"
2. Extra nerd points for quoting what Moore's law *really* states!"
This question is predicated on there being an official "Moore's Law". There isn't. Just a lot of paraphrases of a prediction Gordon Moore made back in the 60's that should the trend at that time continue, computing power would double every year.
Either you are realize you are wrong and are just trolling or you truly are hopeless. Either way, forget it. You want to learn something about statistics, go to the library yourself and find your own damn book. Might want to pick one up on logic while you are at it. I have better things to do.
I never said administration is easy or effective on Windows, merely that people are already trained to do it. To switch over to Linux, you would have to train all your employees how to use it, and unlike what the previous poster apparently thought, that requires more than just learning how to start up KDE, surf the web on firefox, check email with thunderbird, and write in OpenOffice.
Re:Not having to register at nytimes!
on
The Year In Ideas
·
· Score: 1
No, knowing the NY Times they will probably just think they have one really dedicated reader.
I've actually seen studies that try to use statistics coming from registration information where the researchers are surprised at the unusual results.
That might end up being a fairly large index file...
In fact, unless I'm missing something with regard to how cat and find works, it would be as big as the used portion of your disk. What happens if your disk is 72% full?
Well thats fine if all you ever do is browse the web, check your email, and cut and paste into OO. Other tasks, like system administration, can be a tad bit more complex.
Expanding into a new area does not necessarily mean they will have to cut back everywhere else.
In fact, it may even be the case that they will be able to contribute in this industry. (Disclaimer, IANAEE, I don't know how much of this would really be a good idea). They could develop embedded software into the solar panel system to make it more intelligent. The panels could be made to tilt as the day passes, it could try to predict what the demand will be and determine what to do with excess energy (store it in a battery or send it back to the power company for a profit), it could be made to link to a computer inside so the home owner knows how much of their power is being generated for free by their panels and how much they are paying for, etc. And I'm sure someone with some expert knowledge could think of some much better ideas.
Won't matter, that tweak I told you about is now officially on. You can "watch" all you want, it won't matter as I'll never hear from you again. If you decide you really have nothing bettter to do with your life than pursue this "cause", well you probably wouldn't accomplish anything in your lief anyways. Goodbye.
You have really taken pathetic to another level, havn't you. Fine, will this one post make you happy? Not that you are bothering me (a simple tweak of the preferences and I never have to hear from you again), it is just getting really pathetic watching you waste your life obsessing over things that no one else cares about.
And you are telling me there are not places you can go where people gather around to praise open source software? I'll give you a hint, you are visiting one right now.
So any time anyone chooses a MS product over an opern source product, it must be because of bribery and not because of some legit reason (like lack of training)?
"No, I have never argued that quantitative data could not be used with qualitative data."
Bicker over semantics all you want, you made the absurd statement that qualitiative assesments could not come from quantitative data. I proved you wrong with the football example, to which you claimed "No, you would need more data". I pointed out that data would be quantitative as well, you used your "I'm covering my eyes so it doesn't exist" defense.
"No, you haven't. HOW will you measure the "difficulty of schools" without standardized tests?
HOW will you measure the "difficulty of courses of study" without standardized tests?
Without standardized tests "grades recieved" are meaningless."
See this is an instance where it would be helpful for you to know something about qualitative data.
"Since your position is fundamentally flawed, you are now resorting to lies?"
Nope. Read post #10999565 for your idiotic argument on quantitative and qualitiative data if it does not embarrass you too much.
There are two forms, quantitative and qualitative.
You are measuring quantitative data (the rate of college graduation).
But then you're trying to use that quantitative data to make a qualatative statement.
Too bad, but it doesn't work that way.
"Again, my position is that measuring college graduation rates (when paired with high school test scores) did not tell you anything about how well the high school prepared the students for college. Without standardized tests in college a high college graduation rate can indicate "easy" courses while a low college graduation rate can indicate "hard" courses."
Yes, and I said a) standardized tests won't work for a number of reasons and b) we are not looking at just the graduation rates but a number of other factors.
"I said that if any of those "multiple factors" were standardized tests, then you were supporting my position.
You have never specified what "multiple factors" you'd be measuring."
Yes I have and they were not standardized tests. Difficulty of schools, difficulty of courses of study, grades recieved, reasons for dropping out, any of this ringing a bell?
"Nope. But you might want to state what, specifically, they contradict from my link."
