Once again you dodge the question. I'll explain to you why a dictionary is a better resource for the definition of a word than a random webpage once you answer my question.
BTW, you continue to dodge the question over what is the magnitude of your "extensive education with regard to statistics". I don't know why, most people reading your posts would be inclined to think you have not even made it into high school. Any answer beyond that would actually make you sound better (unless the true answer is that you really havn't made it to high school in which case you are most likely too young to be posting here). I've given mine; I'm about to graduate magna cum laude from one of the nation's top engineering schools, with mathematics as one of my majors. Why are you afraid to share yours?
Traditional Conservatives generally don't like raising taxes.
Traditional Liberals don't mind it, as long as only effects rich people. Such a tax would be felt hardest by the poor and middle class (rich people can afford to just buy a hybrid car or other expensive technologies that may end up saving money in the long run even though they require a huge amount of money upfront).
BTW, instead of taxing everything that you deem environmentally unfriendly, why not just increase the tax on oil? Then if florescent lights really have the energy saving features you claim they do (I for one am doubtful, that is saying that cars pollute around just 100 times as much as a light bulb), the cost of using them does go down.
For the record, I for one am not really against such a proposal. Even though my political views are generally closer to those of traditional conservatives, I see taxing oil as just a way of paying back the government for all the additional costs of oil that up to now have been subsidized by the government.
By that logic the books both origional movies were based on were perfectly good works that did not need to be remade, so the origional movies should not be celebrated either.
Is that they increase the already long waiting time to get a patent. Now some of you may be thinking "Who cares, those damn corporations can wait another year or so", but corporations are not the only ones seeking patents.
Private individuals inventing things in their basements need the patent system (much more than corporations who have vast resources) in order to profit from their hard work. Generally speaking, these guys can't make and market their inventions themselves and instead rely on selling patent rights to larger companies that can make and market them. But usually they need the actual patent awarded to them in order to sell those rights. If it takes 5 years to get the patent, it will take 5 years before they can finally start to sell their product. Imagine if it took you five years before you could get a paycheck. And by then their invention may well already be obsolete. If it takes too long for patents to be processed, you will only end up killing off private inventors.
Doesn't mean we still can't make self-deprecating jokes about it.
When I was a kid I was almost always the shortest in the class. Nowadays I am about normal height (maybe an inch or two below), but that doesn't stop me from making jokes about me being short.
Sure, but that doesn't justify running around claiming the sky is falling.
Pollution is harmful to the public health and could possibly endanger the global environment.
That wasn't too hard to say, and not only does it adequately point out the potential problems with regard to pollution, but it leaves out the fear mongering that will only lead to knee jerk reactions which will only end up making the problem worse.
...Ehrlich answered by saying "I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists?"
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Claiming most scientists believe in global warming and that none claim that it definitely will not happen completely misses the point. "Opponents" of global warming are not arguing that it is definitely not going to happen, but rather that the current information is insufficient to make the statements many have been making on the subject.
Actually I did. No, it did not provide the definitions you claim. All it did was provide a very basic and over simplified overview of the field. Its not even by a statistician, its by a biologist. I can find dozens of notes like those, many of which are more accurate and more informative. The Internet is a great resource, but doing a google for statistics is not the best way to learn about them.
You still have yet to reveal the extent of your vast education in statistics. Don't tell me its not even at the middle school level. Elementary school? Well, that explains a lot, though I'm pretty sure/. has a policy not allowing children under 13 to post.
"
Technically it's not even their descision to make. It's up to the distributers as they own the rights.
"
Assuming they sign with one. There are guys out there who don't have big record contracts you know.
"
I just wish that more artists would realize the benefits of allowing the free distribution of their music."
There are benefits to releasing free music, and there are costs that come as a result as well. For some artists, the benefits will greatly outweigh the costs. If they are a new band no one has heard of, clearly they have more to gain by giving away their songs. If they are a household name, they are probably going to be better off selling their songs.
Actually, young bands are better off having the household name bands requiring payment for their songs. That means they don't have to compete with them in the free music arena. If all music were free, most people would just download the popular bands. But by offering their music at what is effectively a much lower price, they can encourage people to try them out instead of paying the $14 for the brand name band CD.
