First off, I didn't say that I necessarily agreed--just that that was his take on the matter. Of course his whole opinion was much more complicated than that.
Note that the French (according to him), just feel that they have the best culture in the world and that everyone should follow along just because it is so great. He in no way intimidated that they were militant about it.
I am currently in a cross-cultural psychology course (of sorts), and we had a guest speaker speaking about France and why some folks think that the French hate Americans.
His take was simple--Americans and French are the only two cultures that think their culture is the best and want to impose it (in some fashion) on everyone else. Naturally then, like any time you have two folks who think they are the best, bar none, us Americans have butted heads with the French.
I'm not saying that I agree, but I suspect that he has some of that right. (As an aside, he is an American that has spent a number of years in France--and got his PhD in French Medieval Literature from a French University (not the Sorbonne, although he did spend time there, and occasionally lectures there) that I can't remember the name of (and couldn't pronounce when he told us, let alone spell!).
Now, since we have strayed so far off topic, let me just say that I hope that every country wakes up and sees that the smartest way to run things is on software that they have the source for and can modify themselves. A small business can get away with relying on someonw else to write their software (especially the OS), but a gov't has the resources and the time do it right themselves, and they should. Why? Because of security concerns. I wouldn't trust confidential data of the sort that most gov'ts keep to a host of proprietary OS boxen. (Never mind that they shouldn't be keeping some of the data--that is a different debate).
I think that it should be obvious why it is an imposition: I occasionally send documents to others who are not as wise to the many problems associated with MS Grammar check. They open it up and see that there are a bunch of green lines and think that I don't know anything about grammar.
I will grant you that I am NOT perfect in my usage of the English language, but I know it pretty well, and I am probably better than the grammar check. But some folks think that just because the computer told them so, it must be right! Grrrr.
I have to disagree--I think that making the grammar checker more intelligent is a very important part of the program.
I think that it is VERY annoying at this point, and I frequently turn it off because of that. Would I use an intelligent grammar check? Yes, by all means. It should also have an option for "story mode" or "dialogue", and ignore bad grammar within quotes so that I don't have hundreds of errors (alleged) popping up when I quote someone or when I choose to write about a character who uses bad grammar.
At the pain of sacrificing mod ability, allow me to say that Vidalinux is not perfect. The installer rocks to a certain point, but does NOT play nice with winXP if you wish to dual boot.
If you have NO intention of dual-boot, then fine, Vidalinux is quick. But if you wish to dual-boot, then avoid it like the plaque.
I think the point is that we are discussing making a movie based on a book (Ender's Game). The guys they are hiring to script it just finished doing something similar, and weren't very good as sticking close to the source.
The concern then, since you seem to have missed it, is that they will not stick close to the book (Ender's Game) when they do this movie, and it will not, by extension, be as good as the original (since his point is that the movie's aren't as good as the original--whether or not you agree).
So the point is this: did the changes they make enhance the story, give it more depth and help it along, or did the changes merely dumb it down for the masses?
Related to this point is this: since Card is alive (and well) at this time, how much say does he get in these movies? After all, if he is directly involved, they are much more likely to, if nothing else, stay close to what he intended. Which is what I want to see. I don't care if there are minor changes (even in the dialog), but I DO care if the intent is changed.
That's why I like the LOTR movies--they make it about telling a story--not some political mumbo-jumbo. I think Tolkien would have been moderately pleased with the movies, had he been around for them.
I think that if they screw with the plot on this one, Card will be ticked. Keep it close to the original (in this case), and the movie will be good. Otherwise, no show.
I won't argue with any of that. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that you are right.
Also, very sadly, there are certain advances in medicine that *might* not have happened as early as they did without the holocaust and Hitler's experiments on live humans. I don't think that we can safely say that they were worth it, however--and that is the crux of the problem.
Sometimes the good of the many does outweigh the good of the few. The trouble is, however, that it becomes difficult, on occasion, to tell where that line is. Thus was born the Ethics Committees and Review Boards who object to some very strange things at times, but generally do good work.
