The census data is public. If enough people put down "Jedi" to make a difference to the "Most Australians are religious" argument, someone is going to dig up exactly what those religions are and make the argument look completely ridiculous.
I don't see the problem. Religion should be a subject you learn about in school. So much the better if Jediism and FSMism are big enough to be included.
The problem with what you linked to is just one phrase: "primarily Christian."
(religion, ie Christianity, was an optional hour a week for a month subject when I was in elementary school. I had great fun asking the priest interesting questions. He had less fun trying to answer them. )
Assuming you're from the UK because of the word choices, pseudoephedrine incompletely illegal there. The chemist gave me a good long look when I went in and asked for it.
The other day a coworker walked in to ask me what I use as my browser. I said Safari. He asked why not Chrome. I told him I had Chrome installed, and used it occasionally. I couldn't remember exactly why I prefer Safari, so I started both of them up. Safari was done launching in a couple of seconds, almost before I had time to click on Chrome. We continued our discussion of why I don't use Chrome while waiting for it to launch.
Checking the.app size... Safari is 35 MB, Chrome is about a quarter of a gig.
My phone cost about a day's pay more than yours and let's me work from anywhere I want, so I can take off on what would be a normal workday and be outside instead of in a windowless office in the third basement.
And by the way, kids consider constant connection to Facebook "a real life."
Sure, all the time. Fines only work when you get one (or more). So an effective fine has to cost enough that it's unpleasant, and be administered reliably enough that it's a deterrent. There are a lot of conditioning experiments dealing with the required frequency and consistency of reinforcement.
The existing laws are probably pretty much unenforceable at the required level, and no-hands-free laws would certainly be. We'd be much better off to train drivers to recognize and deal with distractions and just enforce existing dangerous driving laws.
The results are interesting, but they didn't actually attempt to measure whether the driver was distracted or driving performance suffered, and they didn't compare to other *acceptable* in-car distractions to determine whether any increases in distraction were unacceptable or not. Also, the results don't apply to people we accept in cars all the time - passengers in the back seats, children and people with poor eyesight.
Next time your boss comes by to ask you what you're working on or how it's going, tell him to piss off, you'll get back to him whenever you've got it done.
The LHC is built, but it requires funding every year to run, and most people who have any interest at all like to get a progress report every once in a while. And since you seem to be fixating on the "and by the way" from the press conference, the main announcement was that they've ruled out all but one energy range.
Oh, I see what you're getting at. You're taking his hyperbolic following distances literally. Very few regular drivers could maintain a following distance of three feet on a track, never mind in traffic. You're technically right, if you use those distances and assume a panic braking situation, reaction time would probably have you crashing into the driver ahead at both those distances. Of course, the speed differential in either case would be small enough that it's unlikely either of you would be hurt. In the situations where the driver ahead slows down without jamming full on his brakes and holding them there until he's stopped, you'll be able to avoid the collision entirely more often at the greater following distance. Not to mention having more chance to steer to avoid a collision you couldn't by braking alone.
Quit trying to be clever and leave adequate following distance.
Children don't. Passengers who don't "scan for road hazards" don't. Passengers in the back seat usually don't.
Places that have graded licenses generally restrict the number of passengers in a car driven by an non-fully qualified driver. But as you gain experience, you're supposed to gain the ability to deal with distractions, and the judgement to know when you need to remove some of them. We need to enforce driver responsibility and proper training, not arbitrary bans on some things and not others.
Apparently the problem is sound, so mesh isn't going to do it. You're going to need a sound proof (and better make it opaque while you're at it) barrier if you want to carry children in the car. And better make your wife sit in the back seat if she likes to talk too.
Because at some point while you're driving, you WILL be distracted. It might be while you're talking to a passenger, or fiddling with the radio, or when you have kids and they're crying/screaming/fighting/whining in the back seat. You SHOULD be able to deal with those distractions in order to be allowed to drive. Pilots are taught to fly and talk and do several other things at the same time.
I hate to tell you, but if you don't use statistics you're not doing quantitative science (or even qualitative, most of the time). What you're doing is referred to in the business as "stamp collecting."
