Depends on how you want to use the data. For instance, if you're just interested in seeing if something is changing (i.e., trends), precision alone may be adequate.
I rarely use it for searching for files, but it's great for archived email. Message subjects aren't always great at identifying the content, and it just gets worse as the emails age. When you've got thousands of emails on a single topic/project, it's not worth it to spend all of my time creating and managing a hierarchy that probably wouldn't help me too much. In order to be useful, emails would likely have to span multiple hierarchies. Much easier, simpler and faster to just search on some keywords.
Yes, there are certain limits to speech, but you're really confusing things here. The FCC is based on the public ownership of the airwaves. There's a big difference between allowing someone to say something, and providing a forum (even if they're willing to pay for the privilege of using it) for the speech. Copyrights are also, obviously, a limit on speech, whether we're talking DMCA or not. You still haven't provided anything approaching an argument here.
People can decide they're frightened into not speaking for any stupid reason, well founded or not. To say that the PATRIOT act has chilled free speech, though, should be backed up with something. Is there less dissent now than before? I can't see how anyone could argue this. Are the dissenters just a few high profile people, while the masses have been cowed into silence? Judging by the number of anti-Bush bumper stickers and invective filled postings on the internet, I'd have to say that the masses haven't been cowed into silence. A few crazy conspiracy theorists might have been scared into hiding, but they do that to themselves anyway. And there are plenty of them that are very public (9/11 Truthers, for instance, who still think that 9/11 was a Rovian plot).
I'm assuming you live in the EU, so you probably don't have direct knowledge of what's going on in the US on a daily basis (also evidenced by the fact that you hadn't heard about Padilla). Just like we Americans get [rightly] told to not believe everything we hear in the domestic press about the rest of the world, you shouldn't always believe everything you hear about us.
Are we talking about the same PATRIOT act? How can someone be taken away without trial? Certainly, there are some investigative things that can be done without going through a judge, but let's assume your argument is correct. Maybe you mean that they could be designated as enemy combatants or something, but I didn't think that was the PATRIOT act. Even if it were, just because there's no trial doesn't mean we wouldn't have heard about it. If someone were 'shut up' by taking them away to, say Guantanamo, or a naval brig in South Carolina, I think someone would notice their absence, and we'd all hear about it--ever heard of Jose Padilla?
But regardless of the effects on the judicial system, you didn't even attempt to back up your assertion that the PATRIOT act has chilled free speech in the US, whereas the whole point of this EU proposal is to restrict speech. The only legislative [direct] attack on free speech in the US that I'm aware of (note: I'm not claiming that my knowledge is exhaustive here) is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. If those outlets I mentioned are the result of "chilled" speech, then what would un-chilled speech be like?
Um, no, it's not. It just takes your weight and height into account. It's a stupid, poorly named metric, and the best you can say for it is that there's a correlation between it and something useful, but it's not a terribly useful correlation.
I double majored in business and math, and my math classes were a breeze compared to most of the (upper level) business courses, probably for a similar reason that your lab classes were more difficult. The business classes always required big projects, often dealing with a team of people. Math classes just basically required you to understand the material, which was sometimes a lot of work, but still a lot less work and time (not to mention a lot more fun) than the projects for business classes.
Peer review can be useful for discussing the methodology and potential problems with it in order to create the next set of experiments.
OK, so what if one of the articles said that the statistical model used was not really predicting what the authors claim? Maybe because even if you feed it random data, the output is basically the same. Or maybe because of the way that certain data was included while other data was excluded?
Have you looked at TFA? If someone can point out some inconsistencies, wouldn't it make more sense to clear those up before declaring the problem solved? From TFA:
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
If that's not "discussing the methodology and potential problems with it," then what is? Do you really think that the point is to have someone advocate something contrary to what they believe? I suspect that it's really an inducement to get some critics to have a higher profile. The $10K is meant to offset the risks of challenging the orthodoxy. What difference does it make if the papers don't cover all the points of the sacred 'process'. The point of science is to discover and learn things. And all the consensus in the world doesn't make a hypothesis correct.
I would think it perfectly reasonable for someone to have challenged your gravity example. If we observe something contrary to a theory, shouldn't we try to explain it before accepting it as proved?
If you pay scientists to postulate reasons, then publish, they are not acting as scientists. They're acting as guessers.
Ok, broken record time: RTFA. They're analyzing the work of others. If you're saying that this isn't allowed, then you've ruled out peer review. Since I know you've already disagreed with this, please give me some examples, with respect to the IPCC report that would be acceptable criticisms from a peer review standpoint, and criticisms that wouldn't be acceptable from a peer review. Or is it just the fact that some Exxon dollars are involved?
...then present the methodology and results of that testing along with analysis for peer review...
...analyze the results openly with input from peers...
