The errors only need to have the same law and be independant. No need for them to be Gaussians for the standard deviation of the average of all errors to be equal to the standard deviation of the error of a single measure divided by the square root of the number of measures.
But then the standard deviation doesn't measure anything meaningful. You can calculate it, but it doesn't tell you anything.
Suppose I do an experiment which returns a uniform random value between zero and one. If I perform that measurement repeatedly, I will determine that the average of that measurement is 0.5, and my error on that average will scale like one over the square root of the number of measures, but the real uncertainty on the measurement itself will still be plus or minus 0.5: I am measuring nothing at all, despite the apparent precision of the measurement.
You are confusing the distribution of the errors with the distribution of the data. If at any given point on a data graph the errors are + or - 0.5 with a random distribution then enough measurements will give (a very good approximation to) the actual data. The only thing that is necessary is that for any given data point the errors average to zero and are unbounded.
You are thinking about the accuracy of an individual measurement, when averaging large numbers with and without the gene you can get a much greater level of accuracy.
Precision is not accuracy. The standard deviation on IQ tests is about three points, but that does not mean that by averaging 1,000,000 IQs you can detect effects as small as 0.03 points -- the test is fundamentally incapable of measuring effects that small in the first place.
If your measurement is bad in the first place, averaging large numbers of measurements accomplishes nothing except giving you a false sense of accuracy. A huge pile of shit statistics is still shit.
I don't think it's applicable. After all we don't even know what we are measuring... It's a very rough estimation of ability to answer certain kind of questions.
That is a very good point, but what we can say is that if we average a large number of people we will get a very accurate measurement on how the gene correlates with ability to answer those questions. Of course there is not necessarily a causal effect, there could be some other gene that is responsible that happens to occur in similar groups - like blue eyes and blond hair having a correlation but neither being the cause of the other.
But but but, I've been told by my superiors that intelligence is a social construct devised by the white man to keep down the proletariat, and has no biological basis whatsoever.
Don't worry, they just won't be allowed to publish the correlation with racial groups. I think most researchers got the message after the DNA pioneer James Watson had to retire after suggesting a correlation . Of course even if there is a correlation that is no excuse to treat individuals differently because of their racial group, that would be like saying that a white guy could not play basketball because his race is not so good at it.
Oh, for crying out loud. IQ tests must have a bigger measurement error than plus or minus 2, which means that the 1.29-point alteration is smaller than the measurement error. I.e., no effect.
You are thinking about the accuracy of an individual measurement, when averaging large numbers with and without the gene you can get a much greater level of accuracy.
My intelligence is about all I have going for me. I know it's selfish, but I shudder to think of living in a world where *everyone* is smart by default. I didn't get kicked around all those years by the jocks just to settle for being an average intellect.
Of course, I guess genetic engineering will probably turn everyone into super athletes too. But athletic prowess is a short-term thing anyway. Intellect is supposed to be for the long-term. But when/if the engineering starts, intellects (like athletes) will always be looking over their shoulders at their better engineered youngers gaining on them.
Who knows, maybe genetic engineering will make athletic ability long term too. You won't get old, just obsolete.
It will not need to. At this point, we will no doubt be making heavy use of drones. My guess is that within 10 years, most of our bombing runs will be via drones.
It would be funny to give the muzzies a taste of their own medicine. Automate them then fly them into the Burj Khalifa
Poor people are more likely to be idiots (why else would they remain poor and not figure out how to make money).
Idiots tend not to want to use the Internet as much (who wants to sit at a computer for fun? that's nerd stuff)
Case closed.
Not necessarily. They could be illegals, have chronic health problems, or not be interested in earning money (people who work long term for the Peace corps medical teams)
Without the maths, the defence is "I actually did stop briefly, but your view was obscured by another car". I would hope that in the interests of justice the simple version would also lead to an acquittal, the judge realising that if the police couldn't see the car at the time there is reasonable doubt. I expect it was more of a case of "wer'e not going to pay for a mathematician to support the prosecution on a trivial case like this.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
--Martin Niemöller
In a few years time we will be saying this about the Muslims. We allow them to persecute jews, gays, women, etc. because they appear to be an "oppressed minority"
With an average death rate compared with other states, the Castle Doctrine doesn't appear to be making much of difference.
Nice law though - invite someone into your home, and blow their head off. Claim they had broken in. Profit!
Texas has a stand-your-ground law, like the one involving the Trayvon case.
No need to invite anyone into your house. Just follow them around while talking
to 911, then approach them, then realize you're getting your ass beat, then shoot
them and claim it was self-defense.
-AI
Btw, I am NOT against Castle or Stand your ground... but I am against dumb
asses causing so much politically charged news cause they couldn't mind their
own damn business, or at least couldn't bring themselves to act as a proxy and
eyes for law enforcement without taking physical actions.
