code structure indentation is one space? No thanks!
You responded to the wrong person. I explained the previous comment to the poor fellow who totally misunderstood it, but I did not express an opinion.
I will do so now...
i think you missed the point.
you can customize the *display* of tabs.
Which only matters if all indentation, including alignment, is done with tabs.
Yes that is true.
In addition, terminal windows still display tabs as eight characters
Yes that is true.
You, too, will one day get so frustrated when dealing with impossible-to-read code...
I already have.
I hate tabs (and I'm also very experienced). But I could imagine tolerating a project where at least only tabs were used consistently. People who work for me configure their editors to replace tabs with spaces.
The author might consider removing the "dark history" claim or risk the label of hyperbole.
... or risk the *libel* of hyperbole!
i think you missed the point.
you can customize the *display* of tabs.
Are you kidding? If you edit code on unix tabs are a nightmare.
Yup.
Be careful inferring causation from correlation in the last paragraph:
45% of respondents prefer tabs, while 33.6% prefer spaces, though the relationship flips at higher experience levels. On average, developers who work remotely earn more than developers who don't. Product managers reported the lowest levels of job satisfaction and the highest levels of caffeinated beverages consumed per day.
There are alternate plausible explanations for all those things other than the one that might first appear.
ok, then. can we be friends now? :-)
Sure. Why not? :-)
There's not such a big difference in what we're saying really... We both acknowledge the two sets of words exist. I posted in different places in the thread, so maybe I got confused with some of the things said in different places, but my intent was to say that "American" came to be (and is often still) used because historically it was the dominant word before people thought to get upset about it (after other countries popped up in the Americas). I agree one should realize the potential bad reactions that might come from using it, however, and choose appropriately for their audience and the type of speech they are engaging in!!!
I also intended to argue that it makes perfect historical sense; it is not irrational nor premeditated as a political statement of future world domination. And this usage became widespread not only in native English and by the residents of the USA but equally by the various peoples of Europe. (European peoples routinely referred to Americans, even in formal contexts, during the era of the Revolutionary War.)
Regardless of intent, one should also expect that if you accost a nation (any nation!) and tell the people there, "Hey, I don't like the name that you have used for yourselves for the entire history of your nation, and I want you to use this new word I invented for you that sounds like a half-assed joke," you're going to get a bad reaction. If the intent is to convince, it would be better to sympathetically explain to them why other people get negative connotations from it and ask the people themselves if there isn't a better solution. Stylistic adjustments have happened in government bodies and in the finer outlets of English media already. And the trend will no doubt continue as the world grows more interconnected.
In *English*, I think "US citizen" (as was used in NAFTA for example) sounds perfectly proper and infinitely more pleasant than these new-fangled concoctions, which honestly seem designed more to antagonize than gain adoption. But (as I noted somewhere else), each language/region determines their own word for other peoples/regions, and statunitense, for example, works pretty smoothly in Italian. (I still say without bias, however, that, in my experience, it's 10:1 that people there say americano. ;-))
Really, you didn't get the joke? The two sic's were incorrect/nonstandard constructions you hear all the time. Irregardless is a non-standard derivative of regardless. And "I could care less" is a bastardization of "I couldn't care less."
Hope we are on the same page now and can say we agree. I hope to show that I never meant to imply that "American" (and its foreign counterparts) is the best or proper term that one could use.
Peace out, man. All's well that ends well. Pleasure discussing with you.
If you can spare a minute, please do any or all of the following so that we can retain the GPL's power to help the community:
- Raise awareness - upvote it, send it to friends or write a blog post about it
- Write to Ubiquiti requesting the source - their email addresses are support@ubnt.com and info@ubnt.com. You should try both.
- Send me an email telling me what you've done. My email address is riley@openmailbox.org
which implies that's the only form.
You're arguing with a straw man. We've been round and round this, and you know perfectly well what I'm saying.
its adoption varies
Exactly.
In closing, irregardless [sic] of what you and your phylologists say, people still use the words you object to, and they could care less [sic] what you wish.
Hmm. I don't find "restriction on the use of a [financial] account" completely different than "restriction regarding a banking transaction".