Drug companies don't share their raw data. It's illegal for them to do so because it involves human subjects. Their raw data is archived for potential review by official organizations if there's a problem, but never for release to the public. They certainly don't share the minutiae of interoffice e-mails, except in extraordinary circumstances.
Meh. If a lot of innocent people wasted years of their PhD training trying to replicate his fraudulent results it just indicates that they and their supervisors were suffering from hero worship. If nobody can duplicate someone's results then it's time to stop trying.
You point out a problem, all right, but it's not with the inadequacy of the system. It's with the hero worship common in some fields. If so and so said it, it must be right. If it's published in Nature or Science, it must be right. EVERY scientific paper is a report of what someone did (or says he did) and some rambling about what he thinks it means. It might be right, it might be (honestly) wrong and it might be made up.
You probably also only commute a few km, on mostly flat ground, at 20 km/h or less, on well maintained paths that aren't subject to hard frequent freeze thaw cycles so don't have lots of potholes.
You can't compare places like the Netherlands to ones like Australia and North America. The type of biking is different.
The OP is absolutely correct. Statistics only works if you have an unbiased sample. If you're up against smart fraudsters they'll cook the numbers to satisfy these statistical tests. Fortunately, most election riggers don't really care if people suspect they rigged the election.
Wait, your position is that Beck has a radio show that features him saying things in jest, for entertainment, and that he shouldn't be taken seriously, but that it's flamebait to call him a clown?
The ice is very unlikely to be just sitting on the surface. The moon is basically covered in unimaginably fine dust that gets onto everything. The ice would be old, and almost certainly covered in dust. Plus it's dark. Finally, why would you need a colour camera to tell the difference between "white" and "dark"?
If there is a minority (ethnic or otherwise) with interests differing from that of the majority, that minority may be underrepresented in representative systems. If the minority happens to be geographically localized, drawing electoral boundaries appropriately can restore them to a proportionate amount of political power.
The OP possibly could have chosen his words better, but I don't think he meant any harm.
Battleship shells still have to penetrate battleship armour kinetically when they arrive. They're designed to explode inside the target. Neglecting air resistance, an object travels at the same speed at the end of a ballistic trajectory as it does at the beginning. With air resistance, somewhat slower. A 200 nm ballistic trajectory would deliver a projectile with more speed than a flat trajectory, if such a thing were possible. The ballistic shell will spend much of it's time in thinner air at high altitude while the direct one would have to plow through sea level air the whole way.
You can't hit an object 20 miles away surface to surface by firing in a straight line either, and yet battleships have been hitting each other for a hundred years.
Yes, the high velocity lets you toss something on a ballistic flight 220 miles in the first place, and the thing arrives at it's target with quite a bit of that speed.
If you want it to stay in space it needs a rocket engine. Launching rockets off rail guns is a bit more complicated than launching pointy bits of metal.
Admission to the London Eye is about 20 GBP, which is around $32 US. That's for a 30 minute ride, or just over $1 per minute. If the one in New York is any more expensive (which it might well be, at least at first) it could well be over $12 per nine minutes, and will definitely be more than $12 per ride.
What society in it's right mind would support the hyper sexism you're talking about? Not mine, fortunately. We have lots of male teachers. Excellent ones.
Re:it already is socially unacceptable
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
Actually, making murder socially unacceptable cuts down on it a lot. There are more murders in cultures where murder is seen as a right or a responsibility (for example, honour killings) even if those murders are contrary to the law. However, you will note that my sentence was "identify sexism and racism, of any type, when they happen, and stop them." Certainly sexism and racism are crimes and should be punished as such. However, as the RIAA has discovered, enacting laws doesn't get you much unless society agrees with those laws.
Progressive taxation is NOT the same thing as affirmative action or "corrective" hiring. Progressive taxation asks people who can afford more to pay proportionally more, to support society. Discriminatory hiring requires that you base your hiring practices on people's race or sex FIRST, and their qualifications SECOND. That IS discriminatory, no matter which way around it is. It's a crappy solution.
Sorry, I have suggested an actual solution to discrimination - punish it when it happens, and convince most people that it's wrong. The US civil rights movement and women's rights movements didn't enact laws, they convinced people, THEN laws were enacted.
What do you want? An equation? You're the one making unfounded statements ("this is a load of crap", "X Y and Z are real world concrete solutions", "what you have written as a solution is a political paean"). It sounds to me like your'e the one who buys into the political "[forced] equality at any cost" (including rampant discrimination) motto.
Re:i never understood this thinking
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
You are correct, I should have been a little more careful in my definition. Yours isn't great either though.
I don't understand the rest of your post. Perhaps you should focus less on the profanity and more on clarifying your pronouns? Affirmative action, quota hiring and scholarships that are only available to X ethinic group or Y sex are discriminatory no matter what X and Y are. Allowing, even encouraging, these policies is NOT making sexism or racism socially unacceptable. Just the opposite.
Re:i never understood this thinking
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
Yeah right. If someone applies for a job he or she really wants, and doesn't get it because the employer has to fill a quota of women, or ethnic minorities, or doesn't hire women because they're prone to hysterics, that person is going to be angry. If he was prejudiced to start with he's going to be a die hard bigot afterwards. If she was non-sex/racist to begin with, she'll likely be at least a little anti-whatever afterwards.