You can lie about statistics, just like anything else. But statistics itself doesn't lie, if done properly. And you can tell when it's done properly.
You're accusing the GP of the cardinal sin of drawing conclusions from qualitative inspection of the data. But what he's doing is eyeballing the data to see if it, in broad strokes, supports the conclusions drawn.
I only looked at it briefly, but.... The paper has some pretty weird elements. They considered p0.1 significant (!?). Basically all their p-values are so much el toro poo poo anyway because they've done zillions of tests and haven't made any corrections for multiple comparisons.
Their experimental design (such as it is - at the end they thank a statistics class for suggesting comparisons they could do) seems to be aimed at showing that the observed gap between girls' and boys' math test scores is correlated with various measures of gender equality, with samples taken from a variety of countries. Some of their plethora of tests suggest this is indeed the case (not surprising). From this they suggest (they do not conclude, as the Slashdot summary suggests) that there is no real gap between boys' and girls' scores that isn't explained by equality differences. They also say that their data is not consistent with the increased variability in men hypothesis.
Now, even if your p-values are valid, a non-significant p-value isn't a negative result (I know everyone seems to think it is). It's an inconclusive one. If you want to get an actual negative result you have to calculate confidence intervals on the observed effect and show that it's confidently less than some pre-chosen significant value. Very few people do this. These guys certainly haven't.
Their data DOES look to be consistent with the hypothesis that men and women have similar mean abilities in math but men show greater variability (the variability ratios they measured were greater than one in almost every case).
Slashdot Mirror
Depends. What's it do the other 8% of the time?
PS: Don't encourage the loons.
Of course there is. It's a fairly fractured church though - nobody can agree on whether the universal FSM is deterministic or not.
Pastafarians? Definitely keep those dirty heretics out. I hear they wash with pasta water. How unhygienic! Burn them all!
The census data is public. If enough people put down "Jedi" to make a difference to the "Most Australians are religious" argument, someone is going to dig up exactly what those religions are and make the argument look completely ridiculous.
Either it changed since 2005 or your chemists lie then.
There's not so much VOR or LORAN on the Afghanistan-Iran border. Inertial is doable, but it needs to be corrected periodically... Usually using GPS.
I don't see the problem. Religion should be a subject you learn about in school. So much the better if Jediism and FSMism are big enough to be included.
The problem with what you linked to is just one phrase: "primarily Christian."
(religion, ie Christianity, was an optional hour a week for a month subject when I was in elementary school. I had great fun asking the priest interesting questions. He had less fun trying to answer them. )
Money. The Jedi don't have it.
I remember when my dad first saw me walk into the house a bloody mess and clean myself up, no crying, no help. He was so proud. I think I was six.
Assuming you're from the UK because of the word choices, pseudoephedrine incompletely illegal there. The chemist gave me a good long look when I went in and asked for it.
Yup. Strange it's so much bigger. Maybe google just wants to keep up with Firefox in the crappiness of their OS X port.
Ah, that's why Firefox is so slow but everyone insists it's not that bad. They're all Windows users!
Hm. So the browser runs under the OS, and the web app runs under the browser... we're screwed.
The other day a coworker walked in to ask me what I use as my browser. I said Safari. He asked why not Chrome. I told him I had Chrome installed, and used it occasionally. I couldn't remember exactly why I prefer Safari, so I started both of them up. Safari was done launching in a couple of seconds, almost before I had time to click on Chrome. We continued our discussion of why I don't use Chrome while waiting for it to launch.
Checking the .app size... Safari is 35 MB, Chrome is about a quarter of a gig.
Just because Chrome is bloated too doesn't mean Firefox isn't.
My phone cost about a day's pay more than yours and let's me work from anywhere I want, so I can take off on what would be a normal workday and be outside instead of in a windowless office in the third basement.
And by the way, kids consider constant connection to Facebook "a real life."
Sure, all the time. Fines only work when you get one (or more). So an effective fine has to cost enough that it's unpleasant, and be administered reliably enough that it's a deterrent. There are a lot of conditioning experiments dealing with the required frequency and consistency of reinforcement.