They don't have to because your link did nothing to support your claim as pointed out ad nauseum. However, they do provide definitions of quantitative and qualititative that contradict what you seem to think those words mean, and they contradict your more recent argument that I havn't posted anything other than dictionary definitions.
"I said that measuring college graduation rates (when paired with high school test scores) did not tell you anything about how well the high school prepared the students for college. Without standardized tests in college a high college graduation rate can indicate "easy" courses while a low college graduation rate can indicate "hard" courses."
Yes, I remember. I pointed out that we were not proposing to only measure college graduation rates but a number of factors including qualitative factors concerning the difficulty of the schools and degree programs and that your standardized tests would not work for a variety of reasons. You then argued that for some reason quantitative data cannot be used with qualitative data and that apparently your test scores were "qualitative statistics", to which I pointed out (and will prove at the library Monday) you don't know shit about statistics.
Of coruse each of these suffer from the same problems that your link suffered from, even if you are unable to comprehend those problems.
Would it make you happy if next time I go to the library (probably Monday) I look up a few true primary sources? I could give you the references to the books, though that would require you to get off your ass and check out those books yourself.
"Since you couldn't address those, you decided to switch to an ad hominem attack. Just as I predicted you would."
No, I was merely tired of you constantly doging the issue and still pretending to be an authority on statistics. So I forced you to admit that you were not an authority. Your claim was easy to refute, as I did in my last post. I was actually very eager for you to admit that (in fact, normally I would have waited for you to say outright "I am not an expert", I let you slide with what I considered close enough) because I wanted to show you the flaw in your reasoning.
"Yeah. You won't believe how many times I see people talking about things the could do if they wanted to. Personally, I prefer to stick to reality and facts."
Do you seriously expect me to drive down to your house with my stat book in hand to show you a definition almost no one but you disputes?
"The facts are that I have presented more references that are not dictionaries"
First of all, quality is more important than quantity. "I've shown more links" is not a valid argument, I can find dozens of links that argue the dumbest things imaginable.
Second, you have presented one questionable reference that does nothing to support your claim. In that last post I presented three references that outright refute it. Three is greater than none, or even one if you are still under the impression your site gave contridictory definitions of quantitative or qualitative.
"while all you have are claims about your education, ad hominem attacks and the eternal "if I wanted to, I could do.... but I don't want to"."
I'll take that response as an admittance that you have no actual education in the field of statistics and thus your earlier statements that I should take a course in statistics were disengenous attacks against my character as in reality I have a more extensive statistical education than you.
Now that we are done with that...
"Yet you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference."
Primary reference? No, more like easily accessible reference. Had I wanted to refute your claims with a primary reference I would have dug out my old stat textbook, driven to your house, and pointed out the definitions they gave. However, I don't feel like doing that, so instead I copied and pasted a link to an online dictionary. This is still a more than adequate source due to the fact that dictionaries are written by experienced linguists who research the use of words in many contexts, including statistics. For instance see the definition of significant. The definition lists not only the common definitions used by non-statisticians, but also the definition with regard to statistics. Yes, I could have also searched the net for sourceslikeyours, but unlike sources like dictionaries which have been verified by experts, these websites could have been created by complete idiots who pretend they are experts like yourself who got a particular definition wrong. This often happens when a particular writer is discussing a subject out of their field of expertise (for instance a biologist discussing statistics).
"For I have substantiated every one of my claims with a verifiable reference that was not merely a dictionary."
You have not substantiated yourself period. Nowhere in that site you linked to did they give a definition of quantitative or qualitative that differed significantly from the dictionary definitions, or even one that would substantiate your claims that statistics on the number of touchdowns thrown by every quarterback in the NFL or statistics on standardized test scores are qualitative.
"You either refute the references or you lose."
No, whether or not I lose is not dependent on whether or not I can convince you that you are wrong. The loser is the one who is wrong, period. In this case you are wrong, thus you lost from the start. The only reason I am still responding to you is that I am still clinging to the dwindling hope that I can convince you of your errors.
This is certainly not an ad hominem argument, you have repeatedly used yourself as an authority in the field of statistics by repeatedly implying you have an extensive education in statistics and thus your knowledge is subject to question. Ad hominem arguments are those which attack some irrelevant character trait. If you continue reading your fallacy site (and yes, I am familiar with logical fallacies; one of my minors was in philosophy with a emphasis in logic) you will find that appealing to an authority that is not in reality an expert is in fact a fallacy. Thus you must either admit that you yourself are not an expert in the field of statistics and that you are only relying on random websites you find off google and crap you pull out of your ass or support your claim. I'll accept either one.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.ht m
This question is predicated on there being an official "Moore's Law". There isn't. Just a lot of paraphrases of a prediction Gordon Moore made back in the 60's that should the trend at that time continue, computing power would double every year.