Are studies involving deception possible? Absolutely. Are they difficult to get approved? Yes, and with good reason.
You do bring up a good point, though. It does, occasionally, seem as though all the major discoveries happened because a researcher (at least in psychology, and to a lesser extent, medicine) was willing to do things to subjects that were more than a little questionable.
I would argue, however, that it simply requires more effort and ingenuity to set up an experiment to test the same thing without crossing that line. IIRC, the Milgram studies have been replicated to show that the effect exists, but in a more humane way.
erm, nice try, but the Milgram studies have generally been thought to be unethical. I don't think that there is a single ethics review board that would approve that study today.
It is considered unethical, not because of the deception (which is fine), but because significant emotional trauma can occur as a result of the deception.
So, in short, even though YOU might not find it unethical, review boards would, and you have a snowball's chance in [very warm place] of getting such a study approved these days.
That is certainly one possible scenario, but it is not the only scenario. More often its along the lines of, "man, I want to try out this game, but I don't want to shell out $40 for a limited version." There are some games that I don't buy--and won't. Not because they aren't good, but because I wouldn't play them often enough to justify the cash layout.
An example is Unreal Tournament 200x. I love the game, but I won't buy it (for a variety of reasons). I have not pirated it, but I have played the demo a lot. The demo, in fact, is great. If I was just getting together with friends, I would never buy the full version--sure I would play it for the evening, but not any more than that.
Game developers generally make money off of two demographics--the dedicated players (think World of Warcraft) and the rich (and there may be some overlap) kids. Folks like me, who have neither much disposable income (but some), nor much disposable time, are much more likely to want to play a game for the afternoon on a single occasion.
Games I buy? Ones with extremely high replay value (Diablo II) that don't incur continuing expenses.
Like it or not, I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that the war was about oil, or that the US is significantly benefitting from the Iraqi war in terms of oil.
Gas prices are now higher here than they have ever been. The national average is over $2/gallon, and there are numerous angecies saying that it only goes up from here.
Frankly, I don't think that would be the case if old Georgie was seriously trying to secure permanent oil interests in Iraq. Perhaps we will benefit in the long run, but if we do, I suspect that it will be only if greater peace and stability makes it to that region.
As an essentially conservative person, I think that the best thing that could happen in the Middle East would be permanent peace and stability. That would benefit EVERYONE (with the possible exception of a few delusional psychopaths whose only goal is personal power at the expense of everyone else), and EVERYONE should be working for it.
Is Georgie perfect? No. Do I (as an essentially conservative [with libertarian leanings] person) like everything he does? NO!!!
The PATRIOT act, for starters, is a serious problem. The sad truth is that I think George was a much better choice (based on how I weight certain values and political ideals) than the competition. Had the libertarian party sent up a serious candidate (sorry, but Badnarak, for all his qualities, does not have the proven track record necessary), I would have voted that direction. Unfortunately, Badnarak was a poor choice. The libertarians need a candidate with the ability to get positive media attention, a solid track record of leadership/success, and some name recognition.
I will agree with most here-I swear by Logitech Mice. I don't mind their keyboards--but they don't make a cheap ergonomic board, so I get the MS one that's about $29.
So, for all of my personal computing needs, its a Logitech mouse!
Okay, so while i don't like the small rats, I don't think that it is really a good idea to drop kick the beasties. But I still find it funny.
That said, I don't want a dog for a body guard. If I was going to have a pet to guard me, you had better believe that it would a whole lot meaner than any dog (try a panther/cougar--now that's vicious!). Dogs are best for pets when they are intelligent, quiet (except when there are problems), and helpful. I grew up around herd dogs (mostly border (sp?) collies) that are known for being intelligent and capable. To me that's what a dog should be.
Most chihuahua's that I have seen (and not surprisingly, other small rat dogs) are very noisy, and frequently without reason. I don't mind the dog barking (once) to let you know someone has pulled up to your house, but when the neighbors mutt is barking at four in the morning, I really just want the thing to go away--permanently.