Yes it was their choice when they signed the contract. If an artist wants to take care of all the business aspects of their art, I've known some who retain a lot of that freedom. Many artists don't even have contracts with a label. But generally it is much easier (and more profitable) to hire experts to take care of that for them.
"All you have are dictionary definitions for those words."
Thats more than you have.
"
In statistics, the data is either quantitative or qualitative."
Yes, the data can be either. However, the statistic itself is by definition quantative. True experts in the field can understand the difference between the two. You clearly do not fall in that category.
You have yet to disclose what this "high level of education" with regard to statistics you have. I have to assume you had some 2 day stat lesson in your middle school science class. Your inability to correclty define commonly used words like "qualatative" and "quantitative", combined with your ridiculous (and since refuted) assertions like "qualatative observations cannot be found from quantatative data" just serve to back that up. If you have taken anything beyond that I would be surprised, and if you have taken anything beyond the high school level I'm afraid you should ask for your money back. Either you learned nothing or your professor had no clue what he was talking about.
I on the other hand am days away from graduating with a degree in mathematics. I'm not about to listen to some dumb kid who doesn't even know what a statistic is try to lecture me on a subject with which he has a demonstrated ignorance.
Some people are idiots. Some think they know everything about a subject. You are unfortunate enough to be in both categories.
Introduction to statistics? Is that the extent of your "massive statistical education"? LOL! Anyways, sorry, even if an overview of a "statistics for biologists" class was a decent source, nothing on that page refutes the commonly known fact that statistics are by definition quantitative. Here are the relvant defitinitions since you clearly have not learned them:
Statistic:
1. A
numerical datum.
2. A numerical value, such as standard deviation or mean, that characterizes the sample or population from which it was derived.
Quantitative:
1.
1. Expressed or expressible as a
quantity.
2. Of, relating to, or susceptible of measurement.
3. Of or relating to number or quantity.
Qualitative:
Of, relating to, or concerning
quality.
Now statistics may measure qualitative things, like how many of the cars are blue. But the statistic itself (such as 13% of the cars are blue) is quantitative.
Also, in case you are wondering, your test score measurement is also a quantitative measurement. Johnny got 89 of the questions correct. See that is a numerical measurement. A quantitative measurement. Understand?
"Then why bother collecting it when you could be collecting qualatative statistics?"
LOL. There is no such thing. Statistics are by definition quantitative. I thought you had taken a course in statistics.
"Nope. First you come up with a hypothesis. Otherwise, you don't know what to measure."
No. You cannot make up a hypothesis unless you have some observation for it to explain. Read the fucking definition of the word.
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
You need the observation first genius. Didn't they teach you that in your high school science classes?
"
No you cannot. Not without knowing how the other quarterbacks perform."
Fine, include their performance. Thats still only quantitative data, and you can make a qualitative statement about it.
Seriously, what level of statistics have you taken. You are constantly bragging about your great "education" in the manner, yet if you have taken a single course above the high school level you need to demand your money back.
"
No. You have not. I'll even link to your reply. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131283&cid=109 97344 I see a lot of "could explain" being used there. Seems you're wrong."
For the last fucking time, I never said that any of this would provide a definitive evidence of how the school is doing.
"Oooh. It seems that I was the one that first brought up that point"
Look at your link again, the fact that different curriculums would screw up your testing idea is mentioned, but not by you.
"Under the scientific method, first you form a hypothesis which can be falsified and then you develop an experiment to test your hypothesis based upon that."
No, first you observe hehavior. Then you make up a hypothesis explaining that observation. Have you never taken a science class?
"But then you're trying to use that quantitative data to make a qualatative (sic) statement.
Too bad, but it doesn't work that way."
Actually it does. Peyton Manning has thrown for 41 touchdowns. That is from quantitative data. From that, I conclude that he is most likely a good quarterback. That is a qualitative statement.
Your post sounds like you took an intro to stat class and you now think you have a full understanding of the entire field. I hate to break it to you, but no you don't.
