Finding data in nine columns with alternating text and numbers is easy.
To expand on that idea, does the utility of a green-bar table expand as the table gets wider, either with more columns or wider columns? The sample table was a nice starting point, but by no means adequate to settle to the issue.
BTW, the accuracy of the answers was higher with the stripped report in each case! The difference was small (1%) in each case, but direction was consistent.
But the real junk comes in reporting the time to answer the questions. For 4 of the 6 questions, subjects got the answer in less time with the stripped table. For 2 of the 6, the plain table was faster. So what does the article include? A chart of average times FOR JUST THE 2 QUESTIONS WHERE THE PLAIN TABLE WAS FASTER!
Even if you haven't read any Edward Tufte, this has to stand out. What were they thinking? "Two-thirds of the data support the common sense conclusion that anyone would deduce without any study. We'll never get on/. reporting that. So let's chart the one third of the data that does seem counter-intuitive."
aggressively targeting users who merely make downloaded music available to others rather than actual infringers
Aren't the folks making music available the actual infringers? (Assuming the conversation is limited to music copyrighted by an RIAA member and not openly traded such as in the case of bands who allow taping and trading of tapes of live shows.)
Who are the actual infringers, if not the folks making the music available to others?
That means you're paying $0.25 per mile just for the batteries---seven cents per mile more than my gasoline cost for a Ford Windstar...at my current PG&E rate of 33 cents per kilowatt hour, that comes out to $24.75 for that 220 miles, or an additional $0.11 per mile, for a grand total of a whopping $0.36 per mile---seven cents per gallon more than the average cost of driving a Lamborghini roadster....
For the EV, you're including long term matintencance costs in the per mile calculation. Are you doing the same for your Windstar?
You mean my new friend is NOT depositing USD $40 million into my bank account tomorrow? I gave him all the information he asked for... I already put a deposit on Ferraris for myself and my girlfriend...
I hope for your sake those deposits are refundable.
why not just have separate circuits to power small items like alarm clocks, charging electric toothbrushes, etc....
Are there really people investing in new sources of energy so they can power a toothbrush? Remember the mantra is reduce, reuse, recycle...
Ditch the electric toothbrush and can opener, the constantly charging rechargable tools you use infrequently, the wall warts that are always buzzing, and maybe it won't take as many solar panels you keep your household running.
But for a small scale system, the ability to tie in to the grid is essentially useless.
I don't think the primary goal is to sell your excess production back to the grid. I think the goal is to not have to put a new seperate set of cicuits. What are you going to do on a cloudy day when the solar panels aren't putting out as much juice, or on a windy day when the windmill kicks in to overdrive? Run around switching plugs from one outlet to the other?
Other species have had an incredibly long time to colonize the galaxy, if they're out there.
I think most folks are over-estimating the time life has had to colonize the galaxy. Unless we're talking about some intelligent form for Helium, the first few generations of stars would not have had enough heavy elements to form solid planets, let alone support life.
Either you're interviewing at the wrong places, or you're a very bad interview. I suspect it's a little bit of both.
If time in QA didn't help make you a better developer, or you can't at least spin it so it sounds like your time in QA made you a better developer, well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.
Yes, I am out in the real world. Working as a developer. And I have QA on my resume. And, get this, it's not even software QA.
But perhaps I'm able to convince employers that I'm a big, throbbing brain because, despite having not been able to avoid QA, I do understand that as a developer, I need to interact with users, document requirements, assess risk, troubleshoot, run test cases, create work instructions, assess technologies, and so on.
Think of the recent upset when it was discovered that the "military analyst" on most news shows was just a Pentagon mouthpiece.
Sand in my vagina? It's more likely than you think.
Seriously. The story there is not the analysts were biased, but that the bias was explicitly directed from the inside. Think of the former-military "experts" like the star witness in a mob trial.
Why would the prosecution call as a witness a former mobster? There's the credibility issue--hey, the guy was in the mob. There's the bias issue--maybe the guy has some grudge against his former associates. But in the end, where else can you go? The folks who know best the inner workings of the mob, are the folks in the mob.