As far as your comment goes about people not realizing the dog is harmless--what do they think its going to do? Pee on them? Only really a problem if you wear leather! Since I am unlikely to ever meet you (or anyone else) in a situation where I need to worry about which is more dangerous (them or the dog), I don't much care.
If the pics are accurate, and you can really shut the window (sorry I don't read Japanese), then this is some cool stuff. I can see it being used to hide cabling and make it less obtrusive.
Other than that, they had better be selling it for close to normal cable prices, or I can't think of anyone who would buy very much of it.
funny you should say that. I was talking to a friend about how if Lucas had done Ep I correctly, Jar-Jar's role (if any, mind you), would have lasted all of about 5 minutes, at which point someone would have chopped his tongue out of his head, and then used their lightsabre hilt to beat him to a bloody pulp.
Then the movie, tone set properly, could have then proceeded to tell the story as it should have been.
Ep II, if done correctly, would have had Amadala leaving Anakin, saying something along the lines of, "call me when you can ACT!", followed by a real rage and not some Seattle-teen angst coupled with a pseudo remorse. Additionally, the senate would have killed Jar-Jar (presuming he made it that long), and Yoda would have had a clue about what was so obvious.
I think there are several problems with the movie, but central to it all is that Lucas insisted on making them not to tell a story, but to entertain his kids (watch daddy make a billion bucks selling goofy stuff to the gullible peons, son...er, that is watch Jar-Jar, I made him just for you...) and make money. The Original Films were made to tell a story, even with moralistic overtones. It just so happens that they were a classic.
Despite all that, Lucas' kids are older, and so he is telling a more mature story. The fact of the matter is that those who tell kids stories like they are talking to their dog fifi end up making crap. Those that take a story about things kids understand and tell them like an adult make excellent stories, books, movies, etc. Those are the ones that are remembered.
If Lucas had taken the story of Anakin as a kid, and told it to adults, it would have a much broader appeal. Instead he took the story of Anakin as a kid, hid it in his dirty socks, sprayed it with bright shiny colors and Febreeze, and tried to distract everyone with the bright shiny lights--all the while saying what a good boy Fifi is.
Blech!
(As a side not, it should be noted that I am not a fan of dogs as pets unless the dog is over 18 or so inches tall and has a nice mean-sounding bark. Those sorry mini-poodles, chihuahuas and otherwise furry footballs are only good for roadkill and football...oh yeah, and dust mops!)//end rant
In footnote #2 he states that it is currently illegal to discriminate based on intelligence in the US.
This is not exactly correct. It is illegal to discriminate on a number of things, but intelligence is not one of them--provided that hiring based on intelligence is related to the job and you can prove it. The other stipulation is that it cannot serve as a proxy for discriminating against a protected class. This is where many companies get into trouble.
Can you use intelligence as a hiring tool? Certainly, but be careful! Don't be stupid, hire an expert (I'll take the job), and make sure that you aren't accidentally discriminating against a protected group (gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc), and you'll be fine.
All that said, overall, I think he's fairly close to the mark with his ideas. Essentially, people matter, money matters, and hard work matters. Like one person told me--kiss your family/SO goodbye and tell them you love them. Three to four years later, you can breathe again, and they'll get to know you again.
THe IRS doesn't currently have software, but the DO have pdf forms that you can actually save your changes to from acrobat reader. The situation isn't perfect--it would be better if they had linking forms and all in one pdf that did the calculations for you (that would be software, then), but it worked for me.
That said, my taxes are only moderately difficult--1 state, 2 kids, wife (who works as a pampered chef consultant), tuition payments, and a few 1099-misc forms.
It took about 4 hours total to do both fed and state by hand, fill out the forms and mail them in. I made a slight math error, resulting in a 6 dollar reduction in how much I received back from the feds, but oh well.
The point is, taxes are NOT that tough for those who take the standard deduction. Anyone who can honestly call themselves a geek should have the brains to do it properly.
