"India doesn't care about the American, Chinese, etc poor except how it may benefit them. The same goes for China and virtually every other country in the world."
Are you implying that this state of affairs is a good thing? Are you in favor of perpetuating it as much as possible? Since you said "virtually every other country," are you thinking of some that aren't this way?
"You. Take. Care. Of. Your. Own. FIRST."
Perhaps a difference between you and Descalzo (GPP) is who you see as your own. Where do you draw the line?
Perhaps you will take this opportunity to re-read (or read) some John Donne:
"No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. "
Maybe you have a good point. Your post DIRECTLY implies two things: 1- In other words, since my job hasn't been outsourced to India, "neener neener" to those who have lost their jobs. I'm worrying about my own first. 2- This isn't about "saving the downtrodden worker from the corporate slavemaster," since you are more worried about workers that are less downtrodden.
"I still think the streets would be a lot safer without the government."
Have you lived somewhere without police, that would justify that counterintuitive (to me) statement?
Have you read histories of cities and countries in revolution (temporary anarchy) and studied the data from such times and places to be able to support that belief? The examples that I've seen suggest that when there is no government the streets are very dangerous indeed.
There's plenty of "space" for a big curved mirror. Plenty of solar energy to concentrate with the mirror. So, if it were me, I'd build the refinery next to the asteroid.
This post is based on experience from attending 4 colleges and teaching at 3.
I have been required to know certain things, in the same order as taught in class (e.g. there a couple of very different ways to build the basics of Real Analysis and Measures). I have been required to do answer certain questions or do certain problems.
The recommended (officially, "required") textbook has never been the only way to accomplish the goals of the class. ANY class.
They have often been a big help: 1- A common text helps keep the class in sync. 2- If the instructor can expect his students to all have a cartain text, it makes references to material for study outside of class clearer. (Classes that use a lot of readings - literature, for example - often benefit a lot by having all the necesary readings in 2 or three volumes, instead of looking for snippets in 40 or 50 volumes.) 3- Coming up with interesting, helpful and relevant questions is very hard in many classes, and a good textbook can help with that. 4- After the class is over, having a text that was followed closely by a class is an easier reference to use than a random text on the same subject.
Sometimes there isn't a textbook, or two, that fit the requirements of the course (or instructor). In that case the instructor finds other, less efficient, ways to fullfill the same functions, or writes a textbook.
For my (Graduate) Complex Analysis course there was a textbook that was good, but it didn't have any problems. My instructor developed a bunch of problems and got them included in a new printing of the text. Using that text was cheaper for us than the instructor handing our photocopied packets of problems, more durable as a reference work, and more efficient and less error-prone than copying the problems out by hand. (This particular instructor didn't make any money off the texts.)
When I moved to the NYC area, I got a phone call from they Daily News. They offered me an introductory subscription rate. I have had newspaper subscriptions in several other states and cities, and their rate seemed pretty good, so I tried them out with a 10 week (or so) subscription.
We didn't even last a full week before we cancelled. We didn't even care if they refunded our money.
After we cancelled, the Daily News called us several times trying to get us to sign up again, and we kept refusing. Finally, one of these frustrated callers asked my wife, "Would you at least give me a reason?"
My wife, too impatient to be tactful, answered truthfully, "Because it's a newspaper for stupid people."
My point is, don't use the Daily News as a source if you want to look credible to intelligent people.
A very real problem with your anonymous database idea is accuracy. In such a database, how could you tell if your data was real, and not just a bunch of spammed high (by employees) or low (by employers) data?
As one of my boss's boss (an actuary with decades of experience) said, "Why would you want to collect data that you don't know is accurate."
Unverifiable data is not merely useless, it is often misleading.
Not to suggest that the Parent doesn't understand why division by zero is undefined, but there's got to be some slashdotter that doesn't understand, and would like to.
Division is defined as the inverse of multiplication. This is why dividing by zero is undefined.
Example: 6 / 2 = 3 because 2 x 3 = 6. That is how division is defined.
Now consider: 6 / 0 = ? This is undefined because there is no ? such that 0 x ? = 6. (Hint: There are (infinitely) many sizes of infinity, and none of the infinities are numbers.) (Interestingly, to me, 0 / 0 = ? is undefined because 0 x ? = 0 has multiple solutions.)
Undefined doesn't mean that mathematicians simply haven't got together to make a definition.
I apologize if my informal language and notation has offended any mathemeticians out there. I plead a desire for clarity without special symbols to a group that includes non-mathematicians.
