Applying an idea where it works and rejecting it where it doesn't != flip-flopping. A completely free market is not always in the long-term best interest of an economy. Free market principles should be applied where they work, and a more restrictive model where a free market may not be optimal. This is also known as pragmatism.
Close, but according to the article they only had the subjects run the simulation AFTER playing the games. They should have also run the simulation before the games so they could do a comparison. This is only the difference between a between-subjects and within-subjects comparison. The way you say they should do it is called a within-subjects design. While a within-subjects design typically has more statistical power (because you can compare an individual's performance to his own, earlier score) it can introduce other experimental design problems. Their between-subjects design does not threaten any causal inference they want to make.
The issue of real-world applicability is orthogonal; that is not a "correlation vs. causation issue", but simply something that needs more research.
The tired mantra of "correlation!=causation" whenever research gets presented on Slashdot is really annoying. It is true, but so often it is applied incorrectly. If you read the article, you'll notice that they did a true experiment. If you are a researcher and you want to establish causation, one thing you can do is run an experiment, because then you have control over who receives what treatment. If you assign people to groups without bias, and you observe a difference between a control and an experimental group, you have strong evidence for a CAUSAL link. Note the difference between a true experiment and, say, a survey. In a survey you have no control over who gets what treatment.
The key here is that you should be thinking "correlation ALONE does not imply causation". They have MORE than causation; they have results of several true experiments. But "correlation+experimental control" DOES strongly imply causation. In fact, this is the basis of all experimental science.
Wow, a poster making a basic logical error gets modded insightful? You have illustrated a false trichotomy very well here. Sweden may do a particular thing bad which makes it as bad as the US, but could still be superior to the US in other areas. That could make it on average better than the US, depending on how you weight the other areas.
I'm not arguing that Sweden is better than the US, but please, think before you post.
Good thing too - Rossi actually quoted as saying Alcohol and Cigarette taxes hurt families. (don't think too hard about that one). I was discussing cigarette taxes with a friend of mine who does research in addictions, and I stated my position that cigarette taxes are good. She made the point that cigarette taxes are very regressive. They hit the poor who are addicted much harder than the middle class or wealthy. There will be some who might stop smoking because of them, but the hardcore addicted will continue to smoke because the can't stop, and it higher taxes will take a significant toll on them and their families. It essentially makes a bad situation worse for poor families.
Don't dismiss the idea out of hand that sin taxes hurt (poor) families. I think a good argument can be made for it.
No, you are confused. I never said anything about "appeasing", nor did I say anything about being able to "bargain, argue, and negotiate" with anyone. (You've constructed a totally irrelevant straw man). What I said is that Bush stated that wiretaps require warrants (as indeed they do). But he had previously directed that wiretaps can be done WITHOUT warrants. Neither of these facts is in dispute, regardless of your attempt to derail the discussion.
By the way, let me quote you quoting Bush: "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." This is in direct contradiction to the position you are attempting to argue on Bush's behalf. Bush himself, in the very quote YOU posted, invalidated your argument even before you made it.
Either that, or perhaps this means the warrants are not required to listen to foreign terrorists making phonecalls from outside the US? This is domestic wiretapping. The people being wiretapped are American citizens and are afforded all the rights that come with citizenship. This includes 4th Amendment rights which require a warrant (covered by FISA) for wiretapping. The fact that the person on the other end of the phone is not a citizen is irrelevant. That's the whole point of this discussion.
In the topic article, the DoJ has said that they will seek FISA warrants. If it is destructive to national security to do this (as they have argued) and if it is unnecessary (as you and the administration have argued) why would they do this? It doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that they fear a challenge by Congress, and want to make the point moot. They've done this before (see Padilla and Hamden cases).