Will you get more by going to an accountant? Possibly, but I wouldn't guarantee it.
Yes, but the way that excel talks about the sample variance vs. population variance is misleading. Frankly, in the social sciences (psych especially), there are SO few times when an entire population is available, that it does make sense to talk about calculating sample variance as n, and population variance as n-1, since you are calculating the variance for the data you have (sample) or inferring to the population (which is typical, but is NOT the sample variance).
Like I said, I am not a statistician--I am in psych. Granted, you may be right that R does the same thing, but there is a good reason for it--it is assumed that you are making an inference to the population. But if you want to describe the sample in and of itself, wouldn't you just want n instead of n-1?
You are correct about R--I just couldn't check it, since I don't have it installed at work, and wasn't going to just for a single question.
Look, I've tried it--and ended up with headaches galore because of such insanity.
Look, if you want something that is readily available, and works nicely with the ease of use provided by excel (entering data), then I suggest the R project (http://www.r-project.org). It will even read excel files. It gives you all the coefficients that you need, and will do much better plotting/graphics than excel. Yes, the learning curve is high. But no more than for writing macros in excel (and for the same type of analyses, lower).
I hate to be a jerk, but I have some serious reservations about doing what you describe. I don't use any spreadsheet for statistical analysis--not even for correlations or standard deviations (err. no I take that back--I have used it for standard deviations).
There are some good reasons for this. First, the difference in the amount of testing that goes into each formula and implementation in excel v. a stats package is substantial (or perhaps I should say, significant).
Take EQS as an example. Bentler--the guy who develops/spearheads EQS--is a BIG name in the SEM literature. He regularly publishes, and is well known and respected. When he publishes, people pay attention. Can you say the same for the folks writing the stats functions behind Excel? Are you certain that their methodology works? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I am saying that you need to be careful.
As an example, look at the formula that they use for the var() function. It is an estimate of population variance, NOT sample variance. How to tell? Look at the denominator. They state that they use n-1. The sample variance is simply n, not n-1. Any time you start subtracting 1 from your n, you are NO LONGER getting a sample variance.
Strangely enough, they use the denominator n for the population variance. WTF? As someone with more than a little experience with stats (though a statistician I am not), I find this dodgy. Why? The difference between a sample and a population is fairly simple, and fairly standard. The idea is this: you have population y, which encompasses all items of a specific characteristic (maybe engineers). If you want to learn something about the population, it is usually cost-prohibitive to measure the desired trait for EVERY member of the population, so we take a sample (or subset) of the population.
Why doesn't excel get this right? If this is wrong, then what else is bizarre? I don't trust it.
Yes, they have both formulas, but I would make absolutely certain that you know what formula goes with which function!
Another point, Please take note that I don't use either OOcalc OR excel for analysis. Don't trust either one. I actually trust OOcalc LESS since it WON'T tell me which formula they use. Let me state unequivocally--spreadsheets are NOT tools for statistical analysis. If you want to do statistical analysis with them, at the VERY least write your own function so that you know what goes into the output.
If you haven't guessed, this is one of my major pet peeves. Frankly, working "just fine" isn't good enough. Look, there are folks who argue whether or not a p.05 or p.10 or p.01 or p.001 is more appropriate as a significance level. If you accept p.001 as the significance level that you need, then you had better be very certain of your results. As an engineer if you start working with tolerances less than a millimeter, then you had better be certain of your results. "Just fine" doesn't get it in many circumstances. If you are building the next shuttle, your data analysis had better be perfect!//end rant.//apologies for my peevishness.//apologies for the stats lesson on a monday.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, I didn't say that I necessarily agreed--just that that was his take on the matter. Of course his whole opinion was much more complicated than that.
Note that the French (according to him), just feel that they have the best culture in the world and that everyone should follow along just because it is so great. He in no way intimidated that they were militant about it.
It's interesting that this should come up.