"Yes. Now give specific examples of how the college graduation rate will tell you which high schools are doing a better job at preparing the students."
I have.
"You're defining "tough schools" based on graduation rates."
Nope.
"Now you're defining "touch subjects" based upon graduation rates."
Wrong again.
"
Now, with standardized tests, you wouldn't have to guess at whether it was "tough schools" or "tough subjects". You'd KNOW."
Like hell you wouldn't. Test scores would still depend on the college attended and the subject studied.
"
All electrical engineering students would take the same, standardized, tests. You'd SEE which schools taught the information."
Except all colleges have different curriculums, as stated before when you were not paying attention. Plus we are not measuring how well the students take tests, we are measuring how prepared they are for college. And you still have no way to compare students majoring in different subjects. See why your method sucks now?
"
You see this as just collecting data and THEN seeing if you can fit some reason(s) to it."
Yes, that is generally how scientific experiments work. Would you prefer to come up with a reason and try to fit the data to it.
"
All you're doing is measuring college graduation rates and GUESSING about which MULTIPLE factors could cause the numbers you're seeing."
Educated guesses, yes. So what? I never said we would get an absolute measure of how well the school is preparing students for college. But just because information cannot be quantitatively measured does not mean it is useless.
"Measuring graduation rate means measuring graduation rate."
You are one of the most dense people I have ever talked to on/.
Go back and RTFA, along with these posts again. Maybe then you will get it. We are not talking about just measuring one factor. We are talking about measuring many factors and using all of those to help determine how well the schools are doing. Understand?
"Looking at the schools the students will go to will give you nothing more that a list of the schools the students go to.
How will that tell you why one high school has 20% college graduation and the rest have 60%?..."
Well lets see, if the 20% school has everyone going to tough schools, that could explain it.
If the 20% school has everyone studying tough subjects, that could also explain it.
If the 20% school has everyone getting decent grades but still dropping out for other reasons, that would also explain it.
I never said it was a perfect statistic, in fact I clearly said it wasn't. But it is an indicator if there are serious problems in the school's education.
Say most schools in the area are having around 60% of their alumni graduate from college (I have no idea if these are realistic numbers, I'm just making them up). If one school has a much lower graduation rate, lets say 20%, that is cause for further investigation as to why so many of that school's graduates fail at the next level.
"You don't get evidence of a statistical link by studying other explanations. "
Sorry, other explanations have to be studied in order to make the claim most likely explanation. That claim is much stronger than saying there is merely a "statistical link".
I can show there is a statistical link between the drift of continents and the evolution of mammals. That doesn't mean I can claim the evolution of mammals is the most likely explanation for the drift of the continents.
You do understand the difference between "statistical correlation" and causality, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Once again you dodge the question. I'll explain to you why a dictionary is a better resource for the definition of a word than a random webpage once you answer my question.
Five bucks says that responses to that article would be full of people claiming that is George Bush's fault for not making the homeland safer.
BTW, you continue to dodge the question over what is the magnitude of your "extensive education with regard to statistics". I don't know why, most people reading your posts would be inclined to think you have not even made it into high school. Any answer beyond that would actually make you sound better (unless the true answer is that you really havn't made it to high school in which case you are most likely too young to be posting here). I've given mine; I'm about to graduate magna cum laude from one of the nation's top engineering schools, with mathematics as one of my majors. Why are you afraid to share yours?
Traditional Conservatives generally don't like raising taxes.
Traditional Liberals don't mind it, as long as only effects rich people. Such a tax would be felt hardest by the poor and middle class (rich people can afford to just buy a hybrid car or other expensive technologies that may end up saving money in the long run even though they require a huge amount of money upfront).
BTW, instead of taxing everything that you deem environmentally unfriendly, why not just increase the tax on oil? Then if florescent lights really have the energy saving features you claim they do (I for one am doubtful, that is saying that cars pollute around just 100 times as much as a light bulb), the cost of using them does go down.
For the record, I for one am not really against such a proposal. Even though my political views are generally closer to those of traditional conservatives, I see taxing oil as just a way of paying back the government for all the additional costs of oil that up to now have been subsidized by the government.
