I've never had any problem installing any software on windows that I have paid money for, however I cannot say the same about about a lot of the open source software I've tried.
I am guessing the legal/insurance problem will largely sort it self out if the benefits are there. Besides, if GM can make such cars but refuses to sell them, I'll start a class action against them on behalf of anyone who has been hit by a bad driver driving an autopilot-less GM vehicle....
I am guessing that the effect of driverless cars on regular drivers will be a bigger issue; playing chicken will be a lot more fun however.
So this begs the question, exactly how will average consumer benefit from an OS and software that can make optimum use of multiple cores, when the performance issues users complain about are not even CPU-bound in the first place?
I'm guessing that the average consumer will not benefit much from their current OS and software making optimal use of multiple cores.
Actually this happens all the time, in phase I trials. You test on mice, primates etc first to reduce the chance of testing something obviously deadly, but especially in cancer trials, first in human experiments may be deadly (my understanding is these trials are often on terminally ill patients).
To help ensure that these principles are followed, the FTC should:
Create a national Do Not Track List similar to the national Do Not Call
List:
o Any advertising entity that sets a persistent identifier on a user device
should be required to provide to the FTC the domain names of the
servers or other devices used to place the identifier.
o Companies providing web, video, and other forms of browser
applications should provide functionality (i.e., a browser feature, plugin,
or extension) that allows users to import or otherwise use the Do
Not Track List of domain names, keep the list up-to-date, and block
domains on the list from tracking their Internet activity.
o Advertisements from servers or other technologies that do not employ
persistent identifiers may still be displayed on consumers' computers.
Thus, consumers who sign up for the Do Not Track List would still
receive advertising.
o The Do Not Track List should be available on the FTC Web site for
download by consumers who wish to use the list to limit tracking.
o The FTC should engage in public education to disseminate the Do Not
Track List information broadly to consumers, along with instructions for
its use. The FTC should actively encourage all creators of browsing
and other relevant technology to incorporate a facility that will enable
consumers to use the list.
Well that just does it... if you are going to be a grammer nazi, can you please at least be rude about it? Nothing is worse than a polite grammer nazi, takes away all the fun of hating gammer nazis.
If you can't hate a grammer nazi, then what is there left to hate?...... Man I hate polite grammer nazis, takes away all the fun of hating gr........ oops... never mind... found a work around...
I have a theory based on very limitted observation that those people who have a very tidied physical workspace have a very disorganized virtual workspace (you know, the ones with 200 icons on their desktop), while those with disorganized physical workspaces are much better at keeping their virtual workspaces organized.
Anyone else noticed this (or am I just off my rocker as usual)
Apart from the coolness factor I was not very impressed with the examples highlighted on the many eyes page. The point cloud of names within Pride and Prejudice does not appear to offer anything more than a bar graph with some interactivity would, actually it offers less than a bar graph as it is difficult to compare entities. The federal spending example had no way of seeing the line graphs side by side (stacking does not offer much at all unless there is a logical order within the stacks). The morphing between the graphs offer no useful information as far as I could see as the categories are discrete, and instead are a visual distraction. Avoiding distracting visuals is surely a must for a good visualization method?
The baby name example on the other hand was nicely done.
Sorry, this is a fairly amateurish piece of work. There are several problems with the analysis, including:
Crucial details not explicitly reported, in particular, the number of days of data used.
Inappropriate measure of consistency (s.d. of difference would be much better than s.d. of absolute value of different).
No attempt made to determine if differences between forecasters could be explained by noise alone.
Poor graphical presentation of results.
Innapropriate analysis of factors.
In addition to these problems, the variability in the predictability of weather with location means that the results are difficult to generalize to other areas.
For sake of argument, assume that there is an objective way to measure who takes greater care of their appearance and that all 42 judges are experts at measuring that and never wrong. In that case, these results boil down to 18 out of 30 women taking better care of their appearances during one of their ovulation phases than during one of their non-ovulation phases. When you combine that with the possibility that some of the judges could be wrong (thus increasing the expected variance), it's even less significant - not more. I'm going to go with Scooter on this one.
The published analysis is more analogous to saying that each women has a score that measures how much more or less attractively they dress during ovulation. In the article's case the score is defined in terms of the percentage of observers who think that a women is more attractively dressed during ovulation, with scores ranging from 0% to 100%. The 42 observers are used to estimate that score for each women. The reported percentage of 59.5% is the mean of these scores, and is not a percentage of the 30 women.