I am currently in a cross-cultural psychology course (of sorts), and we had a guest speaker speaking about France and why some folks think that the French hate Americans.
His take was simple--Americans and French are the only two cultures that think their culture is the best and want to impose it (in some fashion) on everyone else. Naturally then, like any time you have two folks who think they are the best, bar none, us Americans have butted heads with the French.
I'm not saying that I agree, but I suspect that he has some of that right. (As an aside, he is an American that has spent a number of years in France--and got his PhD in French Medieval Literature from a French University (not the Sorbonne, although he did spend time there, and occasionally lectures there) that I can't remember the name of (and couldn't pronounce when he told us, let alone spell!).
Now, since we have strayed so far off topic, let me just say that I hope that every country wakes up and sees that the smartest way to run things is on software that they have the source for and can modify themselves. A small business can get away with relying on someonw else to write their software (especially the OS), but a gov't has the resources and the time do it right themselves, and they should. Why? Because of security concerns. I wouldn't trust confidential data of the sort that most gov'ts keep to a host of proprietary OS boxen. (Never mind that they shouldn't be keeping some of the data--that is a different debate).
I think that it should be obvious why it is an imposition: I occasionally send documents to others who are not as wise to the many problems associated with MS Grammar check. They open it up and see that there are a bunch of green lines and think that I don't know anything about grammar.
I will grant you that I am NOT perfect in my usage of the English language, but I know it pretty well, and I am probably better than the grammar check. But some folks think that just because the computer told them so, it must be right! Grrrr.
I have to disagree--I think that making the grammar checker more intelligent is a very important part of the program.
I think that it is VERY annoying at this point, and I frequently turn it off because of that. Would I use an intelligent grammar check? Yes, by all means. It should also have an option for "story mode" or "dialogue", and ignore bad grammar within quotes so that I don't have hundreds of errors (alleged) popping up when I quote someone or when I choose to write about a character who uses bad grammar.
erm...oops.
You're right it is funny.
At the pain of sacrificing mod ability, allow me to say that Vidalinux is not perfect. The installer rocks to a certain point, but does NOT play nice with winXP if you wish to dual boot.
If you have NO intention of dual-boot, then fine, Vidalinux is quick. But if you wish to dual-boot, then avoid it like the plaque.
I don't know that, but I do know this:: if he was doing the agreement today, he would probably retain that. When it was licensed? I can't say.
I think the point is that we are discussing making a movie based on a book (Ender's Game). The guys they are hiring to script it just finished doing something similar, and weren't very good as sticking close to the source.
The concern then, since you seem to have missed it, is that they will not stick close to the book (Ender's Game) when they do this movie, and it will not, by extension, be as good as the original (since his point is that the movie's aren't as good as the original--whether or not you agree).
So the point is this: did the changes they make enhance the story, give it more depth and help it along, or did the changes merely dumb it down for the masses?
Related to this point is this: since Card is alive (and well) at this time, how much say does he get in these movies? After all, if he is directly involved, they are much more likely to, if nothing else, stay close to what he intended. Which is what I want to see. I don't care if there are minor changes (even in the dialog), but I DO care if the intent is changed.
That's why I like the LOTR movies--they make it about telling a story--not some political mumbo-jumbo. I think Tolkien would have been moderately pleased with the movies, had he been around for them.
I think that if they screw with the plot on this one, Card will be ticked. Keep it close to the original (in this case), and the movie will be good. Otherwise, no show.
I won't argue with any of that. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that you are right.
Also, very sadly, there are certain advances in medicine that *might* not have happened as early as they did without the holocaust and Hitler's experiments on live humans. I don't think that we can safely say that they were worth it, however--and that is the crux of the problem.
Sometimes the good of the many does outweigh the good of the few. The trouble is, however, that it becomes difficult, on occasion, to tell where that line is. Thus was born the Ethics Committees and Review Boards who object to some very strange things at times, but generally do good work.
Are studies involving deception possible? Absolutely. Are they difficult to get approved? Yes, and with good reason.
