I think that some of the reason is that although it is a matter of public record that Bush made some questionable statements, many people still feel that the war itself was justifiable to a certain extent. As for what he lied about, please clarify exactly what your point of reference is.
If it is WMD, then yes I am extremely curious what happened, but I do believe it is possible that Saddam got wind of the impending war and moved things right out of the country, even with UN inspectors present.
Personally, I don't like the idea of the US being the world police, and arbitrarilly removing dictators--something both Bush and Clinton may equally be held to the fire for (as a reminder, Kosovo wasn't exactly a UN supported idea, and certainly Saddam has done just as much as previous Kosovo leaders to deserve military action). Clinton, though, for some reason, is generally not held to the same fire as Bush for those actions (I am sure this will cause some serious flames as well).
As a note--it is because he tended to be such a pathological liar that I did NOT vote for Gore. He made so many questionable statements about issues that were unimportant that I couldn't even begin to trust him with ones that were. Bush, I felt, had some integrity, even if it is spotted with some pretty heavy blemishes.
I can't think of a more appropriate response. Really.
Of course, I would like to make a few more clarifications. First I don't think you will find a serious candidate for election in most countries that does NOT have some spotty ties. I would like to say that I felt that I could vote for someone who was not corrupt, had no questionable ties, and whose family background is not in question. But I defy you to find a POLITICIAN with serious prospects for election in pretty much ANY country that doesn't have some dirty/spotty history.
Yes, I have faith that people who believe a certain way will tend to be more responsible. I don't believe it makes ANYONE perfect, nor do I advocate the idea that anyone should be given absolute power because they have faith in a higher power.
I would point you to the Bible, a fairly well accepted document (even if not completely historical in some people's view), for an example of what can happen when even supposedly good people are made kings. When the Jews switched from a system of judges to a system of kings, things went downhill pretty fast. (I will probably get flamed for this by someone with a little more knowledge of that document than I).
As for voting, yes I think more Americans, and everyone in general, should go to the polls and vote. I personally make that effort, and find it worthwhile. I also feel that if you don't vote, you shouldn't complain. Along with that there should be an option for "neither" on all elections, so that people can express their dissatisfaction with the political system itself.
As for someone purporting to KNOW the right thing to do, we all make that assertion at some point. Sorry to dissapoint, but that is human nature. We claim to know the solution to all types of things, when we almost certainly do not. As for faith, I don't put my faith in Bush, rather I reserve that for a higher power. I am of the opinion that IF Bush REALLY does have the faith in the God he claims to, then that makes him a somewhat better person than he would be otherwise. NOT that it absolves him of irresponsible, poorly thought out decisions.
An important concept in psychology is the idea of locus of control. That is, do I believe that my situation is a result of my behavior (internal locus), or the actions of others (external). It has been shown that those with an internal locus of control are typically better adjusted, more successful and suffer less from depression.
Why is this relevent? Because I believe that responsibility for one's own actions is a basic tenet of a successful society, and is inherent to an internal locus of control. Therefore when someone, such as a president of a very powerful country, does something stupid, they should be held accountable, certainly.
There are bounds and limits to this, but essentially, if it was truly within their control, which it may not have been, they should be responsible.
Here's the catch: even if you or I were to find a politician that one of us felt was "clean", I seriously doubt that we would agree about that. It's just the way it goes.
Sorry about the rant--and by the way, even though I am basing a lot of this on my personal faith, religious views, etc, let's do try to keep the discussion intellectual as possible, and not denegrate to name calling. It really doesn't help.
Personally, I take the view that humans (as indivdiduals) are pretty smart, but collectively manage to do some really stupid things. Unfortunately, research shows that humans in groups actually make better decisions than do individuals.
Or are you one of those who thinks all religious people are crazy/lunatic?
I personally would find it reassuring to know that he at least believes that there is a power greater than himself. In my opinion, it keeps a person from doing anything too stupid.
Before anyone gets too crazy on this, YES I am aware of all the crazy and terrible things that have been done by various zealots of pretty much every major religious category (Christians, Muslims, etc). I would argue that the people behind those crazy acts were only using religion to get at an end they wanted anyway, not because they believed that it was what God/Allah/whoever/whatever really wanted them to do. But they knew that if they could convince others to do think that's what God (etc) wanted, they could get there way. I am aware of all this, and still believe that those who truly believe that there is a higher power of some sort will tend to be more responsible for their actions when in a position of power.
That said, while I voted for Bush, and generally support him, I don't really like some of the things he has done (PATRIOT act comes to mind, as dose TIA).
As a Republican, I have to say that while the party as a whole seems to cater toward business in general, not everyone in the party sees the situation the same.