Finally, as to your claim (completely irrelevant to the discussion) that you can't bargain with terrorists that want to see you dead, you are wrong about this. The most successful alleviation of a terrorist threat in modern history was in Northern Ireland. We don't hear much about terrorism in Northern Ireland anymore. Why? Read about it yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Rep ublican_Army
The President has clearly said he is not breaking the law, and despite what the liberal media is telling you, each and every wiretap still requires an warrant
Here you go, about half-way down at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420- 2.html
Bush said this BEFORE he got caught doing wiretaps without warrants. I agree, wiretaps DO require warrants, but Bush has claimed that he doesn't need them (the quote in the parent post not withstanding) and he authorized a program of domestic spying without warrants. If you don't recall this, you are woefully uninformed.
Since you think the "liberal media" may be lying to you, how about a court decision regarding the program? The first TWO SENTENCES reveal that 1. the program exists and 2. the administration does not dispute that is exists.
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/do cs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf [pdf link]
People that ignore facts on the basis that they were reported by the "liberal media" confuse me. About 2 seconds of research are all that is required to confirm much of this stuff. If you ignore facts because they came from the "liberal media" you are part of the problem; people in power can sit back and do what they like realizing that you are going to take what they say at face value and not take advantage of the resources at your disposal (the media) to see that they are lying.
Now, since you quoted Bush directly saying that wiretaps require warrants (in 2004), and I have linked to you a court document which reveals that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps in 2002, what does this mean, logically? He lied, plain and simple. You don't even need the media, the government's own documents the lie.
Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
Hi,
I actually have conducted them for media outlets. I was pretty young at the time though the way they get these exit pollers is pretty much the same: low paying, single-day temp employees.
They are often wildly innacurate because many folks choose not to participate - mostly people who are Republican - and because they miss absentee voters - also mostly Republicans as in Ohio and in other states the Rs did a huge absentee vote program where Ds mostly focus on the 48-hour GOTV effort of driving indigents to polling places.
Anyway, it's easy to be part of the slashherd hivemind and believe a couple of clowns that have a few letters after their names doing, what I think Breshnev referred to as, 'using statistics to turn excriment into bullets.'
Let's examine this post. First, you claim to have done exit polling and state that you were one of the low pay temp employees; which, by itself, gives you no authority to say "exit polls are inaccurate". You are not a statistician. The fact is, these things have been studied by academics for years, and have been found to be accurate.
Second, you make a claim (Republicans don't participate in as high rates as Democrats) that is DIRECTLY REFUTED in the article linked. Again, academics have done research in this area and found this explanation lacking.
Then, you call Slashdot a "Hivemind" because there are large numbers of people that disagree with you; call the authors "clowns" with "a few letters after their names" (yes, that means they did years of study in a field that you appear to know nothing about!), and compare the authors of the book to people flinging feces when they were merely using statistics to examine an important question: Are our elections fair?
It is ok to disagree, but your post is the intellectual equivalent of coming to a gunfight with a squirtgun. And the post was modded INTERESTING? At least bring something to the debate.
Re:Ok, I have had enough of this "HER" Stuff
on
SQL Hacks
·
· Score: 1
Actually, it doesn't matter. Either is grammatically correct. Perhaps by grammatically correct you mean standard style, but even this isn't so much true any more. There are several alternatives being used, and all of them get the point across. These conventions change all the time and they are completely arbitrary.
Re:Ok, I have had enough of this "HER" Stuff
on
SQL Hacks
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If this annoys you, do you think it annoys many women that the generic pronoun for animate things in English is "he"?
Simply whacking everyone with extra expense, inconvenience and restriction of freedom is unreasonable and incompatible with an allegedly free society. No, they've always been a part of free society. I get taxed (extra expense) to pay for police to prevent and fight crime, even though I haven't committed one. I am inconvenienced and my freedom is restricted by traffic laws, even though I've never been in an accident. Ironically, you cannot have a free society without restrictions. Restrictions and extra costs are NOT equal to a police state. We have to sometimes deal with minor restrictions, while at the same time always protecting our core freedoms (life, speech, privacy, etc). There has NEVER been a time where this was not true in a free society.
You deleted the most important part of what he said: "*Name them*, or shut up." In other words, show that your point of view is informed, or don't add to the debate. He is not discriminating against your viewpoint, but rather the fact that you appear uninformed and just cut and paste stuff. The fact that you had to erase "Name them" shows that you are dishonest.