Same with military analysts. Generally the folks with best insight into the workings of the armed forced are current or former military. And how can there not be bias there? Either the bias is positive--the guy retired after a wonderful 20 year career. Think he might have a favorable view of the military? Or the bias is negative--maybe there's a reason he's now an analyst and not adding another star to his epaulet.
Because in order for a democracy to function well, the people need access to clear unbiased information.
I don't know about that. People have bias. Some reporters/journalists strive to keep personal bias out of their work. Some use the work as a platform to express bias. But all people have bias, even if it's simply the result of having a particular background and set of experiences.
If there was some mythical source of clear unbiased information, we wouldn't need that 1st amendment would we? We wouldn't need freedom of the press. We could get all our news and analysis from our source of unbiased information.
But such a thing does not exist. Real news sources run by real people have real bias. That's why freedom of the press is so important. That's why the 1st amendment is first. All citizens should have the freedom to express their bias.
The more that Wikipedia become the first place many people go for information, the more important it is to recognize Wikipedia and its contributors have their own biases. Wikipedia is not your mythical source of clear unbiased information.
Really? Or that lawmakers will say "If I make this law, more people will go to jail, which means more money for my buddy's company which means, he'll have another one of those bitchin parties again this year" ? Do you really think that?
Yes. (Except for the part about the party.)
Do you think the number of speeding tickets issued is affected by the potential income through fines? Do you think the propensity for police to confiscate property is affected by the ability to then auction off that property?
The profit motive in law enforcement is established. The only open question is that of degree.
Note to all anti-ID people, not all propositions can be tested by scientists.
Don't you mean, note to all pro-ID people? The argument against ID and specifically the argument for keeping ID out of science class when the discussion turns to evolution is exactly as you state it--not all propositions can be tested by scientists.
ID does not belong in science class not because it's not true. It does not belong because it is not science.
Science is not a collection of facts, it is a method of discovering and testing, observation and experimentation.
So if you agree ID cannot be tested and therefor is not science, then surely you agree it does not belong in a science class. That is all the anti-ID folks are saying.
Yeah, like the neighborhood drug pusher giving away free samples to the kids to get 'em hooked.
OK, where are these pushers giving away free drugs? Seriously. I've heard this urban legend for years. I want my free drugs dammit!
I think we need to give Bill a little more credit. The analogy of software and drugs is not so far off. It's not so interesting in the case of drugs being chemicals used by the body and metabolized or expelled.
But technology is getting into the territory where we're not talking about chemicals that are in the body for a short period of time. We're talking about gene therapies and DNA changes. We're talking about treatments that change the physiological make up of the patient. How will the drug companies handle their IP in these cases? The same way Microsoft handles its software?
Will we see the day when prior to receiving certain treatments, you have a sign a waiver pledging to not give blood? Will we see bio-pharm companies dispatch repo men to morgues to reclaim IP? Worse yet, will you one day have to renew the license on the technology that keeps your liver functioning? Medicine as a service (software as a service)?
Obviously as an attack on the GPL and OSS, it's a very flimsy argument. But as a window into the thought process of hyper-capitalists and the future of our medical industry, it's potentially the basis for next summer's big sci-fi blockbuster starring Will Smith.
Now imagine that the "chairman" decides to sell an additional $1000 stake to a new participant, ostensibly to purchase more video games. In return this person gets 17% ownership of the video game collection.
Before, I had 10% of a company worth $5000, or $500. After I have 8.3% of a company worth $6000, or $500. So how does this dilute the value of my shares? How am I getting screwed?
If the chairman pockets the extra $1000, that's just good old fashioned embezzlement. That has nothing to do with the shares.
A correct example would be, the chairman wants someone to manage our collection and offers shares in the company as an incentive to fill the position. The number of shares goes up without an increase in the value of the company. That results in dilution of my shares.
As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.
To say those interviewed expected a 'completely different film' is a bit of a stretch--it's not like they thought they were doing voice-over work for the latest Pixar movie. But it is clear some interviewees were deceived.
Interesting. Government is less effective than private companies. Who would have guessed?