Personally, I am business minded, and feel that it is in the best interest of a business to increase protections for worker's health & safety. I think most business owners would agree, and those who do not are eventually going to find themselves in a world of hurt in today's rather litigious society.
To me the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is not in how they treat businesses. In fact, there is very little difference in the philosophy of the two parties--both are equally glad to get money no matter where it comes from. The idea of reducing the % of taxes collected from business is that by doing so the company will be free to invest that money and will thereby generate more money, and thus the OVERALL collected taxes will be about the same.
Democrats take a different route. They want to tax the socks of business, and give a break to the poor folks--who admittedly have less money in the first place. This has the effect of making them popular among po' folk (and lest you think that I am being denegrating to those whose income's are lower than mine, let me inform you that currently my income is low enough to place me well below the poverty line--and I have two children [I am also in graduate school, which is why my income is so low]). Since the proportion of rich to poor is always pyramidal (at least almost always), this ends up making the Democratic party very popular.
The thing is, though, BOTH parties want the same thing--power. Some think its about money, but really it isn't. It is about power. The only issue is that currently money==power. Hey, who doesn't want more power to control their own situation.
The thing that typically torques my chain about the Democratic party is that they make a lot of claims about "power for the people", and whatnot, but in reality, they are just as much about power for the politicians as any Republican.
All that said, WHY do I prefer the Republican party over the Democratic party, when by my analysis both are equally power hungry? It's mostly about other issues, really. I am a moral conservative (and will probably get flamed/bashed for it), and in general the views of the Republican party align more closely with mine than do those of the Democrat party. Further more, I find the naked honesty of some Republicans more tolerable than the lies of the Democrats (ie, yes, we will take away the power of the average guy, but hey, at least you have been warned!).
If I was really as indignant/concerned about the whole situation as I should be, I would register Libertarian, and tell both Republicans and Democrats to go fly a kite! Unfortunately, there are some very disturbing things about the Libertarians too.
I guess I just wanted to rant. Now for the standard disclaimer: I do not support the PATRIOT act or any other act that denies ANY citizen of the US a fair trial, rights to privacy (before conviction), or otherwise infringes on private behavior that does not harm others.
If you are responsible for no one else, and want to smoke crack till you die, fine. But if you want to put the life of others in danger by doing something stupid like driving drunk/high/really messed up, then you need to locked away, and your rights are seriously diminished.
i must respectfully disagree. i have managed to successfully explain why open source programs are good to a number of non-programmers. Even my mother, who is one of the most computer illiterate people on the planet, was able to grasp the concept.
Granted, she did not come into the situation with a bias against it, but several of the people I know have.
I know it feels good to say that we who watch/. are the 3l33t, but the truth is that if you really want to, it is possible to explain most of the concepts of open source to just about anyone. It doesn't mean that they will agree.
Personally, I take the view that humans are pretty smart.
nice troll. Personally, I use Linux because it IS better--my definition of better includes games AND ease of use. If you are talking about the sorry games that come WITH the OS, or are freely available, sorry linux has Windows beat. IF you are talking about what games are sold at Walmart/BestBuy that run under the OS, windows may win, but only if you don't count WineX (which I do--hey it WORKS!).
Simplicity of use. Well now, that's an interesting concept--one that MS does indeed work on, but unfortunately, they fail that test despite the effort they put into it. Yes, it is EASIER to install new software under windows, MOST OF THE TIME. However, in all other categories, linux is just as advanced. Of course, linux has the advantage because of how customizeable it is. I prefer a minimalist approach, and currently use XFce4 as my WM/DE. The nice thing about these is that it makes common tasks easier to use.
No, a normal user could not set this up on their own. But I doubt they could get windows installed and properly configured with all the latest drivers without some additional help. Therefore, I don't think you can argue simplicity on the installer either.
No, linux is ready for the desktop. It just needs a major backer, such as the likes of DELL or COMPAQ or AOL (noooooooo! Yes, I realize that they don't currently sell pc's, but they could) to start shipping only linux pc's. It would shift things pretty darn fast. (No, sorry guys, windows is going to cost $300 extra. Our base configuration is with linux).
It wouldn't even be all that hard to modify a distro like Gentoo or Debian (Lindows anyone) to have an easy way to install additional software without the su- command. Additional acoutrementes could be added also: DELL Linux logos, diagnostics, etc. DELL Linux could also include extras to make it even more attractive to businesses.
Of course I will probably get shot down as a Karma Whore, but that's okay--I AM responding to a TROLL.
interesting sig, but generally see the orginal quote attributed to Isaac Asimov, not Arthur C. Clarke.
