Read more critically. The salmon paper was pointing out that if you do fMRI poorly, with half assed stats, you will get poor results. It is a tongue in cheek warning to neuroscientists who think that just because you can do fMRI analysis with the push of a button, you should.
fMRI, done properly by someone knows what they're doing, is a difficult, but reliable technique.
No, it isn't. It looks huge, but meningioma is rare so the increase is not that big in absolute terms, only in relative ones. It's a common trick in sensationalist reporting of medical study results.
No, he's not. You, and he, are making a difference of diffences error, which stems from the erroneous belief that "no statistically significant difference" means "no difference."
The GP is (mostly) correct, you need to know the two effect sizes (which depends on the difference of means and std errors for many tests) and construct confidence intervals or otherwise test to see if the one result is inconsistent with the other.
High tension lines... You know if you get too close to a high voltage DC line you get zapped too hey? The damage isn't from getting your atoms ionized, it's from all those electrons from the power line or antenna wanting to be in the ground and deciding your body is the best way to go. And the damage is thermal.
Actually, there's reasonably good evidence that low dose ionizing radiation, such as from normal or abut above normal background is good for you, and it doesn't do any good to make up facts.
Wait, you're complaining that this project is overhyped because it doesn't claim it will answer questions like what is dark matter or what happened before the big bang?
Why is it that everything has to be pitched as a new and better way to do advertising? Is it just because marketers have no imagination and all want to be the next Google, or is it that marketing has gotten so out of control that it wags the dog now? Maybe all the ad supported stuff on the Internet has allowed salesmen to finally take over the world.
"And the big problem with wifi that it does not work out of the box, you have to configure it for every computer and OS you have, and repeat the process after every big update, and if there are no problems it works."
Or you could use a real operating system. I configured my wifi router exactly once, and that was to enable security. Any new machine, including anybody who visits, needs the SSID and password. That's it.
Maybe you read a different bible... there was a lot of killing in all the ones I read. Including some of the particularly personal, pointless and mean variety. Also of the mass rape and slaughter kind.
The problem is that they found differing rates in the city and in the country. Assuming homosexuality is not a choice, which there's plenty of evidence to support, the rates should be similar no matter where you are. Which leads to the conclusion that the survey is not accurate in the city, the country, or both. Many census questions are not particularly accurate. It's very unlikely there is a significant percentage of practising Jedi in the UK, for example, although there are a fair number of people who will answer that as their religion on a census form. There is likely a wee bit more incentive to lie about your sexual partners on a survey than, for example, your gender. Especially in the rural US, apparently.
Also, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the survey actually asked if you'd had sex with a member of the same sex in the last year. There are lots of heterosexuals who haven't had sex with a member of the opposite sex in the last year... that doesn't make them gay.
So to summarize, the survey didn't ask the same question as the OP asserted it answered and the results strongly suggest a systematic bias.
So the actual result is "what proportion are willing to tell us they've had sex with someone of the same sex in the last year." Which is NOT the same as "what is the proportion of the population that is gay," which is what the OP was referring to.
"1 in 10 in the largest 5 cities, much lower in more sparsely populated areas."
That right there shoots a big hole in the survey. I suspect their results are more along the lines of "what proportion are willing to tell us they're gay" rather than "what proportion is gay."
"You cant lie with a man as you would with a woman, the holes dont line up."
I've never tried personally, but I'm told the problem is actually a missing hole.
"and for not stoning to death a disobedient daughter."
Now now, Leviticus, at least that part, is one of the few bits of the bible that aren't sexist. You were supposed to stone your disobedient son to death too.
"On the other hand, if you are interested in robots that scoot around on a smooth 2D surface and the only part of their behavior that interests you is how their communications with one another evolve, it's much more difficult to understand what you gain by actually building them."
How did you model their communications? Did you adequately model their movement? Do the assumptions you made modelling their movement affect the behaviour you're interested in? What else have you assumed without realizing it?