It seems you (and the authors of the article) are missing a key point. Yes, international trade grew on a foundation of international and maritine law, but only after the Marines went in and kicked some Barbary butt. In that sense, government is more effective than private companies. (At least, private companies that don't have their own army and navy.)
Countries were able to reach peaceful agreements on how they would treat each others' ships at sea and use each others' ports only with the very real threat of military action.
To make an analogy to the internet, is there a real threat the USA will take militry action against Russia if that country continues to be a source of internet crime?
It's nice to say all countries in the 21st century have an interest in peaceful, orderly trade via the internet, just as countries had an interest in peaceful, orderly trade via shipping in the 18th. But the reality is, open shipping came at the point of a gun. If the analogy holds up, then is the same true for the internet?
To expand on that thought and to differentiate the situation in LA from departments in other large cities, the LAPD is not what it is by chance or accident. And by 'what it is' I mean a racist organization that puts amateurs like that KKK and Aryan Nation folks to shame.
After WWII the growing African-American middle class started moving into the nicer neighborhoods around LA such as South Central, Watts, Culver City, that had previously been exclusively white. Around that time the LAPD started a program of recruiting police officers from departments in Mississippi, Alabama, etc. with preference for military backgrounds. The goal was a build a army against black people.
So I don't see this system working too well, unless it accounts for 'random' occurrences such as the police shooting an unarmed man and planting a gun by the body.
That's hardly what I would call a reliable source of information, and yet people continue to perpetuate the mean as truth because it appeals to their pre-existing notions.
How long until this shows up on fark, linking to the story on/., about a story on gizmodo,...
I have mod points, but find no +1 sad. Is it that hard to follow the link to an original source, and leave credit in the summary? "I found [link to source] on Joe's web log," rather than, "Here's a summary of the summary found on [link to Jo's log]." But I guess that would require the subby to RTFA.
Then again, what should I expect from the group that supports use of wikipedia by college students as a referenced source for research papers.
(Yes, I am going for troll mods.)
(No, I'm not really going for troll mods, but hope that by mentioning troll mods I'll get funny or insightful instead.)
As far as the debt, a fool and their money are soon parted.
I think you misunderstand the relationship. I read your post as, the Chinese are fools for having lent so much money to the USA. We can always just cut off economic ties to China and refuse to honor those bonds.
But that's like saying, the addict keeps the pusher in line by threatening to go to rehab.
It's not the US economy was running a little short and we just needed a bump to get us through pay day. Our government runs off debt as S.O.P. We default on those bonds--any of those bonds--and suddenly we have a lot more trouble borrowing money, and it costs us a lot more to do so. On top of that, countries who have been satisifed with rolling over bonds from one issue to another--collecting interest without getting any repayment of the principle--might actually want to cash out and take their money back.
Basically, unless you have a shack up on the mountains stocked with canned goods and ammo with a near by drinkable water supply, boycotting China is not an option.
Why on Earth would I want to give them more? On the contrary, if we give them less money, they will have less power.
The problem with giving the federal government less money is, we made the mistake of telling them what 'credit' is and gave them the power to increase their own credit limit at will.
Whatever issues we have with 'tax and spend' Democrats, they have a more honest approach than 'borrow and spend' Republicans. But the bottom line is still, between the Democrats and Republicans, there is no right lizard.
Many of us superusers hate our IT departments for good reason.
Though it doesn't sound like you have an IT problem. Sounds like you have a managament problem. The folks who told you an internal website was a priority should have given the same message to IT.
Think of it this way--the first time your garbage doesn't get taken out, you have an issue with the cleaning crew. If the garbage piles up for two years, the problem is not the cleaning crew.
Slashdot Mirror
Finding data in nine columns with alternating text and numbers is easy.
To expand on that idea, does the utility of a green-bar table expand as the table gets wider, either with more columns or wider columns? The sample table was a nice starting point, but by no means adequate to settle to the issue.
BTW, the accuracy of the answers was higher with the stripped report in each case! The difference was small (1%) in each case, but direction was consistent.