Can you provide a source? I can--look up the book "Magic" by Asimov on amazon, and read that. Also the Foundation books that have been written in his honor by (I think) Greg Bear and others also reference this quote.
That's what I am saying, but I mean to predict the maximum standard deviation as the average IQ approaches approaches zero. Thus if the function to describe the IQ is X/2, what is the new standard deviation?
just to nitpick, though: originally, IQ was mental age divided by biological age. Since biological age is at any measurable point >0, as is mental age, IQ > 0. Someone might argue that mental age could be, theoretically 0, but one of the problems is that to know the mental age of an individual, you must measure it. Currently, there is no method of measuring this that would allow us to obtain a score of 0.
Thus to say that IQ could reach zero is incorrect. Now to say that it tends to zero is different. This may be true, but it could never result in a zero score. Since we are dealing with an average, though, we must also state that as IQ approaches zero, deviation from that IQ must also approach zero.
Someone with better math can define the function for the deviation.
Actually my experience with USB mice has been quite positive. I use a logitech optical wheel mouse (one of the early ones), and haven't had so much as a hiccough with support. Compare that to my friend who can't get his M$ intellimouse to work under linux. period. But it works find under windows.
IQ, more properly referred to as g is an interesting construct. Allow me to elucidate the subject just a bit.
G is the idea that intelligence, which has been defined in various ways, can be singly quantified and represented by a number. This number is g. Whether it is correct or not, the current tests of g are all heavily loaded on two factors--verbal/reading ability, and math (numerical reasoning).
This has some rather unfortunate side effects. One is that people who cannot read are less likely to do well. Another is that minorities (specifically African Americans and Hispanics) do not typically do as well as White Americans. A very notable exception to this is that Asians do much better than Whites (typically that is).
When saying this, I am not implying that anyone one group is really smarter or dumber than another, but that they score lower on tests of g. This is an important distinction. It is provable that these scores are not accurate depictions of intelligence because g correlates with, among other things, success as a manager (specifically the level of management that a person will typically achieve). This is a positive correlation for all ethnic groups, but is different for the different ethnicities I have mentioned.
This indicates that g is not fair to all ethnic groups. So while you are correct that a lack of literacy is not automatically a sign of unintelligence, you must realize that a lack of literacy will generally result in a low IQ(g) score.
Just as an item of interest, IQ was originally a true quotient: MA/CA where MA is the mental age of the individual, and CA is the Chronological age of the individual. It was developed by Alfred Binet to help identify mentally handicapped children who still could be taught a useful skill. This was due, in part, to overcrowding in French Asylums, where, at the time, both insane and handicapped were placed indiscriminantly.
If you are interested in learning more about IQ/g I would reccomend Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, wherein he critiques the idea of a single measure of intelligence, and describes how it has been used to discriminate against minorities in a large array of situations. He is a biologist (was? he may have died--can't remember), and he knows his statistics quite well. There are few better treatments of the concept of intelligence measures outside of the psychology journals.
I hate to tell you this, but there are numerous episodes where they go back in time. I you want to wait a couple of days, I'll go rewatch all the episodes that I have on tape (all but about 3 of the originals, and none of the other series) and let you know which one.
But yes, there are several occasions where the Enterprise enters an atmosphere of some time--in the original episodes.
As I understand it, and I will probably be corrected by those whose geek badge is a little shinier than mine, the saucer section was designed to enter the atmosphere, whereas the rest of the ship was not.
Now, can anyone tell us how fast impulse power is? It must be pretty fast, since they could do interplanetary travel on it (within a solar system).
Having been to the Wright-Patterson museum, it is most impressive, especially the stealth fighter/bomber (can't remember which) they had the last time I was there. They also had an SR-71, and I think it's predecessor, which I can't remember the name of (there are only like 3 in existence). Those are some nice planes.
I did actually touch the stealth plane, and it's rough, kinda like a rough canvas, but inflexible. Neat stuff. Well worth the trip.
I personally find this great. After all, I know that's exactly what I would do if I had a wind tunnel. I would also be testing the aerodynamic properties of the Millenium Falcon (which was designed for atmospheric travel), and numerous other fictitious "space ships". I would probably also test aluminum cans, coke bottles, penguins (after all I want to know how fast a penguin can go, having played too much tux racer), and numerous other objects.
Of course, this is the exact reason no one wants to give me access to a wind tunnel! I'd probably break it.
hmmm, actually, looking at the posting history for myself, I have to say that it is the use, rather than the absence of, hueristics, that has led to rather stupid posts.
Or maybe, YOU CONSIDER THIS TO BE BRUTE FORCE? That seems to be the most common form here.