The analysis asks whether this mean score is greater than 50%. Whether or not significance is achieved with 30 observations in this case depends on the distribution of these 30 scores, which is not given in the article. Using only the information about the mean (59.5%), using a t.test (the actual analysis was more sophisticated, and included covariates) we can easily constuct p-values ranging from 0.1404 (12 women score 0%, 18 score 100%) to 5.969e-12 (15 women score 55%, 15 women score 65%)
It is possible (but presumably unlikely) that more women actually looked worse to a majority of the observers during ovulation and still get a mean score of 65% (for example if 22 women scored 45% and 8 scored 100%).
And the sample size was roughly a total of 1200 guesses. So roughly 720 guesses right vs expected 600 guesses right.
While there were 1200 guesses this was not the sample size. The analysis calculated a score for each woman (percentage of the 42 judges that correctly identified the relevent photo), then analyzed those 30 scores. The sample size for the analysis was 30.
More likely a bird of prey was swept over the Tasman Sea to New Zealand. My understanding is that some birds (Rosella's?) in New Zealand are thought to be immigrants from Australia swept over in storms.
I thought that this had been around for a long time. At least one system I use (R) has used NaN in almost exactly the same way as this nullity for years. e.g.
> nullity<- 0/0 > nullity [1] NaN > nullity + 2 [1] NaN > nullity / 0 [1] NaN > 1/0 [1] Inf > Inf - Inf [1] NaN > Inf > 0 [1] TRUE > Inf + -Inf [1] NaN
The only difference that I can see is that it returns NA instead of NaN for some operations, e.g.
For some inane reason, it's off by default on XP, and IE7 is the first app to use it by default. If you can take advantage of ClearType that means that a) you're running XP, and b) you've got an LCD monitor. To use ClearType in all applications (including Office and Firefox), right-click the desktop -> Properties -> Appearance -> Effects..., then select ClearType under the "... smooth fonts" item.
I just tried this, and from what I can see on my screen I would suggest that the inane reason that it is off be default is that (for at least some people) the text is now noticibly more difficult to read.
Yes, this is the standard approach that one should take when faced with a comprehensive observational study that produces results that one disagrees with. There are plenty of bad observational studies out there, however this one is quite good (and yes, I RTFA).
(and until I see the results from a RTC I refuse to look both ways before I cross the street).
Most diagnoses of autism occur before the age of three. If you are under the age of three and can surf youtube then you probably do not have to worry about becoming autistic (either that or you are autistic and are at the savant end of the spectrum).
I think there is a difference based on the age of the viewer. For adults I can see merit to the argument that there is a difference between broadcast TV viewing and DVD viewing. For children under the age of three I think there is not much difference, in general they are not making an educated choice about what to watch, especially for those under the age of two it is likely the parents that are turning on the TV/DVD player etc.
It is also likely that the children of this age are watching similar stuff on TV and DVD (Bob the builder, Thomas the tank engine etc etc).
'would you rather have a machine with your favorite operating system, access to most applictions for that machine but no internet connection'
OR
'a machine with your favorite operating system, a browser and access to the internet but no other applications (and with downloading of applications disabled)'?
Slashdot Mirror
I've never had any problem installing any software on windows that I have paid money for, however I cannot say the same about about a lot of the open source software I've tried.
Installation Instructions: http://techbase.kde.org/index.php?title=Projects/KDE_on_Windows/Installation
This exemplifies what I hate about many open source projects. If you want me to try it, don't make me work for it.
I am guessing the legal/insurance problem will largely sort it self out if the benefits are there. Besides, if GM can make such cars but refuses to sell them, I'll start a class action against them on behalf of anyone who has been hit by a bad driver driving an autopilot-less GM vehicle....
I am guessing that the effect of driverless cars on regular drivers will be a bigger issue; playing chicken will be a lot more fun however.
I'm guessing that the average consumer will not benefit much from their current OS and software making optimal use of multiple cores.
Actually this happens all the time, in phase I trials. You test on mice, primates etc first to reduce the chance of testing something obviously deadly, but especially in cancer trials, first in human experiments may be deadly (my understanding is these trials are often on terminally ill patients).
The proposal can be found at http://www.worldprivacyforum.org/pdf/ConsumerProtections_FTC_ConsensusDoc_Final_s.pdf
Well that just does it ... if you are going to be a grammer nazi, can you please at least be rude about it? Nothing is worse than a polite grammer nazi, takes away all the fun of hating gammer nazis.