But the real junk comes in reporting the time to answer the questions. For 4 of the 6 questions, subjects got the answer in less time with the stripped table. For 2 of the 6, the plain table was faster. So what does the article include? A chart of average times FOR JUST THE 2 QUESTIONS WHERE THE PLAIN TABLE WAS FASTER!
Even if you haven't read any Edward Tufte, this has to stand out. What were they thinking? "Two-thirds of the data support the common sense conclusion that anyone would deduce without any study. We'll never get on /. reporting that. So let's chart the one third of the data that does seem counter-intuitive."
aggressively targeting users who merely make downloaded music available to others rather than actual infringers
Aren't the folks making music available the actual infringers? (Assuming the conversation is limited to music copyrighted by an RIAA member and not openly traded such as in the case of bands who allow taping and trading of tapes of live shows.)
Who are the actual infringers, if not the folks making the music available to others?
That means you're paying $0.25 per mile just for the batteries---seven cents per mile more than my gasoline cost for a Ford Windstar...at my current PG&E rate of 33 cents per kilowatt hour, that comes out to $24.75 for that 220 miles, or an additional $0.11 per mile, for a grand total of a whopping $0.36 per mile---seven cents per gallon more than the average cost of driving a Lamborghini roadster....
For the EV, you're including long term matintencance costs in the per mile calculation. Are you doing the same for your Windstar?
You mean my new friend is NOT depositing USD $40 million into my bank account tomorrow? I gave him all the information he asked for... I already put a deposit on Ferraris for myself and my girlfriend...
I hope for your sake those deposits are refundable.
I mean, your mom rather have a prius or VW.
why not just have separate circuits to power small items like alarm clocks, charging electric toothbrushes, etc....
Are there really people investing in new sources of energy so they can power a toothbrush? Remember the mantra is reduce, reuse, recycle...
Ditch the electric toothbrush and can opener, the constantly charging rechargable tools you use infrequently, the wall warts that are always buzzing, and maybe it won't take as many solar panels you keep your household running.
But for a small scale system, the ability to tie in to the grid is essentially useless.
I don't think the primary goal is to sell your excess production back to the grid. I think the goal is to not have to put a new seperate set of cicuits. What are you going to do on a cloudy day when the solar panels aren't putting out as much juice, or on a windy day when the windmill kicks in to overdrive? Run around switching plugs from one outlet to the other?
However ... why does Iron Man have lead boots
To fill people full of dread, naturally.
Other species have had an incredibly long time to colonize the galaxy, if they're out there.
I think most folks are over-estimating the time life has had to colonize the galaxy. Unless we're talking about some intelligent form for Helium, the first few generations of stars would not have had enough heavy elements to form solid planets, let alone support life.
Either you're interviewing at the wrong places, or you're a very bad interview. I suspect it's a little bit of both.
If time in QA didn't help make you a better developer, or you can't at least spin it so it sounds like your time in QA made you a better developer, well, the world needs ditch diggers, too.
Yes, I am out in the real world. Working as a developer. And I have QA on my resume. And, get this, it's not even software QA.
But perhaps I'm able to convince employers that I'm a big, throbbing brain because, despite having not been able to avoid QA, I do understand that as a developer, I need to interact with users, document requirements, assess risk, troubleshoot, run test cases, create work instructions, assess technologies, and so on.
The only post in this thread that makes any sense.
Think of the recent upset when it was discovered that the "military analyst" on most news shows was just a Pentagon mouthpiece.
Sand in my vagina? It's more likely than you think.
Seriously. The story there is not the analysts were biased, but that the bias was explicitly directed from the inside. Think of the former-military "experts" like the star witness in a mob trial.
Why would the prosecution call as a witness a former mobster? There's the credibility issue--hey, the guy was in the mob. There's the bias issue--maybe the guy has some grudge against his former associates. But in the end, where else can you go? The folks who know best the inner workings of the mob, are the folks in the mob.
Same with military analysts. Generally the folks with best insight into the workings of the armed forced are current or former military. And how can there not be bias there? Either the bias is positive--the guy retired after a wonderful 20 year career. Think he might have a favorable view of the military? Or the bias is negative--maybe there's a reason he's now an analyst and not adding another star to his epaulet.