Well, since the evidence shows that many adults aren't responsible, you have to do something about it when this irresponsibility affects the life and property of other people. For instance, instead of lamenting that adults can't keep from stealing or murdering, we have laws and safeguards. You have to govern the population you have (irresponsible adults) instead of wishing for a more ideal population (all upstanding, responsible adults). Drunk driving affects the life and property of other people, so we devise technologies to tackle the issue. This isn't "nannying," it is acknowledging a problem and dealing with it.
This is not true. Where do you pull a figure like that from? Your ass?
Questions regarding Bush's trustworthiness have been asked for quite sometime. Before accusing someone of making up numbers, try a search engine. For the period 4/28-30/06, a Gallup poll showed that about 56% of Americans believe that the phrase "honest and trustworthy" does not apply to Bush (who can reasonably be thought to represent the current US government). 41%, on the other hand, thought it applied. A CNN poll and an ABC poll about the same time corroborated the Gallup poll. For the period of 11/10-11/05, a Newsweek poll found that 50% of Americans believed that "honest and ethical" do not apply to Bush (compared to 42% who thought it does). These results, and many more supporting the GP post, can be found at http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm.
Have you been living in the dark for 200 years? If science were just giving us answers we wanted to get, there would be no progress. Clearly there is. The natualistic assuptions do not give us "answers" by themselves, but they allow us to build an understanding of the universe ASSUMING they are true (and even if they are false, like in a universe with a god similar to the Deistic god).
I understand religious people just fine. I was one for many years, and my family is full of them, including pastors and missionaries. I don't consider it my mission to change their mind, however. They can think whatever they like.
Science is also a faith, with its own set of unprovable assumptions about the world.
No, it isn't. Science is a method. The assumptions (naturalism being the most important one) are used to make the method work, NOT as articles of faith. This is the primary difference between religion and science. The articles of faith in a religion are things the religious people will tell you they KNOW rather than things they assume. To equate the two is misunderstanding both.
Either you missed the boat or you didn't read the article.
(1) They don't even attempt to establish an actual metric for the value of a network. Without that, any counterarguments to any previous assertions regarding network value that one might make are basically so much handwaving.
Both models discussed are GROWTH models. You do not need a metric to model growth. If a child increases his height by 10% over the course of a year, he increases his height 10% in feet, meters, parsecs, lightyears, cubits. In the article it can be clearly seen that growth is thought of as a ratio, so the units cancel. It is unitless.
(2) Let's say that we will approximate the value of a network as being proportional to the number of edges (links); we'll ignore, for the moment, the possibility that edge weights might differ.
Your example of limits on human relations, etc do not hold for the internet. Surely you are right that there is a limit our number of relationships and other things, but we do not interact with the internet on our own all the time. In fact, much of our interaction goes through a mediator (search engine, etc) which has no such real limit.
Besides, if you read the article, you would realize that the the nlogn model is justified precisely BECAUSE there are different weightings on values.
"The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves..."
Electors cannot vote for a President and Vice President from the same state as the elector. However, Cheney lived and was registered to vote before the election. He changed his voter registration a month before the election. The Texas electors' ballots went to Bush and Cheney, even though Cheney really resided (his hastily changed voter registration notwithstanding) in Texas. This is unconstitutional.
Words like "planet" are meant to "carve nature at its joints". Problems arise when historically there appeared to be joints (planets moved differently than stars in the sky) but, we are learning now that there are no useful joints here. Why bother defining the word planet at all? Is it really that useful to astronomers? And why, say, want Mercury (a small rocky body with no atmospere) to be grouped in a category with Jupiter (a large, mostly gaseous body with an atmosphere) instead of with asteroids (small, rocky bodies with no atmospere)?
No, NOT everyone is considered a swing vote. If there were no correlations between how justices ruled, you'd be right, but consider this: By knowing a justice's position on an issue, that gives you a certain amount of information about how the other justices will rule. If you know Thomas, you know Scalia, almost for certain. Some justices give MORE information about the other justices than the others. The ones with lower information content are called swing voters, because they don't necessarily pair with the other justices as much.