I did tech support for dental software for a while. Many of the customers were great. The office managers were usually smart enough to give good information. The hygenists and assistants often only had very limited understanding of the software, but were willing to learn. When I talked to other IT people (you know, someone setting up the dentist's network, etc.) it was either very smooth, or very rocky, depending on the ego of the caller. (I'm not assuming that I don't have an ego, but rather than my ego probably stayed relatively constant.) However, the most unreasonably egotistical, rude, it's-your-fault-and-you're-going-to-fix-it-and-I'm -going-to-tell-you-how customers were men that had graduated from dental school.
(It should be noted that people are individuals and these are generalities.)
It seems to me that the professors that can do something else for a living, but choose to teach, are less snooty. There are fewer of those kind in disciplines where there aren't many non-academic jobs.
To best show you how the probabilities work out it would take a tree diagram, and I am NOT going to do a tree diagran in text art, especially for a/. post.
But, you're right. I forgot to include the 90% probability of continuing.
"Also, you've assumed that your probability of winning is independant of history - I suspect that serial winners have better odds of winning than novices!"
I guess the basic assumption here, from ggp, is betting in the short term on individual stocks. My understanding, and that implicit in the ggp and gp, is that serial winners DON'T have better odds in that situation. I think that the data bears that understanding out.
Except that a, in this case happens to be 0.1*0.5. The formula that you use assumes that the series goes a, ar, arr, arrr,.... The a is the first term. In this case, the probability of ending up a success after 1 attempt, or 0.1*0.5 = 0.05, which makes the sum = 0.1.
OR
Factor out the 0.1, and the first term is 0.5, which makes the formula evaluate as 0.5/(1 - 0.5) = 1. Multiplying the 0.1 back in gives 0.1.
Do we agree, now? Or did I really make a mistake that I still can't see?
FYI, there are video poker machines with have odds that actually favor the player, and the owners of the machines STILL MAKE MONEY. They still make money because the odds are calculated with the assumption that the player will always make the best decision, and they don't.
Also, the entire gambling industry is built on faith in irrational human behavior and the force of habit.
If someone hasn't failed yet, they'll still have money to try again, and probably will.
So, let us suppose that each attempt has a 50% chance of success. Further let's suppose that someone that hasn't failed has a 90% chance of trying again.
Not coincidentally this 10% is the same as the probability of quitting after succeeding on the first try.
A lot of you took pre-calculus and shouldn't have a problem checking my sum of that infinite geometric series. Many of you took high school stats and should easily be able to check the way I set up the series, or even show a better way to calculate the probability.
Please verify.
Note: I believe this also shows why a casino could have 50/50 bets, with no house percentage (they don't), and still make scads of money.
"I have thought that, perhaps, the defending lawyer should try just as hard to get at the truth as the prosecutor, but still be an advocate for the [sic]defandant."
It seems that either you didn't understand what I said here, or you don't believe it's possible. From your post I can't which, if either, happened.
"I was looking for evidence that they were treated worse than any animal on the farm, like the chickens or the rats."
One of the early experiences of Samuel Clemens's life was seing a (white) man kill a slave just because he was doing something awkwardly.
I don't think that most people think of rats of "farm animals," but people probably wouldn't kill them if they weren't destructive, and expensive chickens aren't usually killed on a whim, either.
I chose that example because the witness had already been introduced into the converstation. There are MANY other examples of slaves being treated with more cruelty than the animals. Perhaps because people that want to be cruel like the object of their cruelty to be aware of it.
There are, of course, examples of slaves being cared for like valuable property (which may, or may not, be worse than treating them like hated people, depending on your point of view) and examples of slaves being treated something more like employees, but I don't think this was anything like universal.
I think that you've forgotten an basic pattern of human behavior. We come to hate those that we wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
"India doesn't care about the American, Chinese, etc poor except how it may benefit them. The same goes for China and virtually every other country in the world."
Are you implying that this state of affairs is a good thing?
Are you in favor of perpetuating it as much as possible?
Since you said "virtually every other country," are you thinking of some that aren't this way?
"You. Take. Care. Of. Your. Own. FIRST."
Perhaps a difference between you and Descalzo (GPP) is who you see as your own. Where do you draw the line?
Perhaps you will take this opportunity to re-read (or read) some John Donne:
"No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. "
Maybe you have a good point.
Your post DIRECTLY implies two things:
1- In other words, since my job hasn't been outsourced to India, "neener neener" to those who have lost their jobs. I'm worrying about my own first.
2- This isn't about "saving the downtrodden worker from the corporate slavemaster," since you are more worried about workers that are less downtrodden.
MoO II is my favorite game ever.
I still play it at least once a week.
