All those symbols is what's wrong with the Ruby. What does |user| mean?
Good teaching languages don't have a lot of symbols you have to remember. Personally, I think good working languages also use of arcane symbols only where absolutely required.
It's not the few at the top. It's the wages. Grocery clerks (zero education or experience required) make as much or more than grad students (minimum four years of post secondary, excellent performance through high school and undergrad). A good cashier (few years experience and the ability to count, sort of) likely makes more than a post doc (ten to twenty years post secondary, excellent performance). The manager makes as much as a professor will probably top out at. University administration is sometimes (but not always, and less and less now) promoted academic staff; that's where the money starts.
So in academia you work half your life to make as much as someone who can be trusted not to steal from the cash, and that's pretty much where you're almost certain to top out.
Sad that you'd look at, say, people working to advance human knowledge and cure diseases being treated like crap, say it's just like professional sports, and think that's okay.
Exactly. Most of the comments here are along the lines of "but what about in a disaster!??"
If you seriously want local emergency communication in a disaster you have a handheld radio, lots of batteries, and maybe a solar panel or crank to charge them with. If there were ever a serious emergency here I'd expect the power and phones to be down but I bet I could still get patched through to 911 over marine VHF.
Perhaps in your three or more decades of enjoying POTS your ears have deteriorated? My wireless call quality is lots better than I remember POTS being. I don't have a land line but I occasionally use them at work, and my parents' land lines are probably more analog than anywhere else. Skype running over 3G on my phone is generally indistinguishable from POTS.
I've heard the US has crappy cell service though. What's a dropped call? You mean when you get disconnected when you drive through a tunnel? POTS never did work in my car in tunnels either.
My phone (an iPhone) will happily last for a month on a charge if used purely for emergency communication, or a solid week if used sparingly (which I have done, on kayaking and sailing trips, checking and sending messages when I happened to get a sniff of signal). Yes, your cell phone is useless if you spend the hours after a disaster yakking with mom and playing candy crush. In that case consider it natural selection.
I was visiting a friend in NY during Sandy. The power was out for two weeks. The phones were out for a couple of days. But the morning after the cable company vans were out, fixing lines. The first thing that came back was cable... not that anyone who didn't have a generator could actually use it.
Yeah, except that's not the case. In a disaster everybody suddenly wants to call Mom and tell her they're okay, and all the Moms want to call and make sure junior is okay. In a disaster all of a sudden the phone lines, cell and POTS, are jammed, and it's not people calling 911.
If you seriously wanted a reliable local call for help method you'd mandate a radio with two week battery wired into the mains in every home like a modern smoke detector. It would be cheaper for the end user, much more reliable and far easier to maintain. But nobody really cares about that.
Peer to peer IP isn't hard to do. In fact, it's kinda where this whole Internet thing started. In fact, if you didn't design it like a braindead idiot, an IP phone system would work WITHOUT the central office. Better than modern POTS, more like the old party line system.
Well, there are several translators for javascript from other languages. So it's sort of like a virtual machine. It just uses a really crappy machine language.
And a lot more who fail miserably. Sometimes taking down other people with them.
It's certainly possible to make valuable contributions without a formal education, but it's not the norm. If you look at the people who do it, they're almost all brilliant; humble, at least about their work; extensively, and widely, informally educated; and benefit from a lot of interaction with people who DO know something about the field.
Not having those things, at least to some degree, is the recipe for a crackpot.
To the submitter, computational neuroscience is still a nice field where somebody with some time, a willingness to learn, and a computer can make a contribution. Potentially a big contribution. Try to make contacts with academics. If you think you've got something, run it by the pros. As a masters student I shared an office with a neurosurgeon. I'd show him things I thought were awesome and he wouldn't think they were very useful. But a lot of the things I thought were trivial he'd get really excited about.
It was a bad idea for Windows to autoplay CDs and automatically run any attachment sent to you in an e-mail, because it can't sandbox apps in a foolproof way. Chrome can't sandbox webapps in a foolproof way either, so it's a bad idea to be able to run random programs by clicking on a link.
No it's not. Neutron bombs are specially made to have fairly low explosive yield but to spray neutrons everywhere. The idea is to kill off the populace via irradiation and leave the infrastructure reasonably intact.
A hydrogen bomb sucks up neutrons to make a big boom.