Do I get double extra nerd points?
Either you are realize you are wrong and are just trolling or you truly are hopeless. Either way, forget it. You want to learn something about statistics, go to the library yourself and find your own damn book. Might want to pick one up on logic while you are at it. I have better things to do.
I never said administration is easy or effective on Windows, merely that people are already trained to do it. To switch over to Linux, you would have to train all your employees how to use it, and unlike what the previous poster apparently thought, that requires more than just learning how to start up KDE, surf the web on firefox, check email with thunderbird, and write in OpenOffice.
I've actually seen studies that try to use statistics coming from registration information where the researchers are surprised at the unusual results.
In fact, unless I'm missing something with regard to how cat and find works, it would be as big as the used portion of your disk. What happens if your disk is 72% full?
I did not know that.
Well thats fine if all you ever do is browse the web, check your email, and cut and paste into OO. Other tasks, like system administration, can be a tad bit more complex.
I don't know when the policy was made, a year or two referred to a year or two from now. I believe they have until 2006.
BTW, how does not supporting open source software equate one with being undemocratic?
The switch was never said to be immeadiate, they still have another year or two if I remember correctly.
In fact, it may even be the case that they will be able to contribute in this industry. (Disclaimer, IANAEE, I don't know how much of this would really be a good idea). They could develop embedded software into the solar panel system to make it more intelligent. The panels could be made to tilt as the day passes, it could try to predict what the demand will be and determine what to do with excess energy (store it in a battery or send it back to the power company for a profit), it could be made to link to a computer inside so the home owner knows how much of their power is being generated for free by their panels and how much they are paying for, etc. And I'm sure someone with some expert knowledge could think of some much better ideas.
Won't matter, that tweak I told you about is now officially on. You can "watch" all you want, it won't matter as I'll never hear from you again. If you decide you really have nothing bettter to do with your life than pursue this "cause", well you probably wouldn't accomplish anything in your lief anyways. Goodbye.
You have really taken pathetic to another level, havn't you. Fine, will this one post make you happy? Not that you are bothering me (a simple tweak of the preferences and I never have to hear from you again), it is just getting really pathetic watching you waste your life obsessing over things that no one else cares about.
And you are telling me there are not places you can go where people gather around to praise open source software? I'll give you a hint, you are visiting one right now.
So any time anyone chooses a MS product over an opern source product, it must be because of bribery and not because of some legit reason (like lack of training)?
Bicker over semantics all you want, you made the absurd statement that qualitiative assesments could not come from quantitative data. I proved you wrong with the football example, to which you claimed "No, you would need more data". I pointed out that data would be quantitative as well, you used your "I'm covering my eyes so it doesn't exist" defense.
"No, you haven't. HOW will you measure the "difficulty of schools" without standardized tests? HOW will you measure the "difficulty of courses of study" without standardized tests? Without standardized tests "grades recieved" are meaningless."
See this is an instance where it would be helpful for you to know something about qualitative data.
Of course arguably we now have another group of rich yuppies with too much money and too much time on their hands.
Nope. Read post #10999565 for your idiotic argument on quantitative and qualitiative data if it does not embarrass you too much.
"Again, my position is that measuring college graduation rates (when paired with high school test scores) did not tell you anything about how well the high school prepared the students for college. Without standardized tests in college a high college graduation rate can indicate "easy" courses while a low college graduation rate can indicate "hard" courses."
Yes, and I said a) standardized tests won't work for a number of reasons and b) we are not looking at just the graduation rates but a number of other factors.
"I said that if any of those "multiple factors" were standardized tests, then you were supporting my position. You have never specified what "multiple factors" you'd be measuring."
Yes I have and they were not standardized tests. Difficulty of schools, difficulty of courses of study, grades recieved, reasons for dropping out, any of this ringing a bell?
They don't have to because your link did nothing to support your claim as pointed out ad nauseum. However, they do provide definitions of quantitative and qualititative that contradict what you seem to think those words mean, and they contradict your more recent argument that I havn't posted anything other than dictionary definitions.