You haven't shown how TFA is any different than the peer review that was done (or should have been done) by the IPCC. Should the publishers of any study be able to define who the reviewers will be? That seems wrong. Or are you saying that all peer reviewers need to come up with alternative hypotheses and go out and do their own testing before they can be said to have reviewed anything?
TFA says that they're looking for someone to review the paper, and to comment on its strengths and weaknesses. They're not asking for results that contradict it (although one might reasonably assume that such results could be used as support for weaknesses of the study).
The scientific method relies upon hypothesis and testing, then publishing and interpreting the results of that testing and it is reviewed by peers.
Except when the subject of climate change comes up. Then, it's all about consensus, and anyone who has a different theory, or who criticizes the current theories is a denier and a foe of science. While committing the heresy of RTFAing, I read this gem:
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute...offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's...IPCC.
Is it a bad thing to hear from those who don't agree with, or who think the study was not done correctly? If the arguments they present are garbage, then they'll speak for themselves. If your only counter to what they say is, "But it was paid for be teh neocons!!" then you've completely abandoned science.
Wouldn't this rather be a continuation of "interpreting the results of that testing...by peers?"
Which rights are those that they've been denied? It seems to me that we've given them rights that they didn't necessarily have. You act like we're throwing people in Gitmo for writing letters to the editor at the NYT:
You can and will be hauled off to gitmo for what you write or publish if the powers-that-be deem that it should be so.
Please let us into your world by at least explaining this statement (with some kind of back up besides cries of sheeple). I can think of a few others around the world where this isn't true, but it sure doesn't fit the USA.
No, you're misinterpreting the messenger. Remember, those allegations were false, yet there were riots about them, and people were killed. He was basically saying that you shouldn't yell fire in a crowded theater. And how many of those people who said things that resulted in those people being killed are in Gitmo? Please remove the tinfoil and join us in the real world.
It may not have been a troll, but it was pretty dumb.
I think you're missing the point. The crapware was subsidizing your purchase. If he doesn't include it, he either loses the money, or he passes the difference along to the customer.
Think of all the people who talk about how they'd be willing to pay for tv shows without commercials (regardless of whether they'd actually shell out or not). Do you make the same argument in that case?
Really, a guy who associates with crack-whores? I guess the problem isn't so much with his sex offense, but still...doesn't sound like the kind of person I'd like being around my kids.
But how much does the next guy oppose the death penalty? If I'm the next guy, then you oppose opposing the death penalty. Would that be like negative opposing?
So what's the "political, religious, or ideological objective" involved in getting your wallet? Seems more financial to me. In practice, 'terrorism' is a slippery concept, but I think that's one of the better definitions I've seen. It's not just the act, but the motivation and desired end-state of the actor that makes something terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he's saying that they didn't use any of the "Snow White" art in "Sleeping Beauty" or "Cinderella".
Depends on how you want to use the data. For instance, if you're just interested in seeing if something is changing (i.e., trends), precision alone may be adequate.
Yeah, but he was talking about a show on the History Channel. I saw it, too, and it was pretty good.
I rarely use it for searching for files, but it's great for archived email. Message subjects aren't always great at identifying the content, and it just gets worse as the emails age. When you've got thousands of emails on a single topic/project, it's not worth it to spend all of my time creating and managing a hierarchy that probably wouldn't help me too much. In order to be useful, emails would likely have to span multiple hierarchies. Much easier, simpler and faster to just search on some keywords.
Yes, there are certain limits to speech, but you're really confusing things here. The FCC is based on the public ownership of the airwaves. There's a big difference between allowing someone to say something, and providing a forum (even if they're willing to pay for the privilege of using it) for the speech. Copyrights are also, obviously, a limit on speech, whether we're talking DMCA or not. You still haven't provided anything approaching an argument here.
People can decide they're frightened into not speaking for any stupid reason, well founded or not. To say that the PATRIOT act has chilled free speech, though, should be backed up with something. Is there less dissent now than before? I can't see how anyone could argue this. Are the dissenters just a few high profile people, while the masses have been cowed into silence? Judging by the number of anti-Bush bumper stickers and invective filled postings on the internet, I'd have to say that the masses haven't been cowed into silence. A few crazy conspiracy theorists might have been scared into hiding, but they do that to themselves anyway. And there are plenty of them that are very public (9/11 Truthers, for instance, who still think that 9/11 was a Rovian plot).
I'm assuming you live in the EU, so you probably don't have direct knowledge of what's going on in the US on a daily basis (also evidenced by the fact that you hadn't heard about Padilla). Just like we Americans get [rightly] told to not believe everything we hear in the domestic press about the rest of the world, you shouldn't always believe everything you hear about us.
