Developers, Developers, Developers.... If it is possible to develop silverlight applications for winmobile7 in visual studio then you can use one skillset to program wpf and sliverlight applications and target the desktop/web and mobiles.
Dr Eric Meijer from microsoft research has given a pretty nice 13 part lecture on functional programming in haskell based on graham huttons book: http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Lecture-Series-Erik-Meijer-Functional-Programming-Fundamentals-Chapter-1/ there are also a ton of other videos about f# on channel9 like: http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/martinesmann/Don-Syme-FSharp-and-functional-programming-in-NET/ http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/C9-Lectures-Dr-Don-Syme-Introduction-to-F-1-of-3/ or others specifically on asynchronicity and parallelism in f#....
I might be mistaken, but i guess that the assignment direction will change in SAS depending on context. In R you do have the directional assignment operators <- and -> while in SAS the direction might change depending on context. At least that's what i get from the sentence.
If there are people who would have paid thousands of dollars for it then that is the amount that was lost. And it doesn't matter that you can't get the money out of the system in accordance with their policy otherwise illegal drugs would have no value either.
How is that an argument at all? Nowhere in their terms do they allow you to use private servers if you decide to stop paying. Who would subscribe if they did? If you don't like the terms presented to you, don't give them any money. It's not that hard of a concept.
So what, i do no longer agree to their terms of service and they are ofcourse within their rights to stop providing any service to me. Anything else seems to me a legal matter that might differ from country to country.
No, what you do is you look if there is a systematic bias between the different measurements and assign a higher uncertainty to the tree ring data before 1960. Otherwise every new and more accurate instrument would make all previous data obsolete and you would never be able to do long term studies.
I beg your pardon but falsifying science seems far easier than cooking accounting books. This article gives some nice examples http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/physics-and-pixie-dust . Many of these examples have been published in nature&co and are not even very sophisticated in their forgery. That being said, i do not think that the emails in question are nefarious. They are tons of private emails there are bound to be many that look problematic for outsiders.
I submit a request to be your Facebook friend as "CuteBlonde362436" and you accept, thinking that I might be a cute blonde with measurements 36-24-36. At this point, I have access to your information including the fact that you like to molest small woodland creatures. Of course, I'm neither cute, blonde, nor do I have those measurements. However, I am part of an FBI task force charged with protecting small woodland creatures from molestation and the reason I approached you on Facebook is due to an anonymous tip that said you were into that sort of thing.
I now have all the evidence I need to have you locked up for a very long time.
Entrapment?
Why would he want a cute blond when he is into small woodland creatures:)
there is not a lot of original news reporting done anyway. Most reporters just copy the stories from somewhere. Any original investigative reporting done by News Corp will be exclusive till the next reporter rewrites the story the other day. Oh well, good riddance.
Actually we usually don't consider brains intelligent, we consider humans intelligent. As for needing a society to be intelligent, well you need all kinds of stuff to be able to show intelligent behaviour (air is a biggie). I do not think that considering ourselfs as distinct parts of reality as false. This problems only originate because of western philosophies use of language and set theory in this regard. An indian philosopher once said: All problems of western philosophy exists because you are able to say that "something is" without adding an attribute like blue.
Advances in technology seem pretty robust and steady to me. Ofcourse they are unknown, but so is any future event. I would guess that models that involved "new tech" in the past fared better and led to better decisions than those without.
I might bew wrong about this, but my point is that this is an empirical question and not an analytical one.
Why would it be nice if there were some other factors explaining it? right now we know what's contributing, and we are potentially (tough not likely) able to change it. the alternatives seem less favorable...
unless the factors (birthday, clear sky..) are correlated to the explanatory variables they are just noise. something behaves deterministically if somebody can (predict)determine the result in advance. here is an interesting book about propability and (theory of) science: http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/site/1575863332.html.it is also viewable online. don't forget that if you are correct then it simply is not possible to make predictions in this context and this is emirically observable. not in this special case since they are talking about counterfactuals but the principle remains the same. for a treatment of counterfactuals see http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/ .
so the decision to cut some japanese people from a japanese p2p file sharing program will result in their isolation from the rest of the world which isn't using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny .
Well, as Edward Tufte once wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation "Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete.[3] While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation must be at least expanded to either
Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality.
or
Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.
Slashdot Mirror
here is an interesting video with leslie lamport ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Lamport ) : http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/E2E-Erik-Meijer-and-Leslie-Lamport-Mathematical-Reasoning-and-Distributed-Systems/ "When you understand something, then you can find the math to express that understanding. The math doesn't provide the understanding." “The mathematics of computing; things like sets and functions and logic, are to computing what real numbers are to physics.”
Developers, Developers, Developers....
If it is possible to develop silverlight applications for winmobile7 in visual studio then you can use one skillset to program wpf and sliverlight applications and target the desktop/web and mobiles.
