No, not for years now. I used to be in a position to dabble, and used to watch people dabble. But there was a nice long hall for them to walk down, and a bunch of people down that hall who didn't dabble in the sense that they actually knew what they were doing.
The dabblers plugged numbers into a T-test. And if they saw something cool they took it down the hall. But I know that some of them would see something that was basically crap and massage it until it looked significant. The low paid ones would then take that down the hall and (generally) get sent back to the drawing board.
Of the really well paid ones, some would go straight down the hall, and some would delay, but most would ultimately talk with someone about the numbers before attempting publishing and quietly decide to change a study or stick a paper under the rug. The ones who didn't were a problem, and if they didn't behave well in that way, they typically didn't behave well in a lot of other ways, too. Academia has a good number of crazy people.
I once saw one get bounced out of a position for fudging numbers. The charge was scientific fraud. That was a very happy day for everyone on the hall -- Not just because the vast majority of people want to see good work done, but because a person who want his or her work published even KNOWING that it's bogus tend also to be awful human beings all around.
When you know, and you still go forward, you're a jerk, and people know it -- they enjoy skewering you. When you don't know your conclusion is wrong, then there's a culture and collaboration problem. We celebrate the scientists who get caught faking breast cancer data or cloning data or vaccines vs. autism data (Jerks) but I think the spate of reports we've seen recently really underlines the fact that they're a smaller problem on the whole then the pleasant people who are working in an environment with a culture problem.
I suspect (strongly) that if you have a 3% edge over everyone else, you'll still lose at the lottery. I think the odds in the lottery are so badly kiltered against you that even a real, solid 3% edge would leave you a loser.
That's NOT true of any casino games. Take 3% to a casino and you'd leave a millionaire in short order. (No, wait. Actually you'd get bounced in short order and barred from the casino.)
Dabbling is fine when the results are good. He had 53%. If he'd had 65%, dabbling would have worked. But dabbling is just the start, and that's not just the nature of peer review, it's the nature of collaboration and a University setting. You find something neat by dabbling, and you walk down the hall to visit someone with more stats experience to get some clarity before you publish.
He had 53%. He knew that if he walked down the hall, he'd get told he had squat. So he didn't walk down the hall.
There's dabble initially, and that's fine. And there's dabbling (ONLY) and calling it done. That's not.
Seems like the paper was written by a dabbler, then reviewed by a respected team of dabblers. And not one of them looked at 53% and walked down the hall. Bubbleheads.
"Since the introduction of metal detectors in the 1970s, technologies have been bought and cobbled together in a somewhat piecemeal approach," said Tom LaTourrette, a security expert at RAND Corp., a nonprofit research institute.
"No one has been able to provide a satisfactory answer to the question of how to best structure aviation security," he said.
According to most of us in the real world:
"But the TSA's done a darn fine job of showing us how NOT to."
Can I prevail on someone with a legal background to tell us whether you can sue the FBI for damages when they hurt your business due to negligence in their investigation (as in going off half-cocked)?
"You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News."
You are wrong, of course.
We don't know that Fox News makes people stupid or that stupid people watch Fox or BOTH. No one has done the study.
Let's not replace a lack of understanding of correlation vs. causation with a lack of understanding of logic. (Realising that you don't know for sure that A->B does not mean you now know that B->A.)
That is, unless you've seen a study which shows which way it goes. If you have PLEASE post the link. My money would be on both: Dumb people watch FOX, and then get dumber. (Which seems like it also might be true of CBS, based on one of the links and what I've seen of network news.) But I'm waiting on someone doing a study, before I assume that that's the case.
No, my friend, most of them are not technical. After they decide the Internet is broken, they'll go to The Google and see that that page is OK, and decide Netflix sucks.
They know they have 6M per second and that that is a LOT -- way better than that DSL thing. They don't know about those places out there, and will blame them. One generally blames that about which one feels one knows less.
We know Comcast sucks because we're techies. They only know Comcast sucks because Comcast doesn't show up when they say they will for an install. Other than that, it's a black box for them.