I have to say that Quanta is a robust enough program for those who understand code. That said, I find some things about it VERY annoying. One is browser selection. Certain presumptions are made about which browser one is using, and there is not an OBVIOUS way to switch things around.
When I first started learning html, I heavily resisted Dreamweaver, but then I got a job where it was available, so I started learning it. For a long time after that I moved backward in understanding.
It was only when I ditched the WYSIWYG part and moved to the code editor that I really began to understand CSS, HTML and even PHP.
Quanta is nearly perfect for those who are accustomed to working in code view. It needs somewhat better project management, and when using it I really miss the FTP client that Dreamweaver includes.
I do not miss dreamweaver's tendency to break custom HTML/CSS (although I haven't tried the latest version). If you leave code view and edit something in DW, you may well break previous (well written) code.
Now, if we can get the majority of people to code standards, instead of for IE, I will be happy.
nah... evidence indicates that it is not brute force that the mind uses, but rather hueristic pattern matching, followed by brute force. There is a huge difference. It also allows for some rather incredible pattern matching and unbelievably stupid mistakes on the part of humans.
One of the more interesting things is that humans don't search for an exact fit when doing pattern recognition, they go for a "good enough" condition. (Rembeber teh atrilce on raeidng?) This actually allows for more rapid processing, but opens the door for some pretty stupid mistakes.
On the whole, though, the human mind is an incredible processor. It is also non-binary, since many nerves can exist in many different states, some of which are qualitative, and it is non-linear, and parrallel! Branches, forks, etc., are quite common, and each nerve connects to a LOT of other nerves.
yes I understand all that, but what I was trying to get at is that reporters don't give you that information.
Somtimes reporters talk about a relationship existing, when a scientist would not. it is similar to the situation with medicine. they do 50,000 runs, and determine that a medicine is effective, but they don't tell you how effective. They never mention effect size or p-values (alpha levels).
As someone who has a clue about what those things mean, I want to know. I realize that these numbers are not commonly reported because most don't care, but I wish they were reported, because there are a lot of people who would know, and would then be able to make an informed decision.
As far as correlations, remember that in Taiwan, there is a correlation between the number of electronic devices a couple owns, and the liklihood that they will use birth control. This is an example of what I meant by coincidence. These two are in no way related to each other, in terms of causation.
That does not mean, and if I implied otherwise in my previous post I apologize for the error, that there is not some third variable causing both, or it may even be two levels back (each being driven by a second factor, and those two factors may be caused by a different one). It also doesn't mean that it is useful in prediction. If you have an incredibly large sample, say 50,000, a very slight correlation (say.08), may be significant, but that doesn't make it very useful. p-values, are, unfortunately, very much affected by sample size (anyone looking at an F-table knows this, but since statistical software is so common, some people will never see another F-table (which is good for me)).
Thus I reiterate that this research is almost useless. Is it possible to use something like this for prediction. Absolutely, but then you get into construct errors, which is a whole different topic.
As for significance itself, I like to know the p-value for this reason alone--the.05 alpha level designated as significant is purely an artifact of early statistics, and has no justification other than I don't want to falsely reccomend a procedure, so I'll risk a type II error (falsely accepting the null hypothesis of no difference) 95% of the time.
It works most of the time, but sometimes you want to be more certain, and other times you don't need to be. My argument is for knowledge of the data.
They only do this for the public computers. The REAL labs, such as the driving simulator, frequently run linux, and are much more open.
Staff computers (and faculty too), are setup a little different, and if you have your own desk, you can setup software on that computer. This is to allow for the need for unique software.
Having talked with some people in various programs, I know that the graphic arts graduate program uses linux (Redhat), and that there is more freedom there.
Also, the university web server is LInux with Apache, and they use mySQL. All in all, they seem to have made some good decisions. I wish that they would encourage students to learn more different types of software, but I understand why they don't bother.
When you are writing a paper, you want to get something done, not learn a new peice of software. This is especially true when you are doing a more critical peice of work, such as statistical calculations.
At school they have SPSS loaded on all the machines, which is what most people use because it is easy. I happen to use R (http://www.r-project.org) because it is free and is well made. However, it is text based (like SAS), and therefore scares many users. That's fine with me. But the university actually has all three on their computer. But if you have an assignment due in two days, you aren' going to sit down and learn R just to do it. SPSS and SAS are not available on Linux. Neither are many of the other programs that some departments require.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that some of the reason is that although it is a matter of public record that Bush made some questionable statements, many people still feel that the war itself was justifiable to a certain extent. As for what he lied about, please clarify exactly what your point of reference is.
If it is WMD, then yes I am extremely curious what happened, but I do believe it is possible that Saddam got wind of the impending war and moved things right out of the country, even with UN inspectors present.
