Heh. As opposed to the more neutral, "Should parents be allowed to physically discipline their own kids?" or the more negative, "Should bad parents be allowed to smack their kids?"
Yea, as soon as he used the phrase "right answer" in relation to his opinion-based survey I was done.
The only thing that really irritates me about this is that we have to type the damn tags, and I'd rather use the shorter forms.
The FAQ also claims that the code supports "i" and "b" so one would think that, even though they're not the best practice at this point, you could still use them.
I'll break my "never respond to ACs rule" because you seem semi-rational.
The problem with that statement is that he has no real knowledge of their aptitude for math. If he said something like, "People who claim they have an aptitude for math, and who are on the internet, and who use an uber-geeky crowdsourcing service are more likely to believe (whatever)" then you're much closer to his actual research.
At that point, I think he's dropped below the level where he can say anything meaningful, even if he had a much larger sample set. And his insistence that there is a "right" answer displays a sizable bias that makes me extremely suspicious.
The best one I saw recently was CNN soliciting email from people about how bad the recession was. Unsurprisingly people who had cable tv and internet access said that things were fine.
It's a classic mistake dating back to the dawn of polling: during the great depression a poll was done that showed that the great depression wasn't nearly as bad as everyone was saying! How was the sample set determined? They polled everyone who had a car license plate, and they called them on the phone to ask the poll questions.
The "b" tag and the "i" tag both tend to get rendered incorrectly now. I think it must default to the annoying block quote...The tags above are supposed to be in an "ecode" tag, but it fricking blockquoted those as well.
"A Tennessee man is arrested for possessing a picture of Miley Cyrus's face superimposed on a nude woman's body. In a survey that I posted on the Web, a majority of respondents said the man violated the law -- except for respondents who say they were good at math in school, who as a group answered the survey differently from everyone else."
Therefore: Mathematicians like child porn.
Talk about flamebait summaries. Can we have something that roughly represents the article?
I have a ton of problems with the methodology as well. Self-selected tiny sample set with self-reported aptitudes used to make blanket statements, with no attempt to get a rational cross-section (which he acknowledges and then says it's not a problem despite lack of any evidence supporting that conjecture), and all the problems/bias associated with internet-only research (we are a biased sample set, in that we're all here).
In short: wanking. You can't even begin to effectively correlate decision making to mathematical ability without actually testing that ability.
If you asked me to describe my own math ability, I'd say "average", because I routinely deal with people who are so much better than me at math that I can't in good conscience say I'm better than that...I mean, I never progressed beyond the simplest multi-variable calculus! But put me up against someone who is average across the entire population, and I'll rate much higher.
I mean, of COURSE they'll be visible...The Illuminati have had decades to fake up an accurate-looking landing site. They might have actually used their mind powers to put a man on the moon at the time, but they were too busy killing Kennedy.
Agreed. Completely. I love browsing big photo dumps on teh interwebs....Sites with thousands and thousands of images...beauty, bile, porn, the whole gamut of the human experience, with no realy way to know what you're going to see on the next page.
Every now and then you hit something like that: a photo of a horrible car accident or something, and it's so immediate and so real. I'm probably a little more prone to discomfort than you in video games...I find that I can't play the "evil" track very well in RPGs for instance: I always pick the "wrong" (good aligned) choice without thinking about it, and GTA missions that aren't cut-and-dried kill a bad person can make me a little uncomfortable.
But it's nothing like a real image. There are things I've seen that I'd kill to unsee. Ironically, I'm more "real life" violent than a lot of people. I hunt, I'm not averse to the occasional fist fight (though in my mind this is a semi-friendly fight-clubby thing...Testosterone is weird.)
Reducing your aversion isn't the same as developing a predisposition. It means you're more likely to pull the trigger on the guy who broke into your house, not that you're more likely to run amok in a Wal-Mart.
The beauty of the news is the same as the beauty of scientific research: if you prove someone is wrong or mistaken, it can make your career. There is a strong incentive to prove that your competitor is wrong, so it's largely self-policing.
Not quite the same as the industry-wide "we don't need any supervision, just trust us" mentality of the meat farmers.
So if they have a little itty-bitty family farm, what's the problem?