You do bring up a good point, though. It does, occasionally, seem as though all the major discoveries happened because a researcher (at least in psychology, and to a lesser extent, medicine) was willing to do things to subjects that were more than a little questionable.
I would argue, however, that it simply requires more effort and ingenuity to set up an experiment to test the same thing without crossing that line. IIRC, the Milgram studies have been replicated to show that the effect exists, but in a more humane way.
erm,
nice try, but the Milgram studies have generally been thought to be unethical. I don't think that there is a single ethics review board that would approve that study today.
It is considered unethical, not because of the deception (which is fine), but because significant emotional trauma can occur as a result of the deception.
So, in short, even though YOU might not find it unethical, review boards would, and you have a snowball's chance in [very warm place] of getting such a study approved these days.
that, my friend, is hilarious!
go you.
That is certainly one possible scenario, but it is not the only scenario. More often its along the lines of, "man, I want to try out this game, but I don't want to shell out $40 for a limited version." There are some games that I don't buy--and won't. Not because they aren't good, but because I wouldn't play them often enough to justify the cash layout.
An example is Unreal Tournament 200x. I love the game, but I won't buy it (for a variety of reasons). I have not pirated it, but I have played the demo a lot. The demo, in fact, is great. If I was just getting together with friends, I would never buy the full version--sure I would play it for the evening, but not any more than that.
Game developers generally make money off of two demographics--the dedicated players (think World of Warcraft) and the rich (and there may be some overlap) kids. Folks like me, who have neither much disposable income (but some), nor much disposable time, are much more likely to want to play a game for the afternoon on a single occasion.
Games I buy? Ones with extremely high replay value (Diablo II) that don't incur continuing expenses.
Like it or not, I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that the war was about oil, or that the US is significantly benefitting from the Iraqi war in terms of oil.
Gas prices are now higher here than they have ever been. The national average is over $2/gallon, and there are numerous angecies saying that it only goes up from here.
Frankly, I don't think that would be the case if old Georgie was seriously trying to secure permanent oil interests in Iraq. Perhaps we will benefit in the long run, but if we do, I suspect that it will be only if greater peace and stability makes it to that region.
As an essentially conservative person, I think that the best thing that could happen in the Middle East would be permanent peace and stability. That would benefit EVERYONE (with the possible exception of a few delusional psychopaths whose only goal is personal power at the expense of everyone else), and EVERYONE should be working for it.
Is Georgie perfect? No. Do I (as an essentially conservative [with libertarian leanings] person) like everything he does? NO!!!
The PATRIOT act, for starters, is a serious problem. The sad truth is that I think George was a much better choice (based on how I weight certain values and political ideals) than the competition. Had the libertarian party sent up a serious candidate (sorry, but Badnarak, for all his qualities, does not have the proven track record necessary), I would have voted that direction. Unfortunately, Badnarak was a poor choice. The libertarians need a candidate with the ability to get positive media attention, a solid track record of leadership/success, and some name recognition.
OH well.
I will agree with most here-I swear by Logitech Mice. I don't mind their keyboards--but they don't make a cheap ergonomic board, so I get the MS one that's about $29.
So, for all of my personal computing needs, its a Logitech mouse!
I know that this is normally the case, but the question is how this stuff holds up.
Okay, so while i don't like the small rats, I don't think that it is really a good idea to drop kick the beasties. But I still find it funny.
That said, I don't want a dog for a body guard. If I was going to have a pet to guard me, you had better believe that it would a whole lot meaner than any dog (try a panther/cougar--now that's vicious!). Dogs are best for pets when they are intelligent, quiet (except when there are problems), and helpful. I grew up around herd dogs (mostly border (sp?) collies) that are known for being intelligent and capable. To me that's what a dog should be.
Most chihuahua's that I have seen (and not surprisingly, other small rat dogs) are very noisy, and frequently without reason. I don't mind the dog barking (once) to let you know someone has pulled up to your house, but when the neighbors mutt is barking at four in the morning, I really just want the thing to go away--permanently.