Personally, I don't like the idea of the US being the world police, and arbitrarilly removing dictators--something both Bush and Clinton may equally be held to the fire for (as a reminder, Kosovo wasn't exactly a UN supported idea, and certainly Saddam has done just as much as previous Kosovo leaders to deserve military action). Clinton, though, for some reason, is generally not held to the same fire as Bush for those actions (I am sure this will cause some serious flames as well).
As a note--it is because he tended to be such a pathological liar that I did NOT vote for Gore. He made so many questionable statements about issues that were unimportant that I couldn't even begin to trust him with ones that were. Bush, I felt, had some integrity, even if it is spotted with some pretty heavy blemishes.
Just some thoughts.
I can't think of a more appropriate response. Really.
Of course, I would like to make a few more clarifications. First I don't think you will find a serious candidate for election in most countries that does NOT have some spotty ties. I would like to say that I felt that I could vote for someone who was not corrupt, had no questionable ties, and whose family background is not in question. But I defy you to find a POLITICIAN with serious prospects for election in pretty much ANY country that doesn't have some dirty/spotty history.
Yes, I have faith that people who believe a certain way will tend to be more responsible. I don't believe it makes ANYONE perfect, nor do I advocate the idea that anyone should be given absolute power because they have faith in a higher power.
I would point you to the Bible, a fairly well accepted document (even if not completely historical in some people's view), for an example of what can happen when even supposedly good people are made kings. When the Jews switched from a system of judges to a system of kings, things went downhill pretty fast. (I will probably get flamed for this by someone with a little more knowledge of that document than I).
As for voting, yes I think more Americans, and everyone in general, should go to the polls and vote. I personally make that effort, and find it worthwhile. I also feel that if you don't vote, you shouldn't complain. Along with that there should be an option for "neither" on all elections, so that people can express their dissatisfaction with the political system itself.
As for someone purporting to KNOW the right thing to do, we all make that assertion at some point. Sorry to dissapoint, but that is human nature. We claim to know the solution to all types of things, when we almost certainly do not. As for faith, I don't put my faith in Bush, rather I reserve that for a higher power. I am of the opinion that IF Bush REALLY does have the faith in the God he claims to, then that makes him a somewhat better person than he would be otherwise. NOT that it absolves him of irresponsible, poorly thought out decisions.
An important concept in psychology is the idea of locus of control. That is, do I believe that my situation is a result of my behavior (internal locus), or the actions of others (external). It has been shown that those with an internal locus of control are typically better adjusted, more successful and suffer less from depression.
Why is this relevent? Because I believe that responsibility for one's own actions is a basic tenet of a successful society, and is inherent to an internal locus of control. Therefore when someone, such as a president of a very powerful country, does something stupid, they should be held accountable, certainly.
There are bounds and limits to this, but essentially, if it was truly within their control, which it may not have been, they should be responsible.
Here's the catch: even if you or I were to find a politician that one of us felt was "clean", I seriously doubt that we would agree about that. It's just the way it goes.
Sorry about the rant--and by the way, even though I am basing a lot of this on my personal faith, religious views, etc, let's do try to keep the discussion intellectual as possible, and not denegrate to name calling. It really doesn't help.
Pessimism at its finest... oh well.
It seems I misspoke somewhat. Let me rephrase:
Personally, I take the view that humans (as indivdiduals) are pretty smart, but collectively manage to do some really stupid things. Unfortunately, research shows that humans in groups actually make better decisions than do individuals.
Sorry to dissappoint.
I am confused.
Why would it bad if Bush was found praying?
Or are you one of those who thinks all religious people are crazy/lunatic?
I personally would find it reassuring to know that he at least believes that there is a power greater than himself. In my opinion, it keeps a person from doing anything too stupid.
Before anyone gets too crazy on this, YES I am aware of all the crazy and terrible things that have been done by various zealots of pretty much every major religious category (Christians, Muslims, etc). I would argue that the people behind those crazy acts were only using religion to get at an end they wanted anyway, not because they believed that it was what God/Allah/whoever/whatever really wanted them to do. But they knew that if they could convince others to do think that's what God (etc) wanted, they could get there way. I am aware of all this, and still believe that those who truly believe that there is a higher power of some sort will tend to be more responsible for their actions when in a position of power.
That said, while I voted for Bush, and generally support him, I don't really like some of the things he has done (PATRIOT act comes to mind, as dose TIA).
Sorry, I just can't let this slide.
As a Republican, I have to say that while the party as a whole seems to cater toward business in general, not everyone in the party sees the situation the same.
Personally, I am business minded, and feel that it is in the best interest of a business to increase protections for worker's health & safety. I think most business owners would agree, and those who do not are eventually going to find themselves in a world of hurt in today's rather litigious society.