Prejudice, especially socially accepted and officially sanctioned prejudice reinforces itself and breeds more.
Re:It's not about education, it's about credential
on
The Rage For MOOCs
·
· Score: 1
I didn't mention confirmation bias. Perhaps you're demonstrating a little of what I was talking about. When presented with evidence contrary to your beliefs, unless it's correct interpretation is pressed upon you (which is not enjoyable) you bend it to support (or at least not contradict) what you believe.
You think there's a directive women read (and abide by) that says women should make less?
Re:More bias from women against pay
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 2
Yes, but women didn't offer (significantly) lower salaries. They offered women lower salaries.
Re:i never understood this thinking
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Sexism and racism are making decisions based on someone's sex. Affirmative action IS racism. Female only scholarships and discriminatory hiring practices ARE sexism.
You're right, all those can be effective at doing things like evening out the demographics in a particular job. The people for whom they're "a giant brainfuck" are not convinced that correcting metrics, treating the symptoms, at the expense of more, overt, blatant, sanctioned racism/sexism is the way to go. In fact, it seems like they may have a point - discriminatory practices tend to have the effect of encouraging more discrimination. "She only got the job because she's a woman and they had to hire her" and the like.
A better approach is to actually address the problem. Identify sexism and racism, of any type, when they happen, and stop them. Make such things socially unacceptable. THAT's how you eliminate discrimination.
Yes, kids do need male role models. The ultra extreme sexism you identified doesn't change that one bit.
Re:It's not about education, it's about credential
on
The Rage For MOOCs
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely. Learning is much easier if your taught, and even easier if you're taught well. Teaching, particularly good teaching, is a service that is limited in supply and I think it should be reserved for people who want to learn. Free education for all (books, videos, etc.) and someone to spend their time helping you do it for those who are willing to put some effort into it. Education should absolutely be publicly funded but should not be free.
Everyone does not like learning. Yes, it's incredible to me too, but it seems to be true. Actual scientific studies have shown that the average (adult) person much prefers "learning" things he already "knows" (believes, rather) to learning things he does not. People like watching videos online and saying "ah yes, that confirms what I already knew." Videos that do that, or are designed so that the watcher can *think* they do that, are popular. Videos that challenge incorrect beliefs and confirm that the watcher actually learned something are not.
Learning is hard. Most people prefer not to do it unless they have a very strong motivation to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Drug companies don't share their raw data. It's illegal for them to do so because it involves human subjects. Their raw data is archived for potential review by official organizations if there's a problem, but never for release to the public. They certainly don't share the minutiae of interoffice e-mails, except in extraordinary circumstances.
What a stupid statement. I bought a product from whatever company you work for. I get to see all your e-mail and other documents now, right?
Meh. If a lot of innocent people wasted years of their PhD training trying to replicate his fraudulent results it just indicates that they and their supervisors were suffering from hero worship. If nobody can duplicate someone's results then it's time to stop trying.
You point out a problem, all right, but it's not with the inadequacy of the system. It's with the hero worship common in some fields. If so and so said it, it must be right. If it's published in Nature or Science, it must be right. EVERY scientific paper is a report of what someone did (or says he did) and some rambling about what he thinks it means. It might be right, it might be (honestly) wrong and it might be made up.
You probably also only commute a few km, on mostly flat ground, at 20 km/h or less, on well maintained paths that aren't subject to hard frequent freeze thaw cycles so don't have lots of potholes.
You can't compare places like the Netherlands to ones like Australia and North America. The type of biking is different.
I've never heard anyone pronounce it with an s (like sibilant). It's always with a z (like zip). I suppose some people might do so though.
No, you replied to him.
The OP is absolutely correct. Statistics only works if you have an unbiased sample. If you're up against smart fraudsters they'll cook the numbers to satisfy these statistical tests. Fortunately, most election riggers don't really care if people suspect they rigged the election.
Wait, your position is that Beck has a radio show that features him saying things in jest, for entertainment, and that he shouldn't be taken seriously, but that it's flamebait to call him a clown?
The ice is very unlikely to be just sitting on the surface. The moon is basically covered in unimaginably fine dust that gets onto everything. The ice would be old, and almost certainly covered in dust. Plus it's dark. Finally, why would you need a colour camera to tell the difference between "white" and "dark"?
Pee NAZ, usually. Not Pee NIS, as you're evidently thinking. Not that A and I ever sound remotely like each other.
If there is a minority (ethnic or otherwise) with interests differing from that of the majority, that minority may be underrepresented in representative systems. If the minority happens to be geographically localized, drawing electoral boundaries appropriately can restore them to a proportionate amount of political power.
The OP possibly could have chosen his words better, but I don't think he meant any harm.
Battleship shells still have to penetrate battleship armour kinetically when they arrive. They're designed to explode inside the target. Neglecting air resistance, an object travels at the same speed at the end of a ballistic trajectory as it does at the beginning. With air resistance, somewhat slower. A 200 nm ballistic trajectory would deliver a projectile with more speed than a flat trajectory, if such a thing were possible. The ballistic shell will spend much of it's time in thinner air at high altitude while the direct one would have to plow through sea level air the whole way.
