I would think having the results published before the narrative would make it much harder to nudge the results to match the narrative. There are dozens of techniques to do this when you can publish only data that supports the narrative - p-hacking (rights not significant, add more until they are!), elder Hispanic women (drug not showing results, chop your demographics up into smaller and smaller pieces until by chance one shows results) and so on.
Exactly. I think this data will be particularly valuable in helping people disprove conclusions drawn from "massaged" datasets -- it'll just be a matter of picking out enough counterexamples to undermine the original study's credibility. I'm inordinately excited about this.
The journals and authors cannot be absolved of blame in this. When I was at university, I was taught that if I wanted to speculate, I should include a section saying what I would do if I had more time, what questions my results/conclusions raised, and what hypotheses I would look to prove. But when I look at many published papers, that best practice from my undergrad days is nowhere to be seen. Speculations are presented as conclusions. They are presented without clear discussion of how the hypothesis could be explored. And these are accepted into peer-reviewed journals, or they are cleared by the Masters/PhD dissertations boards. If I was an academic and someone submitted a dissertation to me with speculation masquerading as fact, I'd call it an instant fail.
And if you do have some custom setup that doesn't run on 64bit, I'm really sorry. Legacy support sucks (I know firsthand), but don't expect the rest of the world to keep updating their shit just because you have to.
It's not good for the environment that people keep binning stuff that is more than adequate for their current needs. If people's main use of computers is browsing the internet and watching cat videos, a ten-year-old computer is more than adequate for the task. Legacy support in browsers is a matter of security, and IT security requires a lot of "herd immunity" -- people running unsecured browsers become an attack vector for DDoS attacks etc. Supporting a legacy browser environment is therefore a very sensible cause, and as Google have nothing to gain from feeding the constant-upgrade-merry-go-round, they should be the people most likely to realise this.
Unless they're just wanting to push casual browsers to Chromebooks...
And the other side of the coin is that if the 32-bit instruction set is perfectly adequate for your task, 64-bit only gives you a moderate increase in storage and memory footprint with no benefits.
I think the thing in the Kickstarter gadget space is that there's no established, readily available prototyping environment for most SoCs. People tend to prototype of Pi, then stick with Pi for the full product, even though it is (or, rather, was) larger and more expensive than strictly necessary. The Allwinner chip seems to be so internally complete that a prototype rolled on CHIP should be able to go direct to production with the chip on a different board.
The loss-leader, if there is one, may well be at Allwinner's end. Look at the number of Kickstarter hardware projects that use a full Pi board because it's readily available. I reckon Allwinner see the C.H.I.P. as an opportunity to get their SoCs in front of the next generation of Kickstarter hardware makers in an easy prototyping form-factor.
That's speculative made up stuff. There's also stuff about some possible path between two cliffs that is too narrow for camels. But there's one letter different in "camel" and "rope", and the metaphor makes a heck of a lot of sense if you assume a spelling mistake.
I am no Christian, but don't confuse the corrupt hypocrisy of the elite with the religion. "It is easier for a rope* to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
* Due to inconsistencies in spelling before the invention of dictionaries, and the fact that the New Testament authors weren't native speakers of Ancient Greek, their misspelling of the Ancient Greek for rope has led to the mistranslation of this passage as referring to a camel, which is just stupid. One letter, people, one letter. Just think about it.
If we make the choice based on tradition, then we are not being tolerant to individuals, which makes Dawkins' standpoint inconsistent and hypocritical. Even more so, in fact, if you consider that there has been a very long-standing Jewish population in the UK (particularly London) whose lack of recognition in law (and hence lack of publically-supported faith schools) was part of a long traditional of intolerance towards Jews in Europe from Christian populations including Anglicans and Catholics....
I don't think he was upset about it - he just tweeted about it initially as he thought it was a free speech issue. He then deleted it when people pointed out that it was more of a commercial decision, as you yourself have pointed out.
I.e. Dawkins opened his mouth and professed opinions on a topic he didn't understand...? I'm shocked!...shocked, I tell you!
It would also qualify as "stupid". The basic rule of thumb in internet crime is "do only that which isn't worth tracking you down for". Basic financial fraud is a nightmare to handle across juridictions, and no-one gets physically "hurt", so it rarely gets prosecuted. But serial killers tend to come up pretty high on Interpol's hit list, and if you're hacking pacemakers and insulin pumps, that's basically what you are.
I just think that a self-contained bug farm has a specific appeal that dried-bugs-by-post just doesn't have. I like the idea of insects as food in theory, but it doesn't get me excited. However, this idea does appeal -- fresh home-grown food, and a bit of a novelty at dinner parties (somewhere in the world, this will probably feature in an episode of Come Dine With Me....)
Except that this product combines eco-friendly with grow-at-home, which is a winning combination. I was lucky enough to have a bedroom with a huge south-facing bay window last year, and throughout late spring and early summer, I was harvesting my own salads and herbs daily. I quite fancy the idea of growing everything for a stir-fry in the kitchen actually....