Dr Eric Meijer from microsoft research has given a pretty nice 13 part lecture on functional programming in haskell based on graham huttons book:
http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Lecture-Series-Erik-Meijer-Functional-Programming-Fundamentals-Chapter-1/
there are also a ton of other videos about f# on channel9 like:
http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/martinesmann/Don-Syme-FSharp-and-functional-programming-in-NET/
http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/C9-Lectures-Dr-Don-Syme-Introduction-to-F-1-of-3/
or others specifically on asynchronicity and parallelism in f#....
I might be mistaken, but i guess that the assignment direction will change in SAS depending on context. In R you do have the directional assignment operators <- and -> while in SAS the direction might change depending on context. At least that's what i get from the sentence.
Maybe he took one in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference . I think the principle was introduced by Laplace.
If there are people who would have paid thousands of dollars for it then that is the amount that was lost. And it doesn't matter that you can't get the money out of the system in accordance with their policy otherwise illegal drugs would have no value either.
How is that an argument at all? Nowhere in their terms do they allow you to use private servers if you decide to stop paying. Who would subscribe if they did?
If you don't like the terms presented to you, don't give them any money. It's not that hard of a concept.
So what, i do no longer agree to their terms of service and they are ofcourse within their rights to stop providing any service to me. Anything else seems to me a legal matter that might differ from country to country.
intelligence can be measured as a scalar if the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasch_model fits. It is very hard to construct a test that is robust across the different subpopulations (men/women, ppl with high scores/low scores...). Most tests currently in use are constructed with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_test_theory tough.
No, what you do is you look if there is a systematic bias between the different measurements and assign a higher uncertainty to the tree ring data before 1960. Otherwise every new and more accurate instrument would make all previous data obsolete and you would never be able to do long term studies.
I beg your pardon but falsifying science seems far easier than cooking accounting books. This article gives some nice examples http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/physics-and-pixie-dust . Many of these examples have been published in nature&co and are not even very sophisticated in their forgery.
That being said, i do not think that the emails in question are nefarious. They are tons of private emails there are bound to be many that look problematic for outsiders.
True. Now we have the question about "friends."
I submit a request to be your Facebook friend as "CuteBlonde362436" and you accept, thinking that I might be a cute blonde with measurements 36-24-36. At this point, I have access to your information including the fact that you like to molest small woodland creatures. Of course, I'm neither cute, blonde, nor do I have those measurements. However, I am part of an FBI task force charged with protecting small woodland creatures from molestation and the reason I approached you on Facebook is due to an anonymous tip that said you were into that sort of thing.
I now have all the evidence I need to have you locked up for a very long time.
Entrapment?
Why would he want a cute blond when he is into small woodland creatures :)
"We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us already nature does not sustain us." Tertullian (300 A.D).
there is not a lot of original news reporting done anyway. Most reporters just copy the stories from somewhere. Any original investigative reporting done by News Corp will be exclusive till the next reporter rewrites the story the other day.
Oh well, good riddance.
I can't see modern journalism producing such people either.
Because of the much higher population density in japan/europe than rural usa.
Actually we usually don't consider brains intelligent, we consider humans intelligent. As for needing a society to be intelligent, well you need all kinds of stuff to be able to show intelligent behaviour (air is a biggie). I do not think that considering ourselfs as distinct parts of reality as false. This problems only originate because of western philosophies use of language and set theory in this regard. An indian philosopher once said: All problems of western philosophy exists because you are able to say that "something is" without adding an attribute like blue.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10470
Mount a gun and animals won't move for long.
They won't be living either.
Advances in technology seem pretty robust and steady to me. Ofcourse they are unknown, but so is any future event. I would guess that models that involved "new tech" in the past fared better and led to better decisions than those without.
I might bew wrong about this, but my point is that this is an empirical question and not an analytical one.
Why would it be nice if there were some other factors explaining it?
right now we know what's contributing, and we are potentially (tough not likely) able to change it. the alternatives seem less favorable...
in other news:
the probability of the meteor hitting earth, given that he will hit earth, is 1.
let's panic.
unless the factors (birthday, clear sky..) are correlated to the explanatory variables they are just noise. something behaves deterministically if somebody can (predict)determine the result in advance. here is an interesting book about propability and (theory of) science: http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/site/1575863332.html .it is also viewable online. don't forget that if you are correct then it simply is not possible to make predictions in this context and this is emirically observable. not in this special case since they are talking about counterfactuals but the principle remains the same. for a treatment of counterfactuals see http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/ .
so the decision to cut some japanese people from a japanese p2p file sharing program will result in their isolation from the rest of the world which isn't using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winny .
Well, as Edward Tufte once wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
"Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation (as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete.[3] While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation must be at least expanded to either
Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality.
or
Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint.
or Anon
Causation is a subset of Correlation. "
Here are some videolectures on this topic: http://videolectures.net/icml07_tenenbaum_bmhi/ this one i find very insightful. http://videolectures.net/mlcs07_goldwater_bat/ http://videolectures.net/mlcs07_perfors_aba/