My (step)grandfather had a mere 120 head of cattle: we could have scanned those in a few minutes every day, just by walking along behind the hay truck, and zapping every cow that walked near.
I am extremely suspicious of "just trust us" accounting, especially in cases of disease and tainted animal products. I feel no particular need to trust their honesty.
The cost of the rfids would be practically nothing. They have to give them their shots anyway (mmmmm, tasty growth hormone), so that's just one more.
The movement issue is more real, because the range on the readers is tiny, but we've all seen lab experiments where hackers read an rfid enabled card from 200 feet away with a cantenna, so I'm not inclined to believe this to be an unsolvable problem.
And the internet thing is a joke. The amount of actual data collected would be pretty small (in the grand scheme). Uploading it every week or so wouldn't be a huge burden.
Nothing ever changes. This is the exact argument that they made in the 1900's when the FDA was first trying to reduce the number of human body parts that made it into canned meat: "Waaaaaa, you're going to put us out of business! Waaaaaaaa, no one could ever collect this much information!"
I call BS. If I stole a cow from one of those giant farms, the damn rancher'd be able to identify it in a second, but the instant you want to track something for public safety reasons, "there is no way they could ever collect that information."
Agreed that it's foolish. Some moron is bound to plug his thumb drive into it at some point, and spread the crap everywhere.
Still, we very seldom have viruses on our windows network, and the ones we get are all installed "accidentally" by stupid users, and they never spread because the network is well partitioned, and well configured.
If you're still having virus problems at that level NOW, there is something seriously wrong with the way your IT infrastructure is set up.
What the hell were they doing paying $2.5 million to clean up a worm? Seriously? Hell, you could have paid the guys who wrote it 2 million to exclude your IP range in the fricking code, and saved 500k!
Governments have got to get their crap together on this stuff. When that worm hit corporate here, in luddite central, the number of effected machines was under 30...For the entire corporation! And that's with all properties connected by a corporate WAN.
That they had that level of infection is inexcusable. Shows that they're just wasting money right and left and getting nothing but a crap product.
Well, as long as we're talking anecdotes, I saw a dramatic improvement in 3 over 2...In FF2, the memory creep was constant and dramatic. 30-50 tabs would consume several GIGS of memory after a week or so. But with 3, it levels off. Yea, it uses a lot of memory, but it doesn't leak the way it used to.
Actually, no. The vast majority of news sites are supported by ad revenue drawn from traditional sources: newsprint advertising/subscriptions, tv news advertising/cable subscriptions.
Online ad revenue isn't very profitable for anyone except the big ad services (e.g. doubleclick) and Google, and in both of those cases it's because of volume.
Most news sites can't make enough on online ads to support themselves. I mean, if sites like Facebook and Twitter can't support themselves on ads, then how do you think LATimes.com (the first actually reliable site to confirm the MJ thing) can?
Well, that and the actual loading of the image itself. A lot of these sites will delay the rendering until all the images are pre-loaded, and with the ad sites getting hammered, that could take a good while.
One more reason to hate ad servers. I'm not an adblock fanatic, but I block doubleclick and all the other big ad houses by default. Some site wants to serve it's own ads, and I'll never block that.
Yea, in the last 10 years or so that stuff has started cropping up in more and more respectable publications. When you see one in the New York Times, you'll know the end is nigh.
What can you do? Full page ad money is huge, and they need the money badly. They justify it to themselves with the little banners on the top telling people it's an ad, but the point is obviously to mislead people, and it almost certainly works because they keep paying for it. What a way to whore your credibility...I mean who gives a crap about the "credibility" of the Huff or Salon, but the print pubs don't have much BESIDES their credibility.
Lot of newspaper people also view the stupid sticky notes on the front page as being on the same level of intrusiveness, but at least nobody thinks those are true
Seems like it has to be one or the other, right? Pretty much everything is governed by the hormones, so either they're not produced (they tried shots, but that's extremely hit or miss) or they're produced and having no effect.
Slashdot Mirror
We have states larger than any country in Europe...A certain amount of sprawl is guaranteed.
Heh. As opposed to the more neutral, "Should parents be allowed to physically discipline their own kids?" or the more negative, "Should bad parents be allowed to smack their kids?"
Yea, as soon as he used the phrase "right answer" in relation to his opinion-based survey I was done.