The point of the Kickstarter model is that there are laws against normal people making investments. This is due to the long history of fraud and snake oil in the US -- Ponzi schemes; the movie production company that's going to put your small town on the map etc. In order to be allowed to invest in an enterprise not run by someone you know, you have to be a certifiable "informed investor". Microfinance can't work in that climate. (Other countries rely on strong fraud laws to deal with this situation -- with luck the US will follow suit soon.)
Considering a question of closed vs open systems is oversimplifying matters. It is very rare for all parties in any negotiation to have equal power. A big example in the UK at the moment (and for the past 10 years) is supermarkets vs farmers in negotiating the price of milk. Because there are only about 6 major supermarket chains buying from hundreds of dairy farms, the supermarkets have a lot more choice than the farmers, and therefore have all the power in negotiations. Dairy farmers now struggle to make enough money to feed their cows and their families -- it's not just the cows that are being milked.
Without equal power, it is very easy for this sort of situation to arise, and only some kind of union arrangement can redress the balance. "Closed shop" unionism isn't the answer, because that is just another form of monopoly. However, abolishing unions on the grounds of the existence of closed shops is like abolishing banks on the grounds of the existence of Lehman Brothers.
This is exactly what free market means. This isn't a problem.
What I've never understood about those who declare that anything that arises from a free market is good is this: why isn't unionisation considered a market force? Why is it OK for large businesses to consolidate to wield ever greater power, but workers are told that acting collectively is "interfering in the market"?
Investors take risk because they feel the potential reward outweighs the risk. But traditional investors usually look for a lot more reward than 20% off retail as their reward. Would you consider it an "investment" to go to a car dealership, pay 80% of the price of a new car now, and have to way 12-24 months for something that might never be delivered? Hell, would you buy a hamburger for 80% of the normal price, with an expected delivery date of anything from a week on Tuesday until the 1st of December, with no guarantee you'd ever receive it? That's not sensible investment. Now excuse while I go and play Star Citizen (*snort*)
Slashdot Mirror
I would think having the results published before the narrative would make it much harder to nudge the results to match the narrative. There are dozens of techniques to do this when you can publish only data that supports the narrative - p-hacking (rights not significant, add more until they are!), elder Hispanic women (drug not showing results, chop your demographics up into smaller and smaller pieces until by chance one shows results) and so on.
Exactly. I think this data will be particularly valuable in helping people disprove conclusions drawn from "massaged" datasets -- it'll just be a matter of picking out enough counterexamples to undermine the original study's credibility. I'm inordinately excited about this.
The journals and authors cannot be absolved of blame in this. When I was at university, I was taught that if I wanted to speculate, I should include a section saying what I would do if I had more time, what questions my results/conclusions raised, and what hypotheses I would look to prove. But when I look at many published papers, that best practice from my undergrad days is nowhere to be seen. Speculations are presented as conclusions. They are presented without clear discussion of how the hypothesis could be explored. And these are accepted into peer-reviewed journals, or they are cleared by the Masters/PhD dissertations boards. If I was an academic and someone submitted a dissertation to me with speculation masquerading as fact, I'd call it an instant fail.
And if you do have some custom setup that doesn't run on 64bit, I'm really sorry. Legacy support sucks (I know firsthand), but don't expect the rest of the world to keep updating their shit just because you have to.
It's not good for the environment that people keep binning stuff that is more than adequate for their current needs. If people's main use of computers is browsing the internet and watching cat videos, a ten-year-old computer is more than adequate for the task. Legacy support in browsers is a matter of security, and IT security requires a lot of "herd immunity" -- people running unsecured browsers become an attack vector for DDoS attacks etc. Supporting a legacy browser environment is therefore a very sensible cause, and as Google have nothing to gain from feeding the constant-upgrade-merry-go-round, they should be the people most likely to realise this.
Unless they're just wanting to push casual browsers to Chromebooks...
And the other side of the coin is that if the 32-bit instruction set is perfectly adequate for your task, 64-bit only gives you a moderate increase in storage and memory footprint with no benefits.
I think the thing in the Kickstarter gadget space is that there's no established, readily available prototyping environment for most SoCs. People tend to prototype of Pi, then stick with Pi for the full product, even though it is (or, rather, was) larger and more expensive than strictly necessary. The Allwinner chip seems to be so internally complete that a prototype rolled on CHIP should be able to go direct to production with the chip on a different board.
The loss-leader, if there is one, may well be at Allwinner's end. Look at the number of Kickstarter hardware projects that use a full Pi board because it's readily available. I reckon Allwinner see the C.H.I.P. as an opportunity to get their SoCs in front of the next generation of Kickstarter hardware makers in an easy prototyping form-factor.
That's speculative made up stuff. There's also stuff about some possible path between two cliffs that is too narrow for camels. But there's one letter different in "camel" and "rope", and the metaphor makes a heck of a lot of sense if you assume a spelling mistake.