Ah, he won't. People who enjoy irrational fear don't really appreciate rational counterarguments.
Apologies again, I didn't notice that weilawei and you aren't the same poster.
Weilawei's post is correct (at least the part I read before the Latin put me to sleep) but it's WAY too complicated and intellectual. As you pointed out, he left the important bit until the end, by which time everyone had stopped reading. Sumdumass isn't likely to accept any argument against his position, but he's very unlikely to read all of weilawei's post.
Provided the stats are done correctly, the p-value you quote means that if you were to do that identical experiment a large number of times on two groups that were NOT different (two placebo groups, for example), you would expect to see a difference equal to or greater than the one you observed in 3% of the runs. Flipped around, if you take your results and proclaim they show a real effect, you have a 3% chance of being incorrect. I can't tell you what the chance of replication is because you haven't told me the value of beta, or equivalently, the power of your study.
What is a "precise" prediction? How do I know if I've made a precise prediction or not? If I say 53.183% of people who drink magic water will get better have I made a precise prediction?
I also do medical research. I'm not sure what kind you do, but mine is most definitely science and is all about testing people's theories, from "such and such a disease is caused by a malfunction in such and such a system" to "this drug will make people better in such and such a way."
I hate to tell you, but that diagnosis is seen by lots of people. Some who aren't overly useful. Being seen by one more who's job is to keep you from being poisoned is not an issue.
Privacy laws in Canada are generally more strict than US laws. Our medical information privacy laws are not an exception. Anyone who has access to that data has a legal responsibility to protect it. That includes physicians, nurses, clerks, pharmacists, whoever.
I don't know how things work in the US, but you don't show your prescription to the cashier in Canada.
My apologies. My objection should have been that your objections were listed backwards. I got tired of reading Latin before I got to the actually important part.
Slashdot Mirror
All those symbols is what's wrong with the Ruby. What does |user| mean?
Good teaching languages don't have a lot of symbols you have to remember. Personally, I think good working languages also use of arcane symbols only where absolutely required.
It's not the few at the top. It's the wages. Grocery clerks (zero education or experience required) make as much or more than grad students (minimum four years of post secondary, excellent performance through high school and undergrad). A good cashier (few years experience and the ability to count, sort of) likely makes more than a post doc (ten to twenty years post secondary, excellent performance). The manager makes as much as a professor will probably top out at. University administration is sometimes (but not always, and less and less now) promoted academic staff; that's where the money starts.
So in academia you work half your life to make as much as someone who can be trusted not to steal from the cash, and that's pretty much where you're almost certain to top out.
Sad that you'd look at, say, people working to advance human knowledge and cure diseases being treated like crap, say it's just like professional sports, and think that's okay.
But twice as much as a post doc.
Find a stream. Follow it downstream.
Actually, knowing the attention spans of undergrads, just wait until dark and then follow the orange glow.
Exactly. Most of the comments here are along the lines of "but what about in a disaster!??"
If you seriously want local emergency communication in a disaster you have a handheld radio, lots of batteries, and maybe a solar panel or crank to charge them with. If there were ever a serious emergency here I'd expect the power and phones to be down but I bet I could still get patched through to 911 over marine VHF.
Perhaps in your three or more decades of enjoying POTS your ears have deteriorated? My wireless call quality is lots better than I remember POTS being. I don't have a land line but I occasionally use them at work, and my parents' land lines are probably more analog than anywhere else. Skype running over 3G on my phone is generally indistinguishable from POTS.
I've heard the US has crappy cell service though. What's a dropped call? You mean when you get disconnected when you drive through a tunnel? POTS never did work in my car in tunnels either.
My phone (an iPhone) will happily last for a month on a charge if used purely for emergency communication, or a solid week if used sparingly (which I have done, on kayaking and sailing trips, checking and sending messages when I happened to get a sniff of signal). Yes, your cell phone is useless if you spend the hours after a disaster yakking with mom and playing candy crush. In that case consider it natural selection.
Anecdote to counter your anecdote:
I was visiting a friend in NY during Sandy. The power was out for two weeks. The phones were out for a couple of days. But the morning after the cable company vans were out, fixing lines. The first thing that came back was cable... not that anyone who didn't have a generator could actually use it.
It wouldn't be particularly hard to make a system that could run an emergency phone on the power provided by the wire.