Because in order for a democracy to function well, the people need access to clear unbiased information.
I don't know about that. People have bias. Some reporters/journalists strive to keep personal bias out of their work. Some use the work as a platform to express bias. But all people have bias, even if it's simply the result of having a particular background and set of experiences.
If there was some mythical source of clear unbiased information, we wouldn't need that 1st amendment would we? We wouldn't need freedom of the press. We could get all our news and analysis from our source of unbiased information.
But such a thing does not exist. Real news sources run by real people have real bias. That's why freedom of the press is so important. That's why the 1st amendment is first. All citizens should have the freedom to express their bias.
The more that Wikipedia become the first place many people go for information, the more important it is to recognize Wikipedia and its contributors have their own biases. Wikipedia is not your mythical source of clear unbiased information.
I wish the candidates were wise enough to see that the net result is 0. That's twenty million that could be better used and no-one seems to care.
Someone offers me $10 million, I'm taking it.
I'm certainly not going to come back with, "you know, this money could be better used for..."
Really? Or that lawmakers will say "If I make this law, more people will go to jail, which means more money for my buddy's company which means, he'll have another one of those bitchin parties again this year" ? Do you really think that?
Yes. (Except for the part about the party.)
Do you think the number of speeding tickets issued is affected by the potential income through fines? Do you think the propensity for police to confiscate property is affected by the ability to then auction off that property?
The profit motive in law enforcement is established. The only open question is that of degree.
Note to all anti-ID people, not all propositions can be tested by scientists.
Don't you mean, note to all pro-ID people? The argument against ID and specifically the argument for keeping ID out of science class when the discussion turns to evolution is exactly as you state it--not all propositions can be tested by scientists.
ID does not belong in science class not because it's not true. It does not belong because it is not science.
Science is not a collection of facts, it is a method of discovering and testing, observation and experimentation.
So if you agree ID cannot be tested and therefor is not science, then surely you agree it does not belong in a science class. That is all the anti-ID folks are saying.
I'd rather have at least two of anything important and have statefull failover between them.
I'll try that logic on my wife. "Honey, I'm going out Saturday night. I need to test the failover to my girlfriend."
Yeah, like the neighborhood drug pusher giving away free samples to the kids to get 'em hooked.
OK, where are these pushers giving away free drugs? Seriously. I've heard this urban legend for years. I want my free drugs dammit!
I think we need to give Bill a little more credit. The analogy of software and drugs is not so far off. It's not so interesting in the case of drugs being chemicals used by the body and metabolized or expelled.
But technology is getting into the territory where we're not talking about chemicals that are in the body for a short period of time. We're talking about gene therapies and DNA changes. We're talking about treatments that change the physiological make up of the patient. How will the drug companies handle their IP in these cases? The same way Microsoft handles its software?
Will we see the day when prior to receiving certain treatments, you have a sign a waiver pledging to not give blood? Will we see bio-pharm companies dispatch repo men to morgues to reclaim IP? Worse yet, will you one day have to renew the license on the technology that keeps your liver functioning? Medicine as a service (software as a service)?
Obviously as an attack on the GPL and OSS, it's a very flimsy argument. But as a window into the thought process of hyper-capitalists and the future of our medical industry, it's potentially the basis for next summer's big sci-fi blockbuster starring Will Smith.
Now imagine that the "chairman" decides to sell an additional $1000 stake to a new participant, ostensibly to purchase more video games. In return this person gets 17% ownership of the video game collection.
Before, I had 10% of a company worth $5000, or $500. After I have 8.3% of a company worth $6000, or $500. So how does this dilute the value of my shares? How am I getting screwed?
If the chairman pockets the extra $1000, that's just good old fashioned embezzlement. That has nothing to do with the shares.
A correct example would be, the chairman wants someone to manage our collection and offers shares in the company as an incentive to fill the position. The number of shares goes up without an increase in the value of the company. That results in dilution of my shares.
Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...
As Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer and other proponents of evolution appearing in Expelled have publicly remarked, the producers first arranged to interview them for a film that was to be called Crossroads, which was allegedly a documentary on "the intersection of science and religion." They were subsequently surprised to learn that they were appearing in Expelled, which "exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy," to quote from the film's press kit.