Actually, they are NOT 40 years behind NASA. NASA has never had the vehicle type envisioned by the creators of the X-Prize - a cheap, reusable spacecraft capable of short turnaround. Putting people in space is not what the X-prize is about by itself. Having a cheap, reliable, reusable, steadily available way to put people into space is what the X-prize is about. NASA isn't there yet.
I completely agree with you about pure research. Government needs to fund pure research. But don't act like the X-prize is simply rehashing what NASA has already done, because this is simply untrue.
Slashdot Mirror
Applying an idea where it works and rejecting it where it doesn't != flip-flopping. A completely free market is not always in the long-term best interest of an economy. Free market principles should be applied where they work, and a more restrictive model where a free market may not be optimal. This is also known as pragmatism.
The issue of real-world applicability is orthogonal; that is not a "correlation vs. causation issue", but simply something that needs more research.
The tired mantra of "correlation!=causation" whenever research gets presented on Slashdot is really annoying. It is true, but so often it is applied incorrectly. If you read the article, you'll notice that they did a true experiment. If you are a researcher and you want to establish causation, one thing you can do is run an experiment, because then you have control over who receives what treatment. If you assign people to groups without bias, and you observe a difference between a control and an experimental group, you have strong evidence for a CAUSAL link. Note the difference between a true experiment and, say, a survey. In a survey you have no control over who gets what treatment.
The key here is that you should be thinking "correlation ALONE does not imply causation". They have MORE than causation; they have results of several true experiments. But "correlation+experimental control" DOES strongly imply causation. In fact, this is the basis of all experimental science.
Wow, a poster making a basic logical error gets modded insightful? You have illustrated a false trichotomy very well here. Sweden may do a particular thing bad which makes it as bad as the US, but could still be superior to the US in other areas. That could make it on average better than the US, depending on how you weight the other areas. I'm not arguing that Sweden is better than the US, but please, think before you post.
Borkus? from Gilneas?
Don't dismiss the idea out of hand that sin taxes hurt (poor) families. I think a good argument can be made for it.
Here you go, about half-way down at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420
Bush said this BEFORE he got caught doing wiretaps without warrants. I agree, wiretaps DO require warrants, but Bush has claimed that he doesn't need them (the quote in the parent post not withstanding) and he authorized a program of domestic spying without warrants. If you don't recall this, you are woefully uninformed.
Since you think the "liberal media" may be lying to you, how about a court decision regarding the program? The first TWO SENTENCES reveal that 1. the program exists and 2. the administration does not dispute that is exists. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/nytimes/do cs/nsa/aclunsa81706opn.pdf [pdf link]
People that ignore facts on the basis that they were reported by the "liberal media" confuse me. About 2 seconds of research are all that is required to confirm much of this stuff. If you ignore facts because they came from the "liberal media" you are part of the problem; people in power can sit back and do what they like realizing that you are going to take what they say at face value and not take advantage of the resources at your disposal (the media) to see that they are lying.
Now, since you quoted Bush directly saying that wiretaps require warrants (in 2004), and I have linked to you a court document which reveals that Bush authorized warrantless wiretaps in 2002, what does this mean, logically? He lied, plain and simple. You don't even need the media, the government's own documents the lie.
I actually have conducted them for media outlets. I was pretty young at the time though the way they get these exit pollers is pretty much the same: low paying, single-day temp employees.
They are often wildly innacurate because many folks choose not to participate - mostly people who are Republican - and because they miss absentee voters - also mostly Republicans as in Ohio and in other states the Rs did a huge absentee vote program where Ds mostly focus on the 48-hour GOTV effort of driving indigents to polling places.
Anyway, it's easy to be part of the slashherd hivemind and believe a couple of clowns that have a few letters after their names doing, what I think Breshnev referred to as, 'using statistics to turn excriment into bullets.'