Have you read "The Food of the Gods" by H.G. Wells?
What can be used for military purposes will be. Advantage to he who uses it first. Very depressing. Basically true.
At some point perhaps people will be making smart bullets in straw-hut villages using little microchip fabrication plants ala Bladerunner, but right now, the majority of bullets are made in incredibly low-tech ways. We figure (probably rightly) that a country which can afford to make these bullets has huge vested interests in not having a war with us. We can make it worth their while not to, and they have a lot to lose, too. No one who can afford these bullets in large numbers are a real war threat for us.
Besides, we're going to SELL these. We're a huge exporter of arms, or haven't you heard? We want to patent this and sell it before the Israelis do, or they'll make the money instead of us. Arms companies aren't just powerful in the US because they have ties to the military, they're powerful because they bring in those export dollars.
That said, this is a handy assassination tool. And even a poor country can afford ONE bullet. I wonder if the bullet would be damaged travelling through a window before it went off? If so, the world just got a lot more dangerous, particularly for the people who thought this was a good idea.
And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."
Same principle.
Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.
It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.
Perhaps electric heating makes this a more complicated issue during the winter, but generally, load on the electric system happens during the day.
These cars will be charged primarily at night. If they're charged during the day, it will be at parking lots which charge for that service in the downtown/working/commercial areas.
I don't know why the power companies are spreading this crap, but I can guess: They're trying to get a rate hike, and trying to use this as an excuse.
They could try honesty. But they're so inexperienced at that...
A disproportionate number of the people still willing to fly are people who don't know what faces them at the TSA gates. Today is a massive day for flying.
As they sit eating their turkey on Thursday, they'll complain about how they felt violated, or they'll hear others at the table complain.
It's still under development. But it's already pretty competitive, doing reasonably well in many tests.
And then there's this (on the last page) "Ending out our tests we had the PostMark test where the performance of the ZFS Linux kernel module done by KQ Infotech and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories was slaughtered. The disk transaction performance for ZFS on this native Linux kernel module was even worse than using ZFS-FUSE and was almost at half the speed of this test when run under the OpenSolaris-based OpenIndiana distribution."
Ok, maybe someone can disabuse me of a misconception that I have, but: There's no reason that ZFS in the kernel should be slower than a FUSE version. That means there's something wrong. If they figure out what's wrong and fix it, that could very likely affect the results in some or all of the other tests.
ZFS isn't done yet, and it already looks like it might be worth the trade-off for the features ZFS provides. And performance might get somewhat better. This article is good news (though that final benchmark is distressing, especially when you look at the ZFS running on OpenSolaris).
It says: "When KQ Infotech releases these ZFS packages to the public in January and rebases them against a later version of ZFS/Zpool, we will publish more benchmarks."
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an American. Why am I not pleased to hear we're not alone in this?
Certainly the system wants drones. "Want" != "need", but generally "want" == "what you get".
No, not for years now. I used to be in a position to dabble, and used to watch people dabble. But there was a nice long hall for them to walk down, and a bunch of people down that hall who didn't dabble in the sense that they actually knew what they were doing.
The dabblers plugged numbers into a T-test. And if they saw something cool they took it down the hall. But I know that some of them would see something that was basically crap and massage it until it looked significant. The low paid ones would then take that down the hall and (generally) get sent back to the drawing board.
Of the really well paid ones, some would go straight down the hall, and some would delay, but most would ultimately talk with someone about the numbers before attempting publishing and quietly decide to change a study or stick a paper under the rug. The ones who didn't were a problem, and if they didn't behave well in that way, they typically didn't behave well in a lot of other ways, too. Academia has a good number of crazy people.
I once saw one get bounced out of a position for fudging numbers. The charge was scientific fraud. That was a very happy day for everyone on the hall -- Not just because the vast majority of people want to see good work done, but because a person who want his or her work published even KNOWING that it's bogus tend also to be awful human beings all around.