As far as your comment goes about people not realizing the dog is harmless--what do they think its going to do? Pee on them? Only really a problem if you wear leather! Since I am unlikely to ever meet you (or anyone else) in a situation where I need to worry about which is more dangerous (them or the dog), I don't much care.
If the pics are accurate, and you can really shut the window (sorry I don't read Japanese), then this is some cool stuff. I can see it being used to hide cabling and make it less obtrusive.
Other than that, they had better be selling it for close to normal cable prices, or I can't think of anyone who would buy very much of it.
funny you should say that. I was talking to a friend about how if Lucas had done Ep I correctly, Jar-Jar's role (if any, mind you), would have lasted all of about 5 minutes, at which point someone would have chopped his tongue out of his head, and then used their lightsabre hilt to beat him to a bloody pulp.
//end rant
Then the movie, tone set properly, could have then proceeded to tell the story as it should have been.
Ep II, if done correctly, would have had Amadala leaving Anakin, saying something along the lines of, "call me when you can ACT!", followed by a real rage and not some Seattle-teen angst coupled with a pseudo remorse. Additionally, the senate would have killed Jar-Jar (presuming he made it that long), and Yoda would have had a clue about what was so obvious.
I think there are several problems with the movie, but central to it all is that Lucas insisted on making them not to tell a story, but to entertain his kids (watch daddy make a billion bucks selling goofy stuff to the gullible peons, son...er, that is watch Jar-Jar, I made him just for you...) and make money. The Original Films were made to tell a story, even with moralistic overtones. It just so happens that they were a classic.
Despite all that, Lucas' kids are older, and so he is telling a more mature story. The fact of the matter is that those who tell kids stories like they are talking to their dog fifi end up making crap. Those that take a story about things kids understand and tell them like an adult make excellent stories, books, movies, etc. Those are the ones that are remembered.
If Lucas had taken the story of Anakin as a kid, and told it to adults, it would have a much broader appeal. Instead he took the story of Anakin as a kid, hid it in his dirty socks, sprayed it with bright shiny colors and Febreeze, and tried to distract everyone with the bright shiny lights--all the while saying what a good boy Fifi is.
Blech!
(As a side not, it should be noted that I am not a fan of dogs as pets unless the dog is over 18 or so inches tall and has a nice mean-sounding bark. Those sorry mini-poodles, chihuahuas and otherwise furry footballs are only good for roadkill and football...oh yeah, and dust mops!)
In footnote #2 he states that it is currently illegal to discriminate based on intelligence in the US.
This is not exactly correct. It is illegal to discriminate on a number of things, but intelligence is not one of them--provided that hiring based on intelligence is related to the job and you can prove it. The other stipulation is that it cannot serve as a proxy for discriminating against a protected class. This is where many companies get into trouble.
Can you use intelligence as a hiring tool? Certainly, but be careful! Don't be stupid, hire an expert (I'll take the job), and make sure that you aren't accidentally discriminating against a protected group (gender, race, ethnicity, religion, etc), and you'll be fine.
All that said, overall, I think he's fairly close to the mark with his ideas. Essentially, people matter, money matters, and hard work matters. Like one person told me--kiss your family/SO goodbye and tell them you love them. Three to four years later, you can breathe again, and they'll get to know you again.
There are other ways, but it takes a LOT of work.
THe IRS doesn't currently have software, but the DO have pdf forms that you can actually save your changes to from acrobat reader. The situation isn't perfect--it would be better if they had linking forms and all in one pdf that did the calculations for you (that would be software, then), but it worked for me.
That said, my taxes are only moderately difficult--1 state, 2 kids, wife (who works as a pampered chef consultant), tuition payments, and a few 1099-misc forms.
It took about 4 hours total to do both fed and state by hand, fill out the forms and mail them in. I made a slight math error, resulting in a 6 dollar reduction in how much I received back from the feds, but oh well.