I prefer to use a Lithovore Creative custom race, with 10 points of disadvantages, and pickup Telepathic when I research Evolutionary Mutation.
I also like to use a Unification Creative Telepathic custom race.
"I still think the streets would be a lot safer without the government."
Have you lived somewhere without police, that would justify that counterintuitive (to me) statement?
Have you read histories of cities and countries in revolution (temporary anarchy) and studied the data from such times and places to be able to support that belief? The examples that I've seen suggest that when there is no government the streets are very dangerous indeed.
We may have a period of space colonization that generates a lot of entertainment and literature, just like the American West of the late 1800's
Except that a lot of that literature has already been generated in anticipation.
There's plenty of "space" for a big curved mirror.
Plenty of solar energy to concentrate with the mirror.
So, if it were me, I'd build the refinery next to the asteroid.
Adding values should be done at home.
If we're dependent on schools for values we're in BIG trouble.
I wonder if your last two responders missed the point of your question.
I would not have thought that you were implying that we shouldn't care, but rather were wondering why we are the way we are.
This post is based on experience from attending 4 colleges and teaching at 3.
I have been required to know certain things, in the same order as taught in class (e.g. there a couple of very different ways to build the basics of Real Analysis and Measures).
I have been required to do answer certain questions or do certain problems.
The recommended (officially, "required") textbook has never been the only way to accomplish the goals of the class. ANY class.
They have often been a big help:
1- A common text helps keep the class in sync.
2- If the instructor can expect his students to all have a cartain text, it makes references to material for study outside of class clearer. (Classes that use a lot of readings - literature, for example - often benefit a lot by having all the necesary readings in 2 or three volumes, instead of looking for snippets in 40 or 50 volumes.)
3- Coming up with interesting, helpful and relevant questions is very hard in many classes, and a good textbook can help with that.
4- After the class is over, having a text that was followed closely by a class is an easier reference to use than a random text on the same subject.
Sometimes there isn't a textbook, or two, that fit the requirements of the course (or instructor). In that case the instructor finds other, less efficient, ways to fullfill the same functions, or writes a textbook.
For my (Graduate) Complex Analysis course there was a textbook that was good, but it didn't have any problems. My instructor developed a bunch of problems and got them included in a new printing of the text.
Using that text was cheaper for us than the instructor handing our photocopied packets of problems, more durable as a reference work, and more efficient and less error-prone than copying the problems out by hand.
(This particular instructor didn't make any money off the texts.)
When I moved to the NYC area, I got a phone call from they Daily News.
They offered me an introductory subscription rate. I have had newspaper subscriptions in several other states and cities, and their rate seemed pretty good, so I tried them out with a 10 week (or so) subscription.
We didn't even last a full week before we cancelled. We didn't even care if they refunded our money.
After we cancelled, the Daily News called us several times trying to get us to sign up again, and we kept refusing. Finally, one of these frustrated callers asked my wife, "Would you at least give me a reason?"
My wife, too impatient to be tactful, answered truthfully, "Because it's a newspaper for stupid people."
My point is, don't use the Daily News as a source if you want to look credible to intelligent people.
A very real problem with your anonymous database idea is accuracy.
In such a database, how could you tell if your data was real, and not just a bunch of spammed high (by employees) or low (by employers) data?
As one of my boss's boss (an actuary with decades of experience) said, "Why would you want to collect data that you don't know is accurate."
Unverifiable data is not merely useless, it is often misleading.
Not to suggest that the Parent doesn't understand why division by zero is undefined, but there's got to be some slashdotter that doesn't understand, and would like to.
Division is defined as the inverse of multiplication.
This is why dividing by zero is undefined.
Example:
6 / 2 = 3 because 2 x 3 = 6. That is how division is defined.
Now consider:
6 / 0 = ?
This is undefined because there is no ? such that 0 x ? = 6.
(Hint: There are (infinitely) many sizes of infinity, and none of the infinities are numbers.)
(Interestingly, to me, 0 / 0 = ? is undefined because 0 x ? = 0 has multiple solutions.)
Undefined doesn't mean that mathematicians simply haven't got together to make a definition.
I apologize if my informal language and notation has offended any mathemeticians out there. I plead a desire for clarity without special symbols to a group that includes non-mathematicians.
So, what have you got against Linux users?
No one is as brave as Chuck Norris.
http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/
You have much to learn.
I did tech support for dental software for a while.m -going-to-tell-you-how customers were men that had graduated from dental school.
Many of the customers were great.
The office managers were usually smart enough to give good information.
The hygenists and assistants often only had very limited understanding of the software, but were willing to learn.