Just make sure that they are black and you are white, then you will have the support of the entire republican party (who secretly wish it was Obama who was shot)
What they've done wrong - removing all morality from the issue - is what I've mentioned above. They've publicly declared that anyone can keep any other person (or people) from using their service. They've made it unworkable. Just think, if I was a nut-case and your reply right here put me off the deep end, I could keep you from ever being able to use kickstarter.
It could become a valuable tactic for completing companies. After all if Newscorp will hack competitors set top boxes and release instructions on how to watch for free in order to stamp out competition, many people will certainly post "nuisance comments"
But even for those few of us who claim to be complete skeptics, belief quietly sneaks in.
Nope. Not a bit of it. In my experience, only believers believe that everyone else must secretly be a believer. The rest of us live a fact-based life.
I think you are thinking of a complete belief in magical thinking, whereas this is talking about the "magical" type of thought that "this car does not like you to use full throttle until its warmed up", or feeling anger at a beer bottle with a top thet "doesn't want to come off". If you stop and reflect of course you know its nonsense, but I bet you sometimes have those thoughts anyway.
Even if programing languages were copyrightable, which I don't think they should be, Java has the specific problem that it is mostly a copy of C++ with things taken out itself. It would be a bit like copyrighting a cropped picture of the Mona Lisa as a new work.
Some hours later, in a live program on TV-9, Sanal explained his findings and accused the concerned Catholic Church officials of miracle mongering, as they were beating the big drum for the drippling Jesus statue with aggressive PR measures and by distributing photographs certifying the “miracle”. A heated debate began, in which the five church people, among them Fr. Augustine Palett, the priest of Our Lady of Velankanni church, and representatives of the Association of Concerned Catholics (AOCC) demanded that Sanal apologize. But Sanal refused and argued against them. [The whole TV program is recorded. You can watch an abridged version of it on YouTube.]
Switzerland where they ban architectural styles because of bigotry, and Iceland... I'm not sure it's safe to be male in Iceland.
... and such is the consequence of real democracy. If most Swiss people don't want their country looking like some backward Muslim state then they can vote to have it banned. No "representatives" to decide that it isn't politically correct or take a bribe from that Saudis, direct democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
The errors only need to have the same law and be independant. No need for them to be Gaussians for the standard deviation of the average of all errors to be equal to the standard deviation of the error of a single measure divided by the square root of the number of measures.
But then the standard deviation doesn't measure anything meaningful. You can calculate it, but it doesn't tell you anything. Suppose I do an experiment which returns a uniform random value between zero and one. If I perform that measurement repeatedly, I will determine that the average of that measurement is 0.5, and my error on that average will scale like one over the square root of the number of measures, but the real uncertainty on the measurement itself will still be plus or minus 0.5: I am measuring nothing at all, despite the apparent precision of the measurement.
You are confusing the distribution of the errors with the distribution of the data. If at any given point on a data graph the errors are + or - 0.5 with a random distribution then enough measurements will give (a very good approximation to) the actual data. The only thing that is necessary is that for any given data point the errors average to zero and are unbounded.
You are thinking about the accuracy of an individual measurement, when averaging large numbers with and without the gene you can get a much greater level of accuracy.
Precision is not accuracy. The standard deviation on IQ tests is about three points, but that does not mean that by averaging 1,000,000 IQs you can detect effects as small as 0.03 points -- the test is fundamentally incapable of measuring effects that small in the first place. If your measurement is bad in the first place, averaging large numbers of measurements accomplishes nothing except giving you a false sense of accuracy. A huge pile of shit statistics is still shit.
No, see Margin of error
I don't think it's applicable. After all we don't even know what we are measuring... It's a very rough estimation of ability to answer certain kind of questions.
That is a very good point, but what we can say is that if we average a large number of people we will get a very accurate measurement on how the gene correlates with ability to answer those questions. Of course there is not necessarily a causal effect, there could be some other gene that is responsible that happens to occur in similar groups - like blue eyes and blond hair having a correlation but neither being the cause of the other.
But but but, I've been told by my superiors that intelligence is a social construct devised by the white man to keep down the proletariat, and has no biological basis whatsoever.
Don't worry, they just won't be allowed to publish the correlation with racial groups. I think most researchers got the message after the DNA pioneer James Watson had to retire after suggesting a correlation . Of course even if there is a correlation that is no excuse to treat individuals differently because of their racial group, that would be like saying that a white guy could not play basketball because his race is not so good at it.
Oh, for crying out loud. IQ tests must have a bigger measurement error than plus or minus 2, which means that the 1.29-point alteration is smaller than the measurement error. I.e., no effect.
You are thinking about the accuracy of an individual measurement, when averaging large numbers with and without the gene you can get a much greater level of accuracy.
My intelligence is about all I have going for me. I know it's selfish, but I shudder to think of living in a world where *everyone* is smart by default. I didn't get kicked around all those years by the jocks just to settle for being an average intellect.
Of course, I guess genetic engineering will probably turn everyone into super athletes too. But athletic prowess is a short-term thing anyway. Intellect is supposed to be for the long-term. But when/if the engineering starts, intellects (like athletes) will always be looking over their shoulders at their better engineered youngers gaining on them.
