The last study, that I saw, had the total pegged at 3% and that included the entirety of the 'not straight' group. That included bi, trans, gay, and everyone else who didn't identify as straight.
I suppose that number could have changed, but that's a pretty big change. If it has changed, it makes me curious if it hasn't really changed so much as people are just more comfortable admitting it. However, I guess that is digression.
I am not a climate scientist. I am a retired scientist. What did I do? I modeled traffic. As strange as it might sound, there is a lot of similarity between the two. I will try to give some history, as it may help this make more sense. Sorry for the lack of brevity.
In my case, I helped bring traffic modeling to the age of computers. In this process, it was learned that you could improve the model results, significantly, by increasing the amount of data available. Even seemingly trivial things can impact throughput. Simple things, such as signage fonts, can impact throughput. Even the frequency of lane markings, reflectivity of lane markings, and coloration all have an impact on throughput.
To try to put this in perspective, I was working with data sets in the full TB size, before the turn of the century. We did distributed computing, before it even really had a name.
Why is that important?
Well, traffic is a bit like climate. It is a chaotic system. To be clear, a chaotic system is not a system that is random. It appears random but, with more data, you can tease out patterns and make deterministic predictions based on a variety of variables, with some levels of consistency and success.
I am not suggesting, for the record, that the climate science models are 100% accurate. In fact, they have confidence ratings. That goes underreported, but they will tell you how confident they are in the results.
Anyhow, that's besides the point. I just want to make it clear and avoid confusion.
What is important is that you have to massage the data. You have to make corrections to the data. You have to remove outliers.
See, we'd collect data and then run it against the models. We'd compare the model output with what was really happening. Sometimes, the results are pretty close. This means you can have greater confidence in the results. Sometimes, it isn't even remotely close.
At that point, you usually start by poking at the model itself. However, you will also poke at the data. You will throw some of that data right into the trash. You will normalize the numbers, and adjust the impact factor. You will also probably swear, like a lot. You will invent whole new languages, just to swear in them.
Either way, you will massage that data until you get the results that most closely match reality. You take existing data and run your models to see how well they match reality. When you get it to the point where you're confident, you use those methods to make predictions about the future, given new variables. This will have varied confidence levels, and pinpoint accuracy isn't expected by anyone versed in the science.
The truth is, you can model all you want but some drunk guy is still going to drive, in reverse, the wrong direction down a one way street. So, you only have so much confidence in the predictions.
The whole point is, you have to massage the data. If you don't, you get horrible results that don't match reality. The expected outcome isn't certainties. The expected outcome is predictions for which you can assign a confidence level.
I suspect part of the problem is poor communication and bad journalism. I've taken some time to examine the models, methods, and reasons. I am not a climate scientist, but I have taken a reasonable amount of time to study it in a scholastic manner. You can download their data AND their models, for free, and run them yourself. You can massage that data any way you want, too. You