I am no Christian, but don't confuse the corrupt hypocrisy of the elite with the religion. "It is easier for a rope* to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
* Due to inconsistencies in spelling before the invention of dictionaries, and the fact that the New Testament authors weren't native speakers of Ancient Greek, their misspelling of the Ancient Greek for rope has led to the mistranslation of this passage as referring to a camel, which is just stupid. One letter, people, one letter. Just think about it.
Equality for cheese-cloth children! Say no to lactose intolerance!
If we make the choice based on tradition, then we are not being tolerant to individuals, which makes Dawkins' standpoint inconsistent and hypocritical. Even more so, in fact, if you consider that there has been a very long-standing Jewish population in the UK (particularly London) whose lack of recognition in law (and hence lack of publically-supported faith schools) was part of a long traditional of intolerance towards Jews in Europe from Christian populations including Anglicans and Catholics....
I don't think he was upset about it - he just tweeted about it initially as he thought it was a free speech issue. He then deleted it when people pointed out that it was more of a commercial decision, as you yourself have pointed out.
I.e. Dawkins opened his mouth and professed opinions on a topic he didn't understand...? I'm shocked! ...shocked, I tell you!
and will continue to be so for as long as I live
I think you mean "until I become more powerful than you can possibly imagine". The force is weak in you, young padawan.
The SoC in a Pi is a media device (originally designed for use in camcorders) so this is not underpowered -- it's perfectly adequately powered.
A wristwatch equals old school minicomputers in terms of performance -- this Pi is a mainframe!
It would also qualify as "stupid". The basic rule of thumb in internet crime is "do only that which isn't worth tracking you down for". Basic financial fraud is a nightmare to handle across juridictions, and no-one gets physically "hurt", so it rarely gets prosecuted. But serial killers tend to come up pretty high on Interpol's hit list, and if you're hacking pacemakers and insulin pumps, that's basically what you are.
I just think that a self-contained bug farm has a specific appeal that dried-bugs-by-post just doesn't have. I like the idea of insects as food in theory, but it doesn't get me excited. However, this idea does appeal -- fresh home-grown food, and a bit of a novelty at dinner parties (somewhere in the world, this will probably feature in an episode of Come Dine With Me....)
This is the perfect story, come on. What are we like? Are we like bugs? No! What are we like?
If it's not the first post, I don't think he's interested....
90% of vegans are severely undernourished
From the Department of Made Up Statistics.
... where 89.623% of statistics in the public domain originate.
That would be XY. Eating either XY or XX is considered a bit of a fetish. Is this just religious prudery...?
Except that this product combines eco-friendly with grow-at-home, which is a winning combination. I was lucky enough to have a bedroom with a huge south-facing bay window last year, and throughout late spring and early summer, I was harvesting my own salads and herbs daily. I quite fancy the idea of growing everything for a stir-fry in the kitchen actually....
The point of the Kickstarter model is that there are laws against normal people making investments. This is due to the long history of fraud and snake oil in the US -- Ponzi schemes; the movie production company that's going to put your small town on the map etc. In order to be allowed to invest in an enterprise not run by someone you know, you have to be a certifiable "informed investor". Microfinance can't work in that climate. (Other countries rely on strong fraud laws to deal with this situation -- with luck the US will follow suit soon.)
If the problem is union monopolism, then legislate against that -- but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Considering a question of closed vs open systems is oversimplifying matters. It is very rare for all parties in any negotiation to have equal power. A big example in the UK at the moment (and for the past 10 years) is supermarkets vs farmers in negotiating the price of milk. Because there are only about 6 major supermarket chains buying from hundreds of dairy farms, the supermarkets have a lot more choice than the farmers, and therefore have all the power in negotiations. Dairy farmers now struggle to make enough money to feed their cows and their families -- it's not just the cows that are being milked.
Without equal power, it is very easy for this sort of situation to arise, and only some kind of union arrangement can redress the balance. "Closed shop" unionism isn't the answer, because that is just another form of monopoly. However, abolishing unions on the grounds of the existence of closed shops is like abolishing banks on the grounds of the existence of Lehman Brothers.
This is exactly what free market means. This isn't a problem.
What I've never understood about those who declare that anything that arises from a free market is good is this: why isn't unionisation considered a market force? Why is it OK for large businesses to consolidate to wield ever greater power, but workers are told that acting collectively is "interfering in the market"?
Investors take risk because they feel the potential reward outweighs the risk. But traditional investors usually look for a lot more reward than 20% off retail as their reward. Would you consider it an "investment" to go to a car dealership, pay 80% of the price of a new car now, and have to way 12-24 months for something that might never be delivered? Hell, would you buy a hamburger for 80% of the normal price, with an expected delivery date of anything from a week on Tuesday until the 1st of December, with no guarantee you'd ever receive it? That's not sensible investment. Now excuse while I go and play Star Citizen (*snort*)