Who knows, maybe genetic engineering will make athletic ability long term too. You won't get old, just obsolete.
No, they shut down tor! But they used a store to do it. No idea how that works.
Must have been an App Store
On reflection this was a bit too far to be funny. I apologise
It will not need to. At this point, we will no doubt be making heavy use of drones. My guess is that within 10 years, most of our bombing runs will be via drones.
It would be funny to give the muzzies a taste of their own medicine. Automate them then fly them into the Burj Khalifa
Poor people are more likely to be idiots (why else would they remain poor and not figure out how to make money).
Idiots tend not to want to use the Internet as much (who wants to sit at a computer for fun? that's nerd stuff)
Case closed.
Not necessarily. They could be illegals, have chronic health problems, or not be interested in earning money (people who work long term for the Peace corps medical teams)
so many babies, or such babies? 50% of people...are by definition below average intelligence.
Possibly more. 50% assumes a perfect normal distribution. This may not be the case.
Without the maths, the defence is "I actually did stop briefly, but your view was obscured by another car". I would hope that in the interests of justice the simple version would also lead to an acquittal, the judge realising that if the police couldn't see the car at the time there is reasonable doubt. I expect it was more of a case of "wer'e not going to pay for a mathematician to support the prosecution on a trivial case like this.
Tell her we want to see the evidence or we won't believe it.
First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
--Martin Niemöller
In a few years time we will be saying this about the Muslims. We allow them to persecute jews, gays, women, etc. because they appear to be an "oppressed minority"
With an average death rate compared with other states, the Castle Doctrine doesn't appear to be making much of difference.
Nice law though - invite someone into your home, and blow their head off. Claim they had broken in. Profit!
Texas has a stand-your-ground law, like the one involving the Trayvon case.
No need to invite anyone into your house. Just follow them around while talking to 911, then approach them, then realize you're getting your ass beat, then shoot them and claim it was self-defense.
-AI
Btw, I am NOT against Castle or Stand your ground... but I am against dumb asses causing so much politically charged news cause they couldn't mind their own damn business, or at least couldn't bring themselves to act as a proxy and eyes for law enforcement without taking physical actions.
Just make sure that they are black and you are white, then you will have the support of the entire republican party (who secretly wish it was Obama who was shot)
What they've done wrong - removing all morality from the issue - is what I've mentioned above. They've publicly declared that anyone can keep any other person (or people) from using their service. They've made it unworkable. Just think, if I was a nut-case and your reply right here put me off the deep end, I could keep you from ever being able to use kickstarter.
It could become a valuable tactic for completing companies. After all if Newscorp will hack competitors set top boxes and release instructions on how to watch for free in order to stamp out competition, many people will certainly post "nuisance comments"
But even for those few of us who claim to be complete skeptics, belief quietly sneaks in.
Nope. Not a bit of it. In my experience, only believers believe that everyone else must secretly be a believer. The rest of us live a fact-based life.
I think you are thinking of a complete belief in magical thinking, whereas this is talking about the "magical" type of thought that "this car does not like you to use full throttle until its warmed up", or feeling anger at a beer bottle with a top thet "doesn't want to come off". If you stop and reflect of course you know its nonsense, but I bet you sometimes have those thoughts anyway.
Even if programing languages were copyrightable, which I don't think they should be, Java has the specific problem that it is mostly a copy of C++ with things taken out itself. It would be a bit like copyrighting a cropped picture of the Mona Lisa as a new work.
Sad that in 2012 people are still confused by this.
Well if the Mayans were right they won't be in 2013
There must be some misreporting since India doesn't have blasphemy laws. As a speculation they may be trying to use the "hate speech" laws.
Some hours later, in a live program on TV-9, Sanal explained his findings and accused the concerned Catholic Church officials of miracle mongering, as they were beating the big drum for the drippling Jesus statue with aggressive PR measures and by distributing photographs certifying the “miracle”. A heated debate began, in which the five church people, among them Fr. Augustine Palett, the priest of Our Lady of Velankanni church, and representatives of the Association of Concerned Catholics (AOCC) demanded that Sanal apologize. But Sanal refused and argued against them. [The whole TV program is recorded. You can watch an abridged version of it on YouTube.]
Thats primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa not the Arab world.
wrong, wrong, wrong.
Switzerland where they ban architectural styles because of bigotry, and Iceland... I'm not sure it's safe to be male in Iceland.
... and such is the consequence of real democracy. If most Swiss people don't want their country looking like some backward Muslim state then they can vote to have it banned. No "representatives" to decide that it isn't politically correct or take a bribe from that Saudis, direct democracy.
If you do not want USA to have control over your domain get one in a freedom loving country.
What "freedom loving country" would you suggest? no, this is not an attempt to troll, I'm seriously looking for one.
Finland
Watch it get approved, and the ensuing anarchy
Where is the anarchist milleonair when you need one.