To me the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is not in how they treat businesses. In fact, there is very little difference in the philosophy of the two parties--both are equally glad to get money no matter where it comes from. The idea of reducing the % of taxes collected from business is that by doing so the company will be free to invest that money and will thereby generate more money, and thus the OVERALL collected taxes will be about the same.
Democrats take a different route. They want to tax the socks of business, and give a break to the poor folks--who admittedly have less money in the first place. This has the effect of making them popular among po' folk (and lest you think that I am being denegrating to those whose income's are lower than mine, let me inform you that currently my income is low enough to place me well below the poverty line--and I have two children [I am also in graduate school, which is why my income is so low]). Since the proportion of rich to poor is always pyramidal (at least almost always), this ends up making the Democratic party very popular.
The thing is, though, BOTH parties want the same thing--power. Some think its about money, but really it isn't. It is about power. The only issue is that currently money==power. Hey, who doesn't want more power to control their own situation.
The thing that typically torques my chain about the Democratic party is that they make a lot of claims about "power for the people", and whatnot, but in reality, they are just as much about power for the politicians as any Republican.
All that said, WHY do I prefer the Republican party over the Democratic party, when by my analysis both are equally power hungry? It's mostly about other issues, really. I am a moral conservative (and will probably get flamed/bashed for it), and in general the views of the Republican party align more closely with mine than do those of the Democrat party. Further more, I find the naked honesty of some Republicans more tolerable than the lies of the Democrats (ie, yes, we will take away the power of the average guy, but hey, at least you have been warned!).
If I was really as indignant/concerned about the whole situation as I should be, I would register Libertarian, and tell both Republicans and Democrats to go fly a kite! Unfortunately, there are some very disturbing things about the Libertarians too.
I guess I just wanted to rant. Now for the standard disclaimer: I do not support the PATRIOT act or any other act that denies ANY citizen of the US a fair trial, rights to privacy (before conviction), or otherwise infringes on private behavior that does not harm others.
If you are responsible for no one else, and want to smoke crack till you die, fine. But if you want to put the life of others in danger by doing something stupid like driving drunk/high/really messed up, then you need to locked away, and your rights are seriously diminished.
Okay, who wants my soapbox next????
i must respectfully disagree. i have managed to successfully explain why open source programs are good to a number of non-programmers. Even my mother, who is one of the most computer illiterate people on the planet, was able to grasp the concept.
/. are the 3l33t, but the truth is that if you really want to, it is possible to explain most of the concepts of open source to just about anyone. It doesn't mean that they will agree.
Granted, she did not come into the situation with a bias against it, but several of the people I know have.
I know it feels good to say that we who watch
Personally, I take the view that humans are pretty smart.
nice troll.
Personally, I use Linux because it IS better--my definition of better includes games AND ease of use. If you are talking about the sorry games that come WITH the OS, or are freely available, sorry linux has Windows beat. IF you are talking about what games are sold at Walmart/BestBuy that run under the OS, windows may win, but only if you don't count WineX (which I do--hey it WORKS!).
Simplicity of use. Well now, that's an interesting concept--one that MS does indeed work on, but unfortunately, they fail that test despite the effort they put into it. Yes, it is EASIER to install new software under windows, MOST OF THE TIME. However, in all other categories, linux is just as advanced. Of course, linux has the advantage because of how customizeable it is. I prefer a minimalist approach, and currently use XFce4 as my WM/DE. The nice thing about these is that it makes common tasks easier to use.
No, a normal user could not set this up on their own. But I doubt they could get windows installed and properly configured with all the latest drivers without some additional help. Therefore, I don't think you can argue simplicity on the installer either.
No, linux is ready for the desktop. It just needs a major backer, such as the likes of DELL or COMPAQ or AOL (noooooooo! Yes, I realize that they don't currently sell pc's, but they could) to start shipping only linux pc's. It would shift things pretty darn fast. (No, sorry guys, windows is going to cost $300 extra. Our base configuration is with linux).
It wouldn't even be all that hard to modify a distro like Gentoo or Debian (Lindows anyone) to have an easy way to install additional software without the su- command. Additional acoutrementes could be added also: DELL Linux logos, diagnostics, etc. DELL Linux could also include extras to make it even more attractive to businesses.
Of course I will probably get shot down as a Karma Whore, but that's okay--I AM responding to a TROLL.
interesting sig, but generally see the orginal quote attributed to Isaac Asimov, not Arthur C. Clarke.
Can you provide a source? I can--look up the book "Magic" by Asimov on amazon, and read that. Also the Foundation books that have been written in his honor by (I think) Greg Bear and others also reference this quote.