When you know, and you still go forward, you're a jerk, and people know it -- they enjoy skewering you. When you don't know your conclusion is wrong, then there's a culture and collaboration problem. We celebrate the scientists who get caught faking breast cancer data or cloning data or vaccines vs. autism data (Jerks) but I think the spate of reports we've seen recently really underlines the fact that they're a smaller problem on the whole then the pleasant people who are working in an environment with a culture problem.
Maybe someone can correct me, here.
I suspect (strongly) that if you have a 3% edge over everyone else, you'll still lose at the lottery. I think the odds in the lottery are so badly kiltered against you that even a real, solid 3% edge would leave you a loser.
That's NOT true of any casino games. Take 3% to a casino and you'd leave a millionaire in short order. (No, wait. Actually you'd get bounced in short order and barred from the casino.)
Dabbling is fine when the results are good. He had 53%. If he'd had 65%, dabbling would have worked. But dabbling is just the start, and that's not just the nature of peer review, it's the nature of collaboration and a University setting. You find something neat by dabbling, and you walk down the hall to visit someone with more stats experience to get some clarity before you publish.
He had 53%. He knew that if he walked down the hall, he'd get told he had squat. So he didn't walk down the hall.
There's dabble initially, and that's fine. And there's dabbling (ONLY) and calling it done. That's not.
Seems like the paper was written by a dabbler, then reviewed by a respected team of dabblers. And not one of them looked at 53% and walked down the hall. Bubbleheads.
That lack of an ARM processor is the killer for me.
According to the article:
"Since the introduction of metal detectors in the 1970s, technologies have been bought and cobbled together in a somewhat piecemeal approach," said Tom LaTourrette, a security expert at RAND Corp., a nonprofit research institute.
"No one has been able to provide a satisfactory answer to the question of how to best structure aviation security," he said.
According to most of us in the real world:
"But the TSA's done a darn fine job of showing us how NOT to."
Make the same figure with a dumb hat on it and sell it as parody.
Make it with no pants on and sell it as parody.
Make it with a removable top of head to reveal a tiny little brain and sell it as parody.
Give it a removable iPhone, and a slot in his butt to put it in and call it parody.
It should be completely legal.
Mod parent up. This is the second most insightful thing I've read all day on NN.
Sorry. I mistyped. DHS, not FBI.
Can I prevail on someone with a legal background to tell us whether you can sue the FBI for damages when they hurt your business due to negligence in their investigation (as in going off half-cocked)?
Nothing in its constitution mentions communism. It's simply a dictatorship.
But impressions are more important than fact to China, and just about everyone else, I guess.
"You are right, of course. It's not that Fox News makes people stupid, it's that stupid people watch Fox News."
You are wrong, of course.
We don't know that Fox News makes people stupid or that stupid people watch Fox or BOTH. No one has done the study.
Let's not replace a lack of understanding of correlation vs. causation with a lack of understanding of logic. (Realising that you don't know for sure that A->B does not mean you now know that B->A.)
That is, unless you've seen a study which shows which way it goes. If you have PLEASE post the link. My money would be on both: Dumb people watch FOX, and then get dumber. (Which seems like it also might be true of CBS, based on one of the links and what I've seen of network news.) But I'm waiting on someone doing a study, before I assume that that's the case.
No, my friend, most of them are not technical. After they decide the Internet is broken, they'll go to The Google and see that that page is OK, and decide Netflix sucks.
They know they have 6M per second and that that is a LOT -- way better than that DSL thing. They don't know about those places out there, and will blame them. One generally blames that about which one feels one knows less.
We know Comcast sucks because we're techies. They only know Comcast sucks because Comcast doesn't show up when they say they will for an install. Other than that, it's a black box for them.
"Daniel Ellsberg, who released the pentagon papers in 1971, has written an editorial on the subject..."
The editorial was written by Michael Ellsberg, not Daniel Ellsberg, though it quotes Daniel Ellsberg.