If you're only interested in how simulated robots behave, then go ahead and simulate them. If you want to say something that's applicable to the real world, which most people do, then you need to, at some point, make contact with that real world. I've done scientific simulations, and I've reviewed lots of other people's work involving them. The things people assume, usually without realizing it, in their simulations are incredible.
Using the MIT lying robots as an example, a simulation might easily ignore occultation, or incorrectly model the optical effect of several robots swarming together flashing their lights.
"My suspicion is that in many cases, these things are physically built because the researchers enjoy goofing off (and have access to money and cheap labor) and it makes for good press releases."
I guess you were never in grad school. You've got two to four years to finish your thesis, and your supervisor is on your ass to produce some papers. You'd LOVE to just spend the weekend writing some simulation code, type it up and submit, then go drinking, but the reviewers reject your paper because they've already seen a dozen shoddily built simulations that morning. So your supervisor tells you to get off your lazy ass, write some code to run the swarm of mainly undocumented robots the last grad student built out of spare parts lying around the lab, and see if your simulation results survive first contact with the enemy (reality).
"Why doesn't the government include this information--how happy is this chocolate cake going to make me?"
Because you're in a better position to measure how happy chocolate cake makes you, while the people that made the cake are in a better position to measure the number of calories in it?
They're glasses. The screen is backlit... by the SUN! The screen will use a fraction of what backlit screens in other devices do, and no problems with brightness (unless you're in the dark). Powering the CPU might be a bit of a problem, but it will probably just be your smart phone with a wireless link to your glasses, which are the display. You'd probably come out ahead on battery life.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read the article? KF airfoils are not efficient.
Where would they get three sheets? They're at least one mast short of a full ship.
Read more critically. The salmon paper was pointing out that if you do fMRI poorly, with half assed stats, you will get poor results. It is a tongue in cheek warning to neuroscientists who think that just because you can do fMRI analysis with the push of a button, you should.
fMRI, done properly by someone knows what they're doing, is a difficult, but reliable technique.
Go to a library is not a workaround suggestion. Neither is use Google Scholar.
No, it isn't. It looks huge, but meningioma is rare so the increase is not that big in absolute terms, only in relative ones. It's a common trick in sensationalist reporting of medical study results.
No, he's not. You, and he, are making a difference of diffences error, which stems from the erroneous belief that "no statistically significant difference" means "no difference."
The GP is (mostly) correct, you need to know the two effect sizes (which depends on the difference of means and std errors for many tests) and construct confidence intervals or otherwise test to see if the one result is inconsistent with the other.
High tension lines... You know if you get too close to a high voltage DC line you get zapped too hey? The damage isn't from getting your atoms ionized, it's from all those electrons from the power line or antenna wanting to be in the ground and deciding your body is the best way to go. And the damage is thermal.
Actually, there's reasonably good evidence that low dose ionizing radiation, such as from normal or abut above normal background is good for you, and it doesn't do any good to make up facts.
They leave with the stuff they were working on because it's theirs. They also share it with the world because that's what academia does.
Wait, you're complaining that this project is overhyped because it doesn't claim it will answer questions like what is dark matter or what happened before the big bang?
Why is it that everything has to be pitched as a new and better way to do advertising? Is it just because marketers have no imagination and all want to be the next Google, or is it that marketing has gotten so out of control that it wags the dog now? Maybe all the ad supported stuff on the Internet has allowed salesmen to finally take over the world.
"And the big problem with wifi that it does not work out of the box, you have to configure it for every computer and OS you have, and repeat the process after every big update, and if there are no problems it works."
Or you could use a real operating system. I configured my wifi router exactly once, and that was to enable security. Any new machine, including anybody who visits, needs the SSID and password. That's it.
Have you actually used wifi since the 90s?
Maybe you read a different bible... there was a lot of killing in all the ones I read. Including some of the particularly personal, pointless and mean variety. Also of the mass rape and slaughter kind.