"I said that measuring college graduation rates (when paired with high school test scores) did not tell you anything about how well the high school prepared the students for college. Without standardized tests in college a high college graduation rate can indicate "easy" courses while a low college graduation rate can indicate "hard" courses."
Yes, I remember. I pointed out that we were not proposing to only measure college graduation rates but a number of factors including qualitative factors concerning the difficulty of the schools and degree programs and that your standardized tests would not work for a variety of reasons. You then argued that for some reason quantitative data cannot be used with qualitative data and that apparently your test scores were "qualitative statistics", to which I pointed out (and will prove at the library Monday) you don't know shit about statistics.
Only in your head.
"Since you are unable to provide supporting material from anything more than your claims or a dictionary, my reference still stands."
I see you are ignoring the three I gave two posts ago. Is this the "I'm closing my eyes so they don't exist" approach? Here they are again:
Of coruse each of these suffer from the same problems that your link suffered from, even if you are unable to comprehend those problems.
Would it make you happy if next time I go to the library (probably Monday) I look up a few true primary sources? I could give you the references to the books, though that would require you to get off your ass and check out those books yourself.
No, I was merely tired of you constantly doging the issue and still pretending to be an authority on statistics. So I forced you to admit that you were not an authority. Your claim was easy to refute, as I did in my last post. I was actually very eager for you to admit that (in fact, normally I would have waited for you to say outright "I am not an expert", I let you slide with what I considered close enough) because I wanted to show you the flaw in your reasoning.
"Yeah. You won't believe how many times I see people talking about things the could do if they wanted to. Personally, I prefer to stick to reality and facts."
Do you seriously expect me to drive down to your house with my stat book in hand to show you a definition almost no one but you disputes?
"The facts are that I have presented more references that are not dictionaries"
First of all, quality is more important than quantity. "I've shown more links" is not a valid argument, I can find dozens of links that argue the dumbest things imaginable.
Second, you have presented one questionable reference that does nothing to support your claim. In that last post I presented three references that outright refute it. Three is greater than none, or even one if you are still under the impression your site gave contridictory definitions of quantitative or qualitative.
"while all you have are claims about your education, ad hominem attacks and the eternal "if I wanted to, I could do .... but I don't want to"."
Refuted ad nauseum.
Rich yuppies with too much money and too much time on their hands getting hurt! What could be better?
Now that we are done with that...
"Yet you seem to prefer a dictionary as your primary reference."
Primary reference? No, more like easily accessible reference. Had I wanted to refute your claims with a primary reference I would have dug out my old stat textbook, driven to your house, and pointed out the definitions they gave. However, I don't feel like doing that, so instead I copied and pasted a link to an online dictionary. This is still a more than adequate source due to the fact that dictionaries are written by experienced linguists who research the use of words in many contexts, including statistics. For instance see the definition of significant. The definition lists not only the common definitions used by non-statisticians, but also the definition with regard to statistics. Yes, I could have also searched the net for sources like yours, but unlike sources like dictionaries which have been verified by experts, these websites could have been created by complete idiots who pretend they are experts like yourself who got a particular definition wrong. This often happens when a particular writer is discussing a subject out of their field of expertise (for instance a biologist discussing statistics).
"For I have substantiated every one of my claims with a verifiable reference that was not merely a dictionary."
You have not substantiated yourself period. Nowhere in that site you linked to did they give a definition of quantitative or qualitative that differed significantly from the dictionary definitions, or even one that would substantiate your claims that statistics on the number of touchdowns thrown by every quarterback in the NFL or statistics on standardized test scores are qualitative.
"You either refute the references or you lose."
No, whether or not I lose is not dependent on whether or not I can convince you that you are wrong. The loser is the one who is wrong, period. In this case you are wrong, thus you lost from the start. The only reason I am still responding to you is that I am still clinging to the dwindling hope that I can convince you of your errors.
This is certainly not an ad hominem argument, you have repeatedly used yourself as an authority in the field of statistics by repeatedly implying you have an extensive education in statistics and thus your knowledge is subject to question. Ad hominem arguments are those which attack some irrelevant character trait. If you continue reading your fallacy site (and yes, I am familiar with logical fallacies; one of my minors was in philosophy with a emphasis in logic) you will find that appealing to an authority that is not in reality an expert is in fact a fallacy. Thus you must either admit that you yourself are not an expert in the field of statistics and that you are only relying on random websites you find off google and crap you pull out of your ass or support your claim. I'll accept either one.