By that logic the books both origional movies were based on were perfectly good works that did not need to be remade, so the origional movies should not be celebrated either.
Now I'll have to install FlashBlock on my personal organizer.
Private individuals inventing things in their basements need the patent system (much more than corporations who have vast resources) in order to profit from their hard work. Generally speaking, these guys can't make and market their inventions themselves and instead rely on selling patent rights to larger companies that can make and market them. But usually they need the actual patent awarded to them in order to sell those rights. If it takes 5 years to get the patent, it will take 5 years before they can finally start to sell their product. Imagine if it took you five years before you could get a paycheck. And by then their invention may well already be obsolete. If it takes too long for patents to be processed, you will only end up killing off private inventors.
When I was a kid I was almost always the shortest in the class. Nowadays I am about normal height (maybe an inch or two below), but that doesn't stop me from making jokes about me being short.
Pollution is harmful to the public health and could possibly endanger the global environment.
That wasn't too hard to say, and not only does it adequately point out the potential problems with regard to pollution, but it leaves out the fear mongering that will only lead to knee jerk reactions which will only end up making the problem worse.
A quote relevant to this headline:
Claiming most scientists believe in global warming and that none claim that it definitely will not happen completely misses the point. "Opponents" of global warming are not arguing that it is definitely not going to happen, but rather that the current information is insufficient to make the statements many have been making on the subject.
You still have yet to reveal the extent of your vast education in statistics. Don't tell me its not even at the middle school level. Elementary school? Well, that explains a lot, though I'm pretty sure /. has a policy not allowing children under 13 to post.
Assuming they sign with one. There are guys out there who don't have big record contracts you know.
" I just wish that more artists would realize the benefits of allowing the free distribution of their music."
There are benefits to releasing free music, and there are costs that come as a result as well. For some artists, the benefits will greatly outweigh the costs. If they are a new band no one has heard of, clearly they have more to gain by giving away their songs. If they are a household name, they are probably going to be better off selling their songs.
Actually, young bands are better off having the household name bands requiring payment for their songs. That means they don't have to compete with them in the free music arena. If all music were free, most people would just download the popular bands. But by offering their music at what is effectively a much lower price, they can encourage people to try them out instead of paying the $14 for the brand name band CD.
Yes it was their choice when they signed the contract. If an artist wants to take care of all the business aspects of their art, I've known some who retain a lot of that freedom. Many artists don't even have contracts with a label. But generally it is much easier (and more profitable) to hire experts to take care of that for them.
Thats more than you have.
" In statistics, the data is either quantitative or qualitative."
Yes, the data can be either. However, the statistic itself is by definition quantative. True experts in the field can understand the difference between the two. You clearly do not fall in that category.
You have yet to disclose what this "high level of education" with regard to statistics you have. I have to assume you had some 2 day stat lesson in your middle school science class. Your inability to correclty define commonly used words like "qualatative" and "quantitative", combined with your ridiculous (and since refuted) assertions like "qualatative observations cannot be found from quantatative data" just serve to back that up. If you have taken anything beyond that I would be surprised, and if you have taken anything beyond the high school level I'm afraid you should ask for your money back. Either you learned nothing or your professor had no clue what he was talking about.
I on the other hand am days away from graduating with a degree in mathematics. I'm not about to listen to some dumb kid who doesn't even know what a statistic is try to lecture me on a subject with which he has a demonstrated ignorance.
Some people are idiots. Some think they know everything about a subject. You are unfortunate enough to be in both categories.
Ok, he said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". Still an exaggeration if you ask me.
Statistic:
Quantitative:
Qualitative:
Now statistics may measure qualitative things, like how many of the cars are blue. But the statistic itself (such as 13% of the cars are blue) is quantitative.
Also, in case you are wondering, your test score measurement is also a quantitative measurement. Johnny got 89 of the questions correct. See that is a numerical measurement. A quantitative measurement. Understand?
LOL. There is no such thing. Statistics are by definition quantitative. I thought you had taken a course in statistics.
"Nope. First you come up with a hypothesis. Otherwise, you don't know what to measure."