When I talked to other IT people (you know, someone setting up the dentist's network, etc.) it was either very smooth, or very rocky, depending on the ego of the caller. (I'm not assuming that I don't have an ego, but rather than my ego probably stayed relatively constant.)
However, the most unreasonably egotistical, rude, it's-your-fault-and-you're-going-to-fix-it-and-I'
(It should be noted that people are individuals and these are generalities.)
Go daddy, go, go!
Go daddy, go, go!
Daddy, Be good!
OR
Be good, be good, be good,
Be good, be good, be good,
Be good, be good, be good,
Be good, Daaaaddy.
Sorry
(Having taught at a few colleges.)
It seems to me that the professors that can do something else for a living, but choose to teach, are less snooty.
There are fewer of those kind in disciplines where there aren't many non-academic jobs.
To best show you how the probabilities work out it would take a tree diagram, and I am NOT going to do a tree diagran in text art, especially for a /. post.
But, you're right. I forgot to include the 90% probability of continuing.
"Also, you've assumed that your probability of winning is independant of history - I suspect that serial winners have better odds of winning than novices!"
I guess the basic assumption here, from ggp, is betting in the short term on individual stocks. My understanding, and that implicit in the ggp and gp, is that serial winners DON'T have better odds in that situation. I think that the data bears that understanding out.
Except that a, in this case happens to be 0.1*0.5.
The formula that you use assumes that the series goes a, ar, arr, arrr,.... The a is the first term. In this case, the probability of ending up a success after 1 attempt, or 0.1*0.5 = 0.05, which makes the sum = 0.1.
OR
Factor out the 0.1, and the first term is 0.5, which makes the formula evaluate as 0.5/(1 - 0.5) = 1. Multiplying the 0.1 back in gives 0.1.
Do we agree, now? Or did I really make a mistake that I still can't see?
I basically agree with your post.
Still, 2 points.
FYI, there are video poker machines with have odds that actually favor the player, and the owners of the machines STILL MAKE MONEY. They still make money because the odds are calculated with the assumption that the player will always make the best decision, and they don't.
Also, the entire gambling industry is built on faith in irrational human behavior and the force of habit.
If someone hasn't failed yet, they'll still have money to try again, and probably will.
...= ...= 0.1
So, let us suppose that each attempt has a 50% chance of success.
Further let's suppose that someone that hasn't failed has a 90% chance of trying again.
Thus probability of non-failure=
0.5*0.1 + 0.5*0.5*0.1 + 0.5*0.5*0.5*0.1 + 0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5*0.1 +
0.05 + 0.025 + 0.0125 + 0.00625 +
Not coincidentally this 10% is the same as the probability of quitting after succeeding on the first try.
A lot of you took pre-calculus and shouldn't have a problem checking my sum of that infinite geometric series.
Many of you took high school stats and should easily be able to check the way I set up the series, or even show a better way to calculate the probability.
Please verify.
Note: I believe this also shows why a casino could have 50/50 bets, with no house percentage (they don't), and still make scads of money.
"This is not possible for a defense attorney. They are hired to get people off, bottom line."
I didn't even think of suggesting that defense attorneys are hired to do anything other than get people off.
My comment wasn't about what people are hired to do, but what people perhaps should be expected to do.
Just because people are routinely hired to do something doesn't mean that it's right, or that we should be complacent about it.
"I have thought that, perhaps, the defending lawyer should try just as hard to get at the truth as the prosecutor, but still be an advocate for the [sic]defandant."
It seems that either you didn't understand what I said here, or you don't believe it's possible. From your post I can't which, if either, happened.
It depends on how you define the job.
If you define it by the ideals of the profession, I would guess that his job is to uphold the law.
If you define the job by observing goals that the actions of many lawyers seem to point to, the job is to get money and power.
Ambulance chasing is almost honorable compared to what some lawyers do to create business for themselves.
"I was looking for evidence that they were treated worse than any animal on the farm, like the chickens or the rats."
One of the early experiences of Samuel Clemens's life was seing a (white) man kill a slave just because he was doing something awkwardly.
I don't think that most people think of rats of "farm animals," but people probably wouldn't kill them if they weren't destructive, and expensive chickens aren't usually killed on a whim, either.
I chose that example because the witness had already been introduced into the converstation. There are MANY other examples of slaves being treated with more cruelty than the animals. Perhaps because people that want to be cruel like the object of their cruelty to be aware of it.
There are, of course, examples of slaves being cared for like valuable property (which may, or may not, be worse than treating them like hated people, depending on your point of view) and examples of slaves being treated something more like employees, but I don't think this was anything like universal.
I think that you've forgotten an basic pattern of human behavior.
We come to hate those that we wrong.