You can't hit an object 20 miles away surface to surface by firing in a straight line either, and yet battleships have been hitting each other for a hundred years.
Yes, the high velocity lets you toss something on a ballistic flight 220 miles in the first place, and the thing arrives at it's target with quite a bit of that speed.
If you want it to stay in space it needs a rocket engine. Launching rockets off rail guns is a bit more complicated than launching pointy bits of metal.
Admission to the London Eye is about 20 GBP, which is around $32 US. That's for a 30 minute ride, or just over $1 per minute. If the one in New York is any more expensive (which it might well be, at least at first) it could well be over $12 per nine minutes, and will definitely be more than $12 per ride.
What society in it's right mind would support the hyper sexism you're talking about? Not mine, fortunately. We have lots of male teachers. Excellent ones.
Actually, making murder socially unacceptable cuts down on it a lot. There are more murders in cultures where murder is seen as a right or a responsibility (for example, honour killings) even if those murders are contrary to the law. However, you will note that my sentence was "identify sexism and racism, of any type, when they happen, and stop them." Certainly sexism and racism are crimes and should be punished as such. However, as the RIAA has discovered, enacting laws doesn't get you much unless society agrees with those laws.
Progressive taxation is NOT the same thing as affirmative action or "corrective" hiring. Progressive taxation asks people who can afford more to pay proportionally more, to support society. Discriminatory hiring requires that you base your hiring practices on people's race or sex FIRST, and their qualifications SECOND. That IS discriminatory, no matter which way around it is. It's a crappy solution.
Sorry, I have suggested an actual solution to discrimination - punish it when it happens, and convince most people that it's wrong. The US civil rights movement and women's rights movements didn't enact laws, they convinced people, THEN laws were enacted.
What do you want? An equation? You're the one making unfounded statements ("this is a load of crap", "X Y and Z are real world concrete solutions", "what you have written as a solution is a political paean"). It sounds to me like your'e the one who buys into the political "[forced] equality at any cost" (including rampant discrimination) motto.
You are correct, I should have been a little more careful in my definition. Yours isn't great either though.
I don't understand the rest of your post. Perhaps you should focus less on the profanity and more on clarifying your pronouns? Affirmative action, quota hiring and scholarships that are only available to X ethinic group or Y sex are discriminatory no matter what X and Y are. Allowing, even encouraging, these policies is NOT making sexism or racism socially unacceptable. Just the opposite.
Yeah right. If someone applies for a job he or she really wants, and doesn't get it because the employer has to fill a quota of women, or ethnic minorities, or doesn't hire women because they're prone to hysterics, that person is going to be angry. If he was prejudiced to start with he's going to be a die hard bigot afterwards. If she was non-sex/racist to begin with, she'll likely be at least a little anti-whatever afterwards.
Prejudice, especially socially accepted and officially sanctioned prejudice reinforces itself and breeds more.
I didn't mention confirmation bias. Perhaps you're demonstrating a little of what I was talking about. When presented with evidence contrary to your beliefs, unless it's correct interpretation is pressed upon you (which is not enjoyable) you bend it to support (or at least not contradict) what you believe.
You think there's a directive women read (and abide by) that says women should make less?
Yes, but women didn't offer (significantly) lower salaries. They offered women lower salaries.
Sexism and racism are making decisions based on someone's sex. Affirmative action IS racism. Female only scholarships and discriminatory hiring practices ARE sexism.
You're right, all those can be effective at doing things like evening out the demographics in a particular job. The people for whom they're "a giant brainfuck" are not convinced that correcting metrics, treating the symptoms, at the expense of more, overt, blatant, sanctioned racism/sexism is the way to go. In fact, it seems like they may have a point - discriminatory practices tend to have the effect of encouraging more discrimination. "She only got the job because she's a woman and they had to hire her" and the like.
A better approach is to actually address the problem. Identify sexism and racism, of any type, when they happen, and stop them. Make such things socially unacceptable. THAT's how you eliminate discrimination.
Sexism is tough to stop. Even the extreme ruin-your-life sexism rampant in this particular area.
Yes, kids do need male role models. The ultra extreme sexism you identified doesn't change that one bit.
Absolutely. Learning is much easier if your taught, and even easier if you're taught well. Teaching, particularly good teaching, is a service that is limited in supply and I think it should be reserved for people who want to learn. Free education for all (books, videos, etc.) and someone to spend their time helping you do it for those who are willing to put some effort into it. Education should absolutely be publicly funded but should not be free.
Everyone does not like learning. Yes, it's incredible to me too, but it seems to be true. Actual scientific studies have shown that the average (adult) person much prefers "learning" things he already "knows" (believes, rather) to learning things he does not. People like watching videos online and saying "ah yes, that confirms what I already knew." Videos that do that, or are designed so that the watcher can *think* they do that, are popular. Videos that challenge incorrect beliefs and confirm that the watcher actually learned something are not.
Learning is hard. Most people prefer not to do it unless they have a very strong motivation to do so.