No. You cannot make up a hypothesis unless you have some observation for it to explain. Read the fucking definition of the word.
You need the observation first genius. Didn't they teach you that in your high school science classes?" No you cannot. Not without knowing how the other quarterbacks perform."
Fine, include their performance. Thats still only quantitative data, and you can make a qualitative statement about it.
Seriously, what level of statistics have you taken. You are constantly bragging about your great "education" in the manner, yet if you have taken a single course above the high school level you need to demand your money back.
For the last fucking time, I never said that any of this would provide a definitive evidence of how the school is doing.
"Oooh. It seems that I was the one that first brought up that point"
Look at your link again, the fact that different curriculums would screw up your testing idea is mentioned, but not by you.
"Under the scientific method, first you form a hypothesis which can be falsified and then you develop an experiment to test your hypothesis based upon that."
No, first you observe hehavior. Then you make up a hypothesis explaining that observation. Have you never taken a science class?
"But then you're trying to use that quantitative data to make a qualatative (sic) statement. Too bad, but it doesn't work that way."
Actually it does. Peyton Manning has thrown for 41 touchdowns. That is from quantitative data. From that, I conclude that he is most likely a good quarterback. That is a qualitative statement.
Your post sounds like you took an intro to stat class and you now think you have a full understanding of the entire field. I hate to break it to you, but no you don't.
I have.
"You're defining "tough schools" based on graduation rates."
Nope.
"Now you're defining "touch subjects" based upon graduation rates."
Wrong again.
" Now, with standardized tests, you wouldn't have to guess at whether it was "tough schools" or "tough subjects". You'd KNOW."
Like hell you wouldn't. Test scores would still depend on the college attended and the subject studied.
" All electrical engineering students would take the same, standardized, tests. You'd SEE which schools taught the information."
Except all colleges have different curriculums, as stated before when you were not paying attention. Plus we are not measuring how well the students take tests, we are measuring how prepared they are for college. And you still have no way to compare students majoring in different subjects. See why your method sucks now?
" You see this as just collecting data and THEN seeing if you can fit some reason(s) to it."
Yes, that is generally how scientific experiments work. Would you prefer to come up with a reason and try to fit the data to it.
" All you're doing is measuring college graduation rates and GUESSING about which MULTIPLE factors could cause the numbers you're seeing."
Educated guesses, yes. So what? I never said we would get an absolute measure of how well the school is preparing students for college. But just because information cannot be quantitatively measured does not mean it is useless.
You are one of the most dense people I have ever talked to on /.
Go back and RTFA, along with these posts again. Maybe then you will get it. We are not talking about just measuring one factor. We are talking about measuring many factors and using all of those to help determine how well the schools are doing. Understand?
"Looking at the schools the students will go to will give you nothing more that a list of the schools the students go to. How will that tell you why one high school has 20% college graduation and the rest have 60%?..."
Well lets see, if the 20% school has everyone going to tough schools, that could explain it.
If the 20% school has everyone studying tough subjects, that could also explain it.
If the 20% school has everyone getting decent grades but still dropping out for other reasons, that would also explain it.
I really can't make it any simpler.
Its not all you are measuring. Its one of many factors. I don't know how I can make this point which you constantly miss more clear.
" But how would you go about determining the cause of the 20% graduation rate? Hmmmmmm?"
Look at the schools the students go to. Look at the degree programs. Look at the grades. Etc.
Say most schools in the area are having around 60% of their alumni graduate from college (I have no idea if these are realistic numbers, I'm just making them up). If one school has a much lower graduation rate, lets say 20%, that is cause for further investigation as to why so many of that school's graduates fail at the next level.
Sorry, other explanations have to be studied in order to make the claim most likely explanation. That claim is much stronger than saying there is merely a "statistical link".
I can show there is a statistical link between the drift of continents and the evolution of mammals. That doesn't mean I can claim the evolution of mammals is the most likely explanation for the drift of the continents.
You do understand the difference between "statistical correlation" and causality, right?
B) No they are not. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested using the scientifc method.
Nice strawman. But there are plenty of alternate explanations. Climates change, there are millions of things that effect them.