Are we talking about the same PATRIOT act? How can someone be taken away without trial? Certainly, there are some investigative things that can be done without going through a judge, but let's assume your argument is correct. Maybe you mean that they could be designated as enemy combatants or something, but I didn't think that was the PATRIOT act. Even if it were, just because there's no trial doesn't mean we wouldn't have heard about it. If someone were 'shut up' by taking them away to, say Guantanamo, or a naval brig in South Carolina, I think someone would notice their absence, and we'd all hear about it--ever heard of Jose Padilla?
But regardless of the effects on the judicial system, you didn't even attempt to back up your assertion that the PATRIOT act has chilled free speech in the US, whereas the whole point of this EU proposal is to restrict speech. The only legislative [direct] attack on free speech in the US that I'm aware of (note: I'm not claiming that my knowledge is exhaustive here) is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. If those outlets I mentioned are the result of "chilled" speech, then what would un-chilled speech be like?
Yeah, the PATRIOT act sure shut up those guys at DailyKos, HuffingtonPost, DemocraticUnderground, The View, ...
Um, no, it's not. It just takes your weight and height into account. It's a stupid, poorly named metric, and the best you can say for it is that there's a correlation between it and something useful, but it's not a terribly useful correlation.
I double majored in business and math, and my math classes were a breeze compared to most of the (upper level) business courses, probably for a similar reason that your lab classes were more difficult. The business classes always required big projects, often dealing with a team of people. Math classes just basically required you to understand the material, which was sometimes a lot of work, but still a lot less work and time (not to mention a lot more fun) than the projects for business classes.
OK, so what if one of the articles said that the statistical model used was not really predicting what the authors claim? Maybe because even if you feed it random data, the output is basically the same. Or maybe because of the way that certain data was included while other data was excluded?
Have you looked at TFA? If someone can point out some inconsistencies, wouldn't it make more sense to clear those up before declaring the problem solved? From TFA:
If that's not "discussing the methodology and potential problems with it," then what is? Do you really think that the point is to have someone advocate something contrary to what they believe? I suspect that it's really an inducement to get some critics to have a higher profile. The $10K is meant to offset the risks of challenging the orthodoxy. What difference does it make if the papers don't cover all the points of the sacred 'process'. The point of science is to discover and learn things. And all the consensus in the world doesn't make a hypothesis correct.
I would think it perfectly reasonable for someone to have challenged your gravity example. If we observe something contrary to a theory, shouldn't we try to explain it before accepting it as proved?
Ok, broken record time: RTFA. They're analyzing the work of others. If you're saying that this isn't allowed, then you've ruled out peer review. Since I know you've already disagreed with this, please give me some examples, with respect to the IPCC report that would be acceptable criticisms from a peer review standpoint, and criticisms that wouldn't be acceptable from a peer review. Or is it just the fact that some Exxon dollars are involved?
You haven't shown how TFA is any different than the peer review that was done (or should have been done) by the IPCC. Should the publishers of any study be able to define who the reviewers will be? That seems wrong. Or are you saying that all peer reviewers need to come up with alternative hypotheses and go out and do their own testing before they can be said to have reviewed anything?
TFA says that they're looking for someone to review the paper, and to comment on its strengths and weaknesses. They're not asking for results that contradict it (although one might reasonably assume that such results could be used as support for weaknesses of the study).
Is it a bad thing to hear from those who don't agree with, or who think the study was not done correctly? If the arguments they present are garbage, then they'll speak for themselves. If your only counter to what they say is, "But it was paid for be teh neocons!!" then you've completely abandoned science.
Wouldn't this rather be a continuation of "interpreting the results of that testing...by peers?"
I agree. They're like the people who say, "It's warm this month. Global warming is real."
No, you're misinterpreting the messenger. Remember, those allegations were false, yet there were riots about them, and people were killed. He was basically saying that you shouldn't yell fire in a crowded theater. And how many of those people who said things that resulted in those people being killed are in Gitmo? Please remove the tinfoil and join us in the real world.
It may not have been a troll, but it was pretty dumb.
I think you're missing the point. The crapware was subsidizing your purchase. If he doesn't include it, he either loses the money, or he passes the difference along to the customer.
Think of all the people who talk about how they'd be willing to pay for tv shows without commercials (regardless of whether they'd actually shell out or not). Do you make the same argument in that case?
jI jdon't junderstand jwhat jthe jbig jdeal jis.
Really, a guy who associates with crack-whores? I guess the problem isn't so much with his sex offense, but still...doesn't sound like the kind of person I'd like being around my kids.
But how much does the next guy oppose the death penalty? If I'm the next guy, then you oppose opposing the death penalty. Would that be like negative opposing?
Of course not, because oil companies don't pay the tax. Customers of the oil companies pay the tax.
Yeah, but what about neutron stars that aren't some shade of red?
So what's the "political, religious, or ideological objective" involved in getting your wallet? Seems more financial to me. In practice, 'terrorism' is a slippery concept, but I think that's one of the better definitions I've seen. It's not just the act, but the motivation and desired end-state of the actor that makes something terrorism.