That's what I am saying, but I mean to predict the maximum standard deviation as the average IQ approaches approaches zero. Thus if the function to describe the IQ is X/2, what is the new standard deviation?
maybe I am not articulating this well....
lol...
that's good.
just to nitpick, though: originally, IQ was mental age divided by biological age. Since biological age is at any measurable point >0, as is mental age, IQ > 0. Someone might argue that mental age could be, theoretically 0, but one of the problems is that to know the mental age of an individual, you must measure it. Currently, there is no method of measuring this that would allow us to obtain a score of 0.
Thus to say that IQ could reach zero is incorrect. Now to say that it tends to zero is different. This may be true, but it could never result in a zero score. Since we are dealing with an average, though, we must also state that as IQ approaches zero, deviation from that IQ must also approach zero.
Someone with better math can define the function for the deviation.
Looking at the screenies, I must ask: how is this different from RH9?
Please, someone tell me!
Isn't Redhat American
Actually my experience with USB mice has been quite positive.
I use a logitech optical wheel mouse (one of the early ones), and haven't had so much as a hiccough with support. Compare that to my friend who can't get his M$ intellimouse to work under linux. period. But it works find under windows.
Nope, USB mice work fine with linux.
I've seen it on various lexmark printers, a 3com modem and quite a few other boxes. Keep looking.
IQ, more properly referred to as g is an interesting construct. Allow me to elucidate the subject just a bit.
G is the idea that intelligence, which has been defined in various ways, can be singly quantified and represented by a number. This number is g. Whether it is correct or not, the current tests of g are all heavily loaded on two factors--verbal/reading ability, and math (numerical reasoning).
This has some rather unfortunate side effects. One is that people who cannot read are less likely to do well. Another is that minorities (specifically African Americans and Hispanics) do not typically do as well as White Americans. A very notable exception to this is that Asians do much better than Whites (typically that is).
When saying this, I am not implying that anyone one group is really smarter or dumber than another, but that they score lower on tests of g. This is an important distinction. It is provable that these scores are not accurate depictions of intelligence because g correlates with, among other things, success as a manager (specifically the level of management that a person will typically achieve). This is a positive correlation for all ethnic groups, but is different for the different ethnicities I have mentioned.
This indicates that g is not fair to all ethnic groups. So while you are correct that a lack of literacy is not automatically a sign of unintelligence, you must realize that a lack of literacy will generally result in a low IQ(g) score.
Just as an item of interest, IQ was originally a true quotient: MA/CA where MA is the mental age of the individual, and CA is the Chronological age of the individual. It was developed by Alfred Binet to help identify mentally handicapped children who still could be taught a useful skill. This was due, in part, to overcrowding in French Asylums, where, at the time, both insane and handicapped were placed indiscriminantly.
If you are interested in learning more about IQ/g I would reccomend Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, wherein he critiques the idea of a single measure of intelligence, and describes how it has been used to discriminate against minorities in a large array of situations. He is a biologist (was? he may have died--can't remember), and he knows his statistics quite well. There are few better treatments of the concept of intelligence measures outside of the psychology journals.
YOU were a JET PROPULSION LABORATORY????!??? amazing....didn't know that was possible.
wow, I didn't understand ANY of that.
I hate to tell you this, but there are numerous episodes where they go back in time. I you want to wait a couple of days, I'll go rewatch all the episodes that I have on tape (all but about 3 of the originals, and none of the other series) and let you know which one. But yes, there are several occasions where the Enterprise enters an atmosphere of some time--in the original episodes. As I understand it, and I will probably be corrected by those whose geek badge is a little shinier than mine, the saucer section was designed to enter the atmosphere, whereas the rest of the ship was not. Now, can anyone tell us how fast impulse power is? It must be pretty fast, since they could do interplanetary travel on it (within a solar system).
Having been to the Wright-Patterson museum, it is most impressive, especially the stealth fighter/bomber (can't remember which) they had the last time I was there. They also had an SR-71, and I think it's predecessor, which I can't remember the name of (there are only like 3 in existence). Those are some nice planes.
I did actually touch the stealth plane, and it's rough, kinda like a rough canvas, but inflexible. Neat stuff. Well worth the trip.
I personally find this great. After all, I know that's exactly what I would do if I had a wind tunnel. I would also be testing the aerodynamic properties of the Millenium Falcon (which was designed for atmospheric travel), and numerous other fictitious "space ships". I would probably also test aluminum cans, coke bottles, penguins (after all I want to know how fast a penguin can go, having played too much tux racer), and numerous other objects.