Let's examine this post. First, you claim to have done exit polling and state that you were one of the low pay temp employees; which, by itself, gives you no authority to say "exit polls are inaccurate". You are not a statistician. The fact is, these things have been studied by academics for years, and have been found to be accurate. Second, you make a claim (Republicans don't participate in as high rates as Democrats) that is DIRECTLY REFUTED in the article linked. Again, academics have done research in this area and found this explanation lacking. Then, you call Slashdot a "Hivemind" because there are large numbers of people that disagree with you; call the authors "clowns" with "a few letters after their names" (yes, that means they did years of study in a field that you appear to know nothing about!), and compare the authors of the book to people flinging feces when they were merely using statistics to examine an important question: Are our elections fair? It is ok to disagree, but your post is the intellectual equivalent of coming to a gunfight with a squirtgun. And the post was modded INTERESTING? At least bring something to the debate.Actually, it doesn't matter. Either is grammatically correct. Perhaps by grammatically correct you mean standard style, but even this isn't so much true any more. There are several alternatives being used, and all of them get the point across. These conventions change all the time and they are completely arbitrary.
If this annoys you, do you think it annoys many women that the generic pronoun for animate things in English is "he"?
You deleted the most important part of what he said: "*Name them*, or shut up." In other words, show that your point of view is informed, or don't add to the debate. He is not discriminating against your viewpoint, but rather the fact that you appear uninformed and just cut and paste stuff. The fact that you had to erase "Name them" shows that you are dishonest.
Well, since the evidence shows that many adults aren't responsible, you have to do something about it when this irresponsibility affects the life and property of other people. For instance, instead of lamenting that adults can't keep from stealing or murdering, we have laws and safeguards. You have to govern the population you have (irresponsible adults) instead of wishing for a more ideal population (all upstanding, responsible adults). Drunk driving affects the life and property of other people, so we devise technologies to tackle the issue. This isn't "nannying," it is acknowledging a problem and dealing with it.
Oh yes, because the corporate world is completely devoid of incompetent people. Open your eyes.
Matter must travel slower than the speed of light, this is true. But space itself can expand.
Have you been living in the dark for 200 years? If science were just giving us answers we wanted to get, there would be no progress. Clearly there is. The natualistic assuptions do not give us "answers" by themselves, but they allow us to build an understanding of the universe ASSUMING they are true (and even if they are false, like in a universe with a god similar to the Deistic god). I understand religious people just fine. I was one for many years, and my family is full of them, including pastors and missionaries. I don't consider it my mission to change their mind, however. They can think whatever they like.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells have been around for a while. The space shuttle has been using them since the 1970s.
Do they not teach this in schools? Read the constitution:i on.amendmentxii.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
"The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves..."
Electors cannot vote for a President and Vice President from the same state as the elector. However, Cheney lived and was registered to vote before the election. He changed his voter registration a month before the election. The Texas electors' ballots went to Bush and Cheney, even though Cheney really resided (his hastily changed voter registration notwithstanding) in Texas. This is unconstitutional.
Words like "planet" are meant to "carve nature at its joints". Problems arise when historically there appeared to be joints (planets moved differently than stars in the sky) but, we are learning now that there are no useful joints here. Why bother defining the word planet at all? Is it really that useful to astronomers? And why, say, want Mercury (a small rocky body with no atmospere) to be grouped in a category with Jupiter (a large, mostly gaseous body with an atmosphere) instead of with asteroids (small, rocky bodies with no atmospere)?
No, NOT everyone is considered a swing vote. If there were no correlations between how justices ruled, you'd be right, but consider this: By knowing a justice's position on an issue, that gives you a certain amount of information about how the other justices will rule. If you know Thomas, you know Scalia, almost for certain. Some justices give MORE information about the other justices than the others. The ones with lower information content are called swing voters, because they don't necessarily pair with the other justices as much.
Actually, they are NOT 40 years behind NASA. NASA has never had the vehicle type envisioned by the creators of the X-Prize - a cheap, reusable spacecraft capable of short turnaround. Putting people in space is not what the X-prize is about by itself. Having a cheap, reliable, reusable, steadily available way to put people into space is what the X-prize is about. NASA isn't there yet.
I completely agree with you about pure research. Government needs to fund pure research. But don't act like the X-prize is simply rehashing what NASA has already done, because this is simply untrue.