Otherwise known as "the crippling effect of a Cone of Cold."
The only thing that really irritates me about this is that we have to type the damn tags, and I'd rather use the shorter forms.
The FAQ also claims that the code supports "i" and "b" so one would think that, even though they're not the best practice at this point, you could still use them.
I'll break my "never respond to ACs rule" because you seem semi-rational.
The problem with that statement is that he has no real knowledge of their aptitude for math. If he said something like, "People who claim they have an aptitude for math, and who are on the internet, and who use an uber-geeky crowdsourcing service are more likely to believe (whatever)" then you're much closer to his actual research.
At that point, I think he's dropped below the level where he can say anything meaningful, even if he had a much larger sample set. And his insistence that there is a "right" answer displays a sizable bias that makes me extremely suspicious.
The best one I saw recently was CNN soliciting email from people about how bad the recession was. Unsurprisingly people who had cable tv and internet access said that things were fine.
It's a classic mistake dating back to the dawn of polling: during the great depression a poll was done that showed that the great depression wasn't nearly as bad as everyone was saying! How was the sample set determined? They polled everyone who had a car license plate, and they called them on the phone to ask the poll questions.
You need to use the
tag if you want actual italics and the
tag if you want actual boldface.
Italics
Boldface
The "b" tag and the "i" tag both tend to get rendered incorrectly now. I think it must default to the annoying block quote...The tags above are supposed to be in an "ecode" tag, but it fricking blockquoted those as well.
"A Tennessee man is arrested for possessing a picture of Miley Cyrus's face superimposed on a nude woman's body. In a survey that I posted on the Web, a majority of respondents said the man violated the law -- except for respondents who say they were good at math in school, who as a group answered the survey differently from everyone else."
Therefore: Mathematicians like child porn.
Talk about flamebait summaries. Can we have something that roughly represents the article?
I have a ton of problems with the methodology as well. Self-selected tiny sample set with self-reported aptitudes used to make blanket statements, with no attempt to get a rational cross-section (which he acknowledges and then says it's not a problem despite lack of any evidence supporting that conjecture), and all the problems/bias associated with internet-only research (we are a biased sample set, in that we're all here).
In short: wanking. You can't even begin to effectively correlate decision making to mathematical ability without actually testing that ability.
If you asked me to describe my own math ability, I'd say "average", because I routinely deal with people who are so much better than me at math that I can't in good conscience say I'm better than that...I mean, I never progressed beyond the simplest multi-variable calculus! But put me up against someone who is average across the entire population, and I'll rate much higher.
I mean, of COURSE they'll be visible...The Illuminati have had decades to fake up an accurate-looking landing site. They might have actually used their mind powers to put a man on the moon at the time, but they were too busy killing Kennedy.
//Conspiracy theorists will never buy it.
Agreed. Completely. I love browsing big photo dumps on teh interwebs....Sites with thousands and thousands of images...beauty, bile, porn, the whole gamut of the human experience, with no realy way to know what you're going to see on the next page.
Every now and then you hit something like that: a photo of a horrible car accident or something, and it's so immediate and so real. I'm probably a little more prone to discomfort than you in video games...I find that I can't play the "evil" track very well in RPGs for instance: I always pick the "wrong" (good aligned) choice without thinking about it, and GTA missions that aren't cut-and-dried kill a bad person can make me a little uncomfortable.
But it's nothing like a real image. There are things I've seen that I'd kill to unsee. Ironically, I'm more "real life" violent than a lot of people. I hunt, I'm not averse to the occasional fist fight (though in my mind this is a semi-friendly fight-clubby thing...Testosterone is weird.)
Reducing your aversion isn't the same as developing a predisposition. It means you're more likely to pull the trigger on the guy who broke into your house, not that you're more likely to run amok in a Wal-Mart.
The beauty of the news is the same as the beauty of scientific research: if you prove someone is wrong or mistaken, it can make your career. There is a strong incentive to prove that your competitor is wrong, so it's largely self-policing.
Not quite the same as the industry-wide "we don't need any supervision, just trust us" mentality of the meat farmers.
So if they have a little itty-bitty family farm, what's the problem?
My (step)grandfather had a mere 120 head of cattle: we could have scanned those in a few minutes every day, just by walking along behind the hay truck, and zapping every cow that walked near.