Google's doing something better.
You change your capslock key because it's not just a waste of space, it's a negative function and it's in the way.
Best to not put them on the keyboard in the first place.
The governor says this will make money for the state. He's wrong.
It will take in some revenue, if it gets built, but all that revenue will be spent on legal fights.
The state might win, or they might lose. Either way, this will cost them more than they will make.
Before it spreads.
Have you read "The Food of the Gods" by H.G. Wells?
What can be used for military purposes will be. Advantage to he who uses it first. Very depressing. Basically true.
At some point perhaps people will be making smart bullets in straw-hut villages using little microchip fabrication plants ala Bladerunner, but right now, the majority of bullets are made in incredibly low-tech ways. We figure (probably rightly) that a country which can afford to make these bullets has huge vested interests in not having a war with us. We can make it worth their while not to, and they have a lot to lose, too. No one who can afford these bullets in large numbers are a real war threat for us.
Besides, we're going to SELL these. We're a huge exporter of arms, or haven't you heard? We want to patent this and sell it before the Israelis do, or they'll make the money instead of us. Arms companies aren't just powerful in the US because they have ties to the military, they're powerful because they bring in those export dollars.
That said, this is a handy assassination tool. And even a poor country can afford ONE bullet. I wonder if the bullet would be damaged travelling through a window before it went off? If so, the world just got a lot more dangerous, particularly for the people who thought this was a good idea.
And a little down the line, some other magazine app gets removed. The reason for rejection, as given by an Apple rep is "You know... your magazine...It had a negative review of the iPad.... we can't have that in our App Store."
Same principle.
Apple certainly can do this sort of thing, but it shows a lack of integrity and a lack of self-confidence. It's the behaviour of a small, petty person. It's short-sighted and it will push people to Android tablets all the more.
It seems like the aim is to keep all the passive people on Apple and to let the people who think independently go. That may be a winning business strategy, but I find it horrifying.
Furthermore, this impact will be a night.
Perhaps electric heating makes this a more complicated issue during the winter, but generally, load on the electric system happens during the day.
These cars will be charged primarily at night. If they're charged during the day, it will be at parking lots which charge for that service in the downtown/working/commercial areas.
I don't know why the power companies are spreading this crap, but I can guess: They're trying to get a rate hike, and trying to use this as an excuse.
They could try honesty. But they're so inexperienced at that...
A disproportionate number of the people still willing to fly are people who don't know what faces them at the TSA gates. Today is a massive day for flying.
As they sit eating their turkey on Thursday, they'll complain about how they felt violated, or they'll hear others at the table complain.
Those poll numbers will be much lower on Friday.
It's still under development. But it's already pretty competitive, doing reasonably well in many tests.
And then there's this (on the last page) "Ending out our tests we had the PostMark test where the performance of the ZFS Linux kernel module done by KQ Infotech and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories was slaughtered. The disk transaction performance for ZFS on this native Linux kernel module was even worse than using ZFS-FUSE and was almost at half the speed of this test when run under the OpenSolaris-based OpenIndiana distribution."
Ok, maybe someone can disabuse me of a misconception that I have, but: There's no reason that ZFS in the kernel should be slower than a FUSE version. That means there's something wrong. If they figure out what's wrong and fix it, that could very likely affect the results in some or all of the other tests.
ZFS isn't done yet, and it already looks like it might be worth the trade-off for the features ZFS provides. And performance might get somewhat better. This article is good news (though that final benchmark is distressing, especially when you look at the ZFS running on OpenSolaris).
It says: "When KQ Infotech releases these ZFS packages to the public in January and rebases them against a later version of ZFS/Zpool, we will publish more benchmarks."
and I'm looking forward to that new article.
"But with Oracle trying to squeeze the monetary blood from every last shred of good that came from Sun, who knows what's gonna happen."
Well, in the short term, we know what's not going to happen.
I think you might do better learning Cantonese. Your email will be exactly the same, but you'll get better food in Chinese restaurants.