The point is, taxes are NOT that tough for those who take the standard deduction. Anyone who can honestly call themselves a geek should have the brains to do it properly.
Will you get more by going to an accountant? Possibly, but I wouldn't guarantee it.
I have to say, I actually like this idea. A suicide permit. Of course, it would make me want to kill myself just doing the paperwork, but oh well.
Yes, but the way that excel talks about the sample variance vs. population variance is misleading. Frankly, in the social sciences (psych especially), there are SO few times when an entire population is available, that it does make sense to talk about calculating sample variance as n, and population variance as n-1, since you are calculating the variance for the data you have (sample) or inferring to the population (which is typical, but is NOT the sample variance).
Maybe it is a difference of convention.
HMMM.
Like I said, I am not a statistician--I am in psych. Granted, you may be right that R does the same thing, but there is a good reason for it--it is assumed that you are making an inference to the population. But if you want to describe the sample in and of itself, wouldn't you just want n instead of n-1?
You are correct about R--I just couldn't check it, since I don't have it installed at work, and wasn't going to just for a single question.
Just a note--OOcalc does the same fricking thing with the var v. varp functions. Grrr!
Grrrr....
//end rant. //apologies for my peevishness. //apologies for the stats lesson on a monday.
Look, I've tried it--and ended up with headaches galore because of such insanity.
Look, if you want something that is readily available, and works nicely with the ease of use provided by excel (entering data), then I suggest the R project (http://www.r-project.org). It will even read excel files. It gives you all the coefficients that you need, and will do much better plotting/graphics than excel. Yes, the learning curve is high. But no more than for writing macros in excel (and for the same type of analyses, lower).
I hate to be a jerk, but I have some serious reservations about doing what you describe. I don't use any spreadsheet for statistical analysis--not even for correlations or standard deviations (err. no I take that back--I have used it for standard deviations).
There are some good reasons for this. First, the difference in the amount of testing that goes into each formula and implementation in excel v. a stats package is substantial (or perhaps I should say, significant).
Take EQS as an example. Bentler--the guy who develops/spearheads EQS--is a BIG name in the SEM literature. He regularly publishes, and is well known and respected. When he publishes, people pay attention. Can you say the same for the folks writing the stats functions behind Excel? Are you certain that their methodology works? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I am saying that you need to be careful.
As an example, look at the formula that they use for the var() function. It is an estimate of population variance, NOT sample variance. How to tell? Look at the denominator. They state that they use n-1. The sample variance is simply n, not n-1. Any time you start subtracting 1 from your n, you are NO LONGER getting a sample variance.
Strangely enough, they use the denominator n for the population variance. WTF? As someone with more than a little experience with stats (though a statistician I am not), I find this dodgy. Why? The difference between a sample and a population is fairly simple, and fairly standard. The idea is this: you have population y, which encompasses all items of a specific characteristic (maybe engineers). If you want to learn something about the population, it is usually cost-prohibitive to measure the desired trait for EVERY member of the population, so we take a sample (or subset) of the population.
Why doesn't excel get this right? If this is wrong, then what else is bizarre? I don't trust it.
Yes, they have both formulas, but I would make absolutely certain that you know what formula goes with which function!
Another point, Please take note that I don't use either OOcalc OR excel for analysis. Don't trust either one. I actually trust OOcalc LESS since it WON'T tell me which formula they use. Let me state unequivocally--spreadsheets are NOT tools for statistical analysis. If you want to do statistical analysis with them, at the VERY least write your own function so that you know what goes into the output.
If you haven't guessed, this is one of my major pet peeves. Frankly, working "just fine" isn't good enough. Look, there are folks who argue whether or not a p.05 or p.10 or p.01 or p.001 is more appropriate as a significance level. If you accept p.001 as the significance level that you need, then you had better be very certain of your results. As an engineer if you start working with tolerances less than a millimeter, then you had better be certain of your results. "Just fine" doesn't get it in many circumstances. If you are building the next shuttle, your data analysis had better be perfect!