The problem is that they found differing rates in the city and in the country. Assuming homosexuality is not a choice, which there's plenty of evidence to support, the rates should be similar no matter where you are. Which leads to the conclusion that the survey is not accurate in the city, the country, or both. Many census questions are not particularly accurate. It's very unlikely there is a significant percentage of practising Jedi in the UK, for example, although there are a fair number of people who will answer that as their religion on a census form. There is likely a wee bit more incentive to lie about your sexual partners on a survey than, for example, your gender. Especially in the rural US, apparently.
Also, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the survey actually asked if you'd had sex with a member of the same sex in the last year. There are lots of heterosexuals who haven't had sex with a member of the opposite sex in the last year... that doesn't make them gay.
So to summarize, the survey didn't ask the same question as the OP asserted it answered and the results strongly suggest a systematic bias.
So the solution is a proper application of probability theory. Probability theory didn't fail. We failed to use it.
Either there's an error in translation or the MIT trained nuclear engineer has forgotten what probability theory is.
Having multiple means of cooling a reactor sounds like a good idea, but that will only reduce the probability of disaster.
So the actual result is "what proportion are willing to tell us they've had sex with someone of the same sex in the last year." Which is NOT the same as "what is the proportion of the population that is gay," which is what the OP was referring to.
"There are hundreds of things in these games which are not compatible with the book of lord. Killing people every minute, mystery forces and so on."
Aren't you going to tell us which parts of the game aren't compatible with the bible?
"1 in 10 in the largest 5 cities, much lower in more sparsely populated areas."
That right there shoots a big hole in the survey. I suspect their results are more along the lines of "what proportion are willing to tell us they're gay" rather than "what proportion is gay."
"You cant lie with a man as you would with a woman, the holes dont line up."
I've never tried personally, but I'm told the problem is actually a missing hole.
"and for not stoning to death a disobedient daughter."
Now now, Leviticus, at least that part, is one of the few bits of the bible that aren't sexist. You were supposed to stone your disobedient son to death too.
"On the other hand, if you are interested in robots that scoot around on a smooth 2D surface and the only part of their behavior that interests you is how their communications with one another evolve, it's much more difficult to understand what you gain by actually building them."
How did you model their communications? Did you adequately model their movement? Do the assumptions you made modelling their movement affect the behaviour you're interested in? What else have you assumed without realizing it?
If you're only interested in how simulated robots behave, then go ahead and simulate them. If you want to say something that's applicable to the real world, which most people do, then you need to, at some point, make contact with that real world. I've done scientific simulations, and I've reviewed lots of other people's work involving them. The things people assume, usually without realizing it, in their simulations are incredible.
Using the MIT lying robots as an example, a simulation might easily ignore occultation, or incorrectly model the optical effect of several robots swarming together flashing their lights.
"My suspicion is that in many cases, these things are physically built because the researchers enjoy goofing off (and have access to money and cheap labor) and it makes for good press releases."
I guess you were never in grad school. You've got two to four years to finish your thesis, and your supervisor is on your ass to produce some papers. You'd LOVE to just spend the weekend writing some simulation code, type it up and submit, then go drinking, but the reviewers reject your paper because they've already seen a dozen shoddily built simulations that morning. So your supervisor tells you to get off your lazy ass, write some code to run the swarm of mainly undocumented robots the last grad student built out of spare parts lying around the lab, and see if your simulation results survive first contact with the enemy (reality).
"Why doesn't the government include this information--how happy is this chocolate cake going to make me?"
Because you're in a better position to measure how happy chocolate cake makes you, while the people that made the cake are in a better position to measure the number of calories in it?
Pity about the empty margarita glasses. I usually go with scotch, and the glass isn't empty for long.
They're glasses. The screen is backlit... by the SUN! The screen will use a fraction of what backlit screens in other devices do, and no problems with brightness (unless you're in the dark). Powering the CPU might be a bit of a problem, but it will probably just be your smart phone with a wireless link to your glasses, which are the display. You'd probably come out ahead on battery life.
I THOUGHT that guy got up, made coffee, then went to meet his friend. At 2 pm.