To say those interviewed expected a 'completely different film' is a bit of a stretch--it's not like they thought they were doing voice-over work for the latest Pixar movie. But it is clear some interviewees were deceived.
Interesting. Government is less effective than private companies. Who would have guessed?
It seems you (and the authors of the article) are missing a key point. Yes, international trade grew on a foundation of international and maritine law, but only after the Marines went in and kicked some Barbary butt. In that sense, government is more effective than private companies. (At least, private companies that don't have their own army and navy.)
Countries were able to reach peaceful agreements on how they would treat each others' ships at sea and use each others' ports only with the very real threat of military action.
To make an analogy to the internet, is there a real threat the USA will take militry action against Russia if that country continues to be a source of internet crime?
It's nice to say all countries in the 21st century have an interest in peaceful, orderly trade via the internet, just as countries had an interest in peaceful, orderly trade via shipping in the 18th. But the reality is, open shipping came at the point of a gun. If the analogy holds up, then is the same true for the internet?
Then it'd be both pink and brown.
To expand on that thought and to differentiate the situation in LA from departments in other large cities, the LAPD is not what it is by chance or accident. And by 'what it is' I mean a racist organization that puts amateurs like that KKK and Aryan Nation folks to shame.
After WWII the growing African-American middle class started moving into the nicer neighborhoods around LA such as South Central, Watts, Culver City, that had previously been exclusively white. Around that time the LAPD started a program of recruiting police officers from departments in Mississippi, Alabama, etc. with preference for military backgrounds. The goal was a build a army against black people.
So I don't see this system working too well, unless it accounts for 'random' occurrences such as the police shooting an unarmed man and planting a gun by the body.
That's hardly what I would call a reliable source of information, and yet people continue to perpetuate the mean as truth because it appeals to their pre-existing notions.
Wikipedia!
How long until this shows up on fark, linking to the story on /., about a story on gizmodo, ...
I have mod points, but find no +1 sad. Is it that hard to follow the link to an original source, and leave credit in the summary? "I found [link to source] on Joe's web log," rather than, "Here's a summary of the summary found on [link to Jo's log]." But I guess that would require the subby to RTFA.
Then again, what should I expect from the group that supports use of wikipedia by college students as a referenced source for research papers.
(Yes, I am going for troll mods.)
(No, I'm not really going for troll mods, but hope that by mentioning troll mods I'll get funny or insightful instead.)
(I just jinxed it, didn't I?)
As far as the debt, a fool and their money are soon parted.
I think you misunderstand the relationship. I read your post as, the Chinese are fools for having lent so much money to the USA. We can always just cut off economic ties to China and refuse to honor those bonds.
But that's like saying, the addict keeps the pusher in line by threatening to go to rehab.
It's not the US economy was running a little short and we just needed a bump to get us through pay day. Our government runs off debt as S.O.P. We default on those bonds--any of those bonds--and suddenly we have a lot more trouble borrowing money, and it costs us a lot more to do so. On top of that, countries who have been satisifed with rolling over bonds from one issue to another--collecting interest without getting any repayment of the principle--might actually want to cash out and take their money back.
Basically, unless you have a shack up on the mountains stocked with canned goods and ammo with a near by drinkable water supply, boycotting China is not an option.
Wouldn't it be nice...
Why on Earth would I want to give them more? On the contrary, if we give them less money, they will have less power.
The problem with giving the federal government less money is, we made the mistake of telling them what 'credit' is and gave them the power to increase their own credit limit at will.
Whatever issues we have with 'tax and spend' Democrats, they have a more honest approach than 'borrow and spend' Republicans. But the bottom line is still, between the Democrats and Republicans, there is no right lizard.
Many of us superusers hate our IT departments for good reason.
Though it doesn't sound like you have an IT problem. Sounds like you have a managament problem. The folks who told you an internal website was a priority should have given the same message to IT.
Think of it this way--the first time your garbage doesn't get taken out, you have an issue with the cleaning crew. If the garbage piles up for two years, the problem is not the cleaning crew.