If you can't hate a grammer nazi, then what is there left to hate? ... ... Man I hate polite grammer nazis, takes away all the fun of hating gr........ oops ... never mind ... found a work around ...
I think everything is fairly obvious once you think about it hard enough ...
Has anyone seen the report? I would be more inclined to take it seriously if Epson or TUV made the report available.
I have a theory based on very limitted observation that those people who have a very tidied physical workspace have a very disorganized virtual workspace (you know, the ones with 200 icons on their desktop), while those with disorganized physical workspaces are much better at keeping their virtual workspaces organized.
Anyone else noticed this (or am I just off my rocker as usual)
Apart from the coolness factor I was not very impressed with the examples highlighted on the many eyes page. The point cloud of names within Pride and Prejudice does not appear to offer anything more than a bar graph with some interactivity would, actually it offers less than a bar graph as it is difficult to compare entities. The federal spending example had no way of seeing the line graphs side by side (stacking does not offer much at all unless there is a logical order within the stacks). The morphing between the graphs offer no useful information as far as I could see as the categories are discrete, and instead are a visual distraction. Avoiding distracting visuals is surely a must for a good visualization method?
The baby name example on the other hand was nicely done.
Sorry, this is a fairly amateurish piece of work. There are several problems with the analysis, including:
Crucial details not explicitly reported, in particular, the number of days of data used.
Inappropriate measure of consistency (s.d. of difference would be much better than s.d. of absolute value of different).
No attempt made to determine if differences between forecasters could be explained by noise alone.
Poor graphical presentation of results.
Innapropriate analysis of factors.
In addition to these problems, the variability in the predictability of weather with location means that the results are difficult to generalize to other areas.
And yes, IAAS.
The published analysis is more analogous to saying that each women has a score that measures how much more or less attractively they dress during ovulation. In the article's case the score is defined in terms of the percentage of observers who think that a women is more attractively dressed during ovulation, with scores ranging from 0% to 100%. The 42 observers are used to estimate that score for each women. The reported percentage of 59.5% is the mean of these scores, and is not a percentage of the 30 women.
The analysis asks whether this mean score is greater than 50%. Whether or not significance is achieved with 30 observations in this case depends on the distribution of these 30 scores, which is not given in the article. Using only the information about the mean (59.5%), using a t.test (the actual analysis was more sophisticated, and included covariates) we can easily constuct p-values ranging from 0.1404 (12 women score 0%, 18 score 100%) to 5.969e-12 (15 women score 55%, 15 women score 65%)
It is possible (but presumably unlikely) that more women actually looked worse to a majority of the observers during ovulation and still get a mean score of 65% (for example if 22 women scored 45% and 8 scored 100%).
While there were 1200 guesses this was not the sample size. The analysis calculated a score for each woman (percentage of the 42 judges that correctly identified the relevent photo), then analyzed those 30 scores. The sample size for the analysis was 30.
or provide a reason why this is useful to science.
More likely a bird of prey was swept over the Tasman Sea to New Zealand. My understanding is that some birds (Rosella's?) in New Zealand are thought to be immigrants from Australia swept over in storms.
I thought that this had been around for a long time. At least one system I use (R) has used NaN in almost exactly the same way as this nullity for years. e.g.
> nullity<- 0/0
> nullity
[1] NaN
> nullity + 2
[1] NaN
> nullity / 0
[1] NaN
> 1/0
[1] Inf
> Inf - Inf
[1] NaN
> Inf > 0
[1] TRUE
> Inf + -Inf
[1] NaN
The only difference that I can see is that it returns NA instead of NaN for some operations, e.g.
> nullity > 0
[1] NA
slow news day ... yawn ... stretch ... sigh
I just tried this, and from what I can see on my screen I would suggest that the inane reason that it is off be default is that (for at least some people) the text is now noticibly more difficult to read.
(and until I see the results from a RTC I refuse to look both ways before I cross the street).
Most diagnoses of autism occur before the age of three. If you are under the age of three and can surf youtube then you probably do not have to worry about becoming autistic (either that or you are autistic and are at the savant end of the spectrum).
It is also likely that the children of this age are watching similar stuff on TV and DVD (Bob the builder, Thomas the tank engine etc etc).
"Companies are falling all over themselves in order to gain exploitation contracts there."
'would you rather have a machine with your favorite operating system, access to most applictions for that machine but no internet connection'
OR
'a machine with your favorite operating system, a browser and access to the internet but no other applications (and with downloading of applications disabled)'?