The existing laws are probably pretty much unenforceable at the required level, and no-hands-free laws would certainly be. We'd be much better off to train drivers to recognize and deal with distractions and just enforce existing dangerous driving laws.
The results are interesting, but they didn't actually attempt to measure whether the driver was distracted or driving performance suffered, and they didn't compare to other *acceptable* in-car distractions to determine whether any increases in distraction were unacceptable or not. Also, the results don't apply to people we accept in cars all the time - passengers in the back seats, children and people with poor eyesight.
Next time your boss comes by to ask you what you're working on or how it's going, tell him to piss off, you'll get back to him whenever you've got it done.
The LHC is built, but it requires funding every year to run, and most people who have any interest at all like to get a progress report every once in a while. And since you seem to be fixating on the "and by the way" from the press conference, the main announcement was that they've ruled out all but one energy range.
Oh, I see what you're getting at. You're taking his hyperbolic following distances literally. Very few regular drivers could maintain a following distance of three feet on a track, never mind in traffic. You're technically right, if you use those distances and assume a panic braking situation, reaction time would probably have you crashing into the driver ahead at both those distances. Of course, the speed differential in either case would be small enough that it's unlikely either of you would be hurt. In the situations where the driver ahead slows down without jamming full on his brakes and holding them there until he's stopped, you'll be able to avoid the collision entirely more often at the greater following distance. Not to mention having more chance to steer to avoid a collision you couldn't by braking alone.
Quit trying to be clever and leave adequate following distance.
Children don't. Passengers who don't "scan for road hazards" don't. Passengers in the back seat usually don't.
Places that have graded licenses generally restrict the number of passengers in a car driven by an non-fully qualified driver. But as you gain experience, you're supposed to gain the ability to deal with distractions, and the judgement to know when you need to remove some of them. We need to enforce driver responsibility and proper training, not arbitrary bans on some things and not others.
Apparently the problem is sound, so mesh isn't going to do it. You're going to need a sound proof (and better make it opaque while you're at it) barrier if you want to carry children in the car. And better make your wife sit in the back seat if she likes to talk too.
Because at some point while you're driving, you WILL be distracted. It might be while you're talking to a passenger, or fiddling with the radio, or when you have kids and they're crying/screaming/fighting/whining in the back seat. You SHOULD be able to deal with those distractions in order to be allowed to drive. Pilots are taught to fly and talk and do several other things at the same time.
I hate to tell you, but if you don't use statistics you're not doing quantitative science (or even qualitative, most of the time). What you're doing is referred to in the business as "stamp collecting."
You can lie about statistics, just like anything else. But statistics itself doesn't lie, if done properly. And you can tell when it's done properly.
That there is a difference cannot be a null hypothesis. But yes, showing there is no difference is tricky. And they certainly don't do it.
You're accusing the GP of the cardinal sin of drawing conclusions from qualitative inspection of the data. But what he's doing is eyeballing the data to see if it, in broad strokes, supports the conclusions drawn.
I only looked at it briefly, but.... The paper has some pretty weird elements. They considered p0.1 significant (!?). Basically all their p-values are so much el toro poo poo anyway because they've done zillions of tests and haven't made any corrections for multiple comparisons.
Their experimental design (such as it is - at the end they thank a statistics class for suggesting comparisons they could do) seems to be aimed at showing that the observed gap between girls' and boys' math test scores is correlated with various measures of gender equality, with samples taken from a variety of countries. Some of their plethora of tests suggest this is indeed the case (not surprising). From this they suggest (they do not conclude, as the Slashdot summary suggests) that there is no real gap between boys' and girls' scores that isn't explained by equality differences. They also say that their data is not consistent with the increased variability in men hypothesis.
Now, even if your p-values are valid, a non-significant p-value isn't a negative result (I know everyone seems to think it is). It's an inconclusive one. If you want to get an actual negative result you have to calculate confidence intervals on the observed effect and show that it's confidently less than some pre-chosen significant value. Very few people do this. These guys certainly haven't.
Their data DOES look to be consistent with the hypothesis that men and women have similar mean abilities in math but men show greater variability (the variability ratios they measured were greater than one in almost every case).