Of course, this is the exact reason no one wants to give me access to a wind tunnel! I'd probably break it.
hmmm,
actually, looking at the posting history for myself, I have to say that it is the use, rather than the absence of, hueristics, that has led to rather stupid posts.
Or maybe, YOU CONSIDER THIS TO BE BRUTE FORCE? That seems to be the most common form here.
I have to say that Quanta is a robust enough program for those who understand code. That said, I find some things about it VERY annoying. One is browser selection. Certain presumptions are made about which browser one is using, and there is not an OBVIOUS way to switch things around.
When I first started learning html, I heavily resisted Dreamweaver, but then I got a job where it was available, so I started learning it. For a long time after that I moved backward in understanding.
It was only when I ditched the WYSIWYG part and moved to the code editor that I really began to understand CSS, HTML and even PHP.
Quanta is nearly perfect for those who are accustomed to working in code view. It needs somewhat better project management, and when using it I really miss the FTP client that Dreamweaver includes.
I do not miss dreamweaver's tendency to break custom HTML/CSS (although I haven't tried the latest version). If you leave code view and edit something in DW, you may well break previous (well written) code.
Now, if we can get the majority of people to code standards, instead of for IE, I will be happy.
nah...
evidence indicates that it is not brute force that the mind uses, but rather hueristic pattern matching, followed by brute force. There is a huge difference.
It also allows for some rather incredible pattern matching and unbelievably stupid mistakes on the part of humans.
One of the more interesting things is that humans don't search for an exact fit when doing pattern recognition, they go for a "good enough" condition. (Rembeber teh atrilce on raeidng?) This actually allows for more rapid processing, but opens the door for some pretty stupid mistakes.
On the whole, though, the human mind is an incredible processor. It is also non-binary, since many nerves can exist in many different states, some of which are qualitative, and it is non-linear, and parrallel! Branches, forks, etc., are quite common, and each nerve connects to a LOT of other nerves.
yes I understand all that, but what I was trying to get at is that reporters don't give you that information.
.08), may be significant, but that doesn't make it very useful. p-values, are, unfortunately, very much affected by sample size (anyone looking at an F-table knows this, but since statistical software is so common, some people will never see another F-table (which is good for me)).
.05 alpha level designated as significant is purely an artifact of early statistics, and has no justification other than I don't want to falsely reccomend a procedure, so I'll risk a type II error (falsely accepting the null hypothesis of no difference) 95% of the time.
Somtimes reporters talk about a relationship existing, when a scientist would not. it is similar to the situation with medicine. they do 50,000 runs, and determine that a medicine is effective, but they don't tell you how effective. They never mention effect size or p-values (alpha levels).
As someone who has a clue about what those things mean, I want to know. I realize that these numbers are not commonly reported because most don't care, but I wish they were reported, because there are a lot of people who would know, and would then be able to make an informed decision.
As far as correlations, remember that in Taiwan, there is a correlation between the number of electronic devices a couple owns, and the liklihood that they will use birth control. This is an example of what I meant by coincidence. These two are in no way related to each other, in terms of causation.
That does not mean, and if I implied otherwise in my previous post I apologize for the error, that there is not some third variable causing both, or it may even be two levels back (each being driven by a second factor, and those two factors may be caused by a different one). It also doesn't mean that it is useful in prediction. If you have an incredibly large sample, say 50,000, a very slight correlation (say
Thus I reiterate that this research is almost useless. Is it possible to use something like this for prediction. Absolutely, but then you get into construct errors, which is a whole different topic.
As for significance itself, I like to know the p-value for this reason alone--the
It works most of the time, but sometimes you want to be more certain, and other times you don't need to be. My argument is for knowledge of the data.
They only do this for the public computers. The REAL labs, such as the driving simulator, frequently run linux, and are much more open.
Staff computers (and faculty too), are setup a little different, and if you have your own desk, you can setup software on that computer. This is to allow for the need for unique software.
Having talked with some people in various programs, I know that the graphic arts graduate program uses linux (Redhat), and that there is more freedom there.
Also, the university web server is LInux with Apache, and they use mySQL. All in all, they seem to have made some good decisions. I wish that they would encourage students to learn more different types of software, but I understand why they don't bother.
When you are writing a paper, you want to get something done, not learn a new peice of software. This is especially true when you are doing a more critical peice of work, such as statistical calculations.
At school they have SPSS loaded on all the machines, which is what most people use because it is easy. I happen to use R (http://www.r-project.org) because it is free and is well made. However, it is text based (like SAS), and therefore scares many users. That's fine with me. But the university actually has all three on their computer. But if you have an assignment due in two days, you aren' going to sit down and learn R just to do it. SPSS and SAS are not available on Linux. Neither are many of the other programs that some departments require.