I am extremely suspicious of "just trust us" accounting, especially in cases of disease and tainted animal products. I feel no particular need to trust their honesty.
The cost of the rfids would be practically nothing. They have to give them their shots anyway (mmmmm, tasty growth hormone), so that's just one more.
The movement issue is more real, because the range on the readers is tiny, but we've all seen lab experiments where hackers read an rfid enabled card from 200 feet away with a cantenna, so I'm not inclined to believe this to be an unsolvable problem.
And the internet thing is a joke. The amount of actual data collected would be pretty small (in the grand scheme). Uploading it every week or so wouldn't be a huge burden.
Nothing ever changes. This is the exact argument that they made in the 1900's when the FDA was first trying to reduce the number of human body parts that made it into canned meat: "Waaaaaa, you're going to put us out of business! Waaaaaaaa, no one could ever collect this much information!"
I call BS. If I stole a cow from one of those giant farms, the damn rancher'd be able to identify it in a second, but the instant you want to track something for public safety reasons, "there is no way they could ever collect that information."
Agreed that it's foolish. Some moron is bound to plug his thumb drive into it at some point, and spread the crap everywhere.
Still, we very seldom have viruses on our windows network, and the ones we get are all installed "accidentally" by stupid users, and they never spread because the network is well partitioned, and well configured.
If you're still having virus problems at that level NOW, there is something seriously wrong with the way your IT infrastructure is set up.
What the hell were they doing paying $2.5 million to clean up a worm? Seriously? Hell, you could have paid the guys who wrote it 2 million to exclude your IP range in the fricking code, and saved 500k!
Governments have got to get their crap together on this stuff. When that worm hit corporate here, in luddite central, the number of effected machines was under 30...For the entire corporation! And that's with all properties connected by a corporate WAN.
That they had that level of infection is inexcusable. Shows that they're just wasting money right and left and getting nothing but a crap product.
Shrug. I block flash too, so what's the difference? Flash player is as big a potential security exploit as javascript.
Well, as long as we're talking anecdotes, I saw a dramatic improvement in 3 over 2...In FF2, the memory creep was constant and dramatic. 30-50 tabs would consume several GIGS of memory after a week or so. But with 3, it levels off. Yea, it uses a lot of memory, but it doesn't leak the way it used to.
Just my personal experience of course.
How is that different from actually playing the game?
Actually, no. The vast majority of news sites are supported by ad revenue drawn from traditional sources: newsprint advertising/subscriptions, tv news advertising/cable subscriptions.
Online ad revenue isn't very profitable for anyone except the big ad services (e.g. doubleclick) and Google, and in both of those cases it's because of volume.
Most news sites can't make enough on online ads to support themselves. I mean, if sites like Facebook and Twitter can't support themselves on ads, then how do you think LATimes.com (the first actually reliable site to confirm the MJ thing) can?
The reason they don't do that for ads is because the viewer "dwell time" on the page can often be less than the time it takes the ad to load.
Kills your click-through revenue if your page view never results in someone seeing the ad, so you force the ad to preload before you render the page.
Well, that and the actual loading of the image itself. A lot of these sites will delay the rendering until all the images are pre-loaded, and with the ad sites getting hammered, that could take a good while.
One more reason to hate ad servers. I'm not an adblock fanatic, but I block doubleclick and all the other big ad houses by default. Some site wants to serve it's own ads, and I'll never block that.
Yea, in the last 10 years or so that stuff has started cropping up in more and more respectable publications. When you see one in the New York Times, you'll know the end is nigh.
What can you do? Full page ad money is huge, and they need the money badly. They justify it to themselves with the little banners on the top telling people it's an ad, but the point is obviously to mislead people, and it almost certainly works because they keep paying for it. What a way to whore your credibility...I mean who gives a crap about the "credibility" of the Huff or Salon, but the print pubs don't have much BESIDES their credibility.
Lot of newspaper people also view the stupid sticky notes on the front page as being on the same level of intrusiveness, but at least nobody thinks those are true
Seems like it has to be one or the other, right? Pretty much everything is governed by the hormones, so either they're not produced (they tried shots, but that's extremely hit or miss) or they're produced and having no effect.
Very interesting indeed.