Yeah, except that's not the case. In a disaster everybody suddenly wants to call Mom and tell her they're okay, and all the Moms want to call and make sure junior is okay. In a disaster all of a sudden the phone lines, cell and POTS, are jammed, and it's not people calling 911.
If you seriously wanted a reliable local call for help method you'd mandate a radio with two week battery wired into the mains in every home like a modern smoke detector. It would be cheaper for the end user, much more reliable and far easier to maintain. But nobody really cares about that.
Peer to peer IP isn't hard to do. In fact, it's kinda where this whole Internet thing started. In fact, if you didn't design it like a braindead idiot, an IP phone system would work WITHOUT the central office. Better than modern POTS, more like the old party line system.
And buried digital fibre optic is immune to storms, floods, solar flares, non-direct nukes, etc. Unlike analog copper.
Sure, because Google has demonstrated they do an excellent job of curating with the Play store.
Well, there are several translators for javascript from other languages. So it's sort of like a virtual machine. It just uses a really crappy machine language.
And a lot more who fail miserably. Sometimes taking down other people with them.
It's certainly possible to make valuable contributions without a formal education, but it's not the norm. If you look at the people who do it, they're almost all brilliant; humble, at least about their work; extensively, and widely, informally educated; and benefit from a lot of interaction with people who DO know something about the field.
Not having those things, at least to some degree, is the recipe for a crackpot.
To the submitter, computational neuroscience is still a nice field where somebody with some time, a willingness to learn, and a computer can make a contribution. Potentially a big contribution. Try to make contacts with academics. If you think you've got something, run it by the pros. As a masters student I shared an office with a neurosurgeon. I'd show him things I thought were awesome and he wouldn't think they were very useful. But a lot of the things I thought were trivial he'd get really excited about.
It was a bad idea for Windows to autoplay CDs and automatically run any attachment sent to you in an e-mail, because it can't sandbox apps in a foolproof way. Chrome can't sandbox webapps in a foolproof way either, so it's a bad idea to be able to run random programs by clicking on a link.
Yup. This sounds like an excellent reason not to use Chrome.
A huge glaring error! They can fix it as soon as they stop depicting Jesus as a white dude.
He was looking in the wrong place. They're in /Applications/$App.app.
No it's not. Neutron bombs are specially made to have fairly low explosive yield but to spray neutrons everywhere. The idea is to kill off the populace via irradiation and leave the infrastructure reasonably intact.
A hydrogen bomb sucks up neutrons to make a big boom.
Ah, he won't. People who enjoy irrational fear don't really appreciate rational counterarguments.
Apologies again, I didn't notice that weilawei and you aren't the same poster.
Weilawei's post is correct (at least the part I read before the Latin put me to sleep) but it's WAY too complicated and intellectual. As you pointed out, he left the important bit until the end, by which time everyone had stopped reading. Sumdumass isn't likely to accept any argument against his position, but he's very unlikely to read all of weilawei's post.
Provided the stats are done correctly, the p-value you quote means that if you were to do that identical experiment a large number of times on two groups that were NOT different (two placebo groups, for example), you would expect to see a difference equal to or greater than the one you observed in 3% of the runs. Flipped around, if you take your results and proclaim they show a real effect, you have a 3% chance of being incorrect. I can't tell you what the chance of replication is because you haven't told me the value of beta, or equivalently, the power of your study.
What is a "precise" prediction? How do I know if I've made a precise prediction or not? If I say 53.183% of people who drink magic water will get better have I made a precise prediction?
I also do medical research. I'm not sure what kind you do, but mine is most definitely science and is all about testing people's theories, from "such and such a disease is caused by a malfunction in such and such a system" to "this drug will make people better in such and such a way."
I hate to tell you, but that diagnosis is seen by lots of people. Some who aren't overly useful. Being seen by one more who's job is to keep you from being poisoned is not an issue.
Privacy laws in Canada are generally more strict than US laws. Our medical information privacy laws are not an exception. Anyone who has access to that data has a legal responsibility to protect it. That includes physicians, nurses, clerks, pharmacists, whoever.
I don't know how things work in the US, but you don't show your prescription to the cashier in Canada.
My apologies. My objection should have been that your objections were listed backwards. I got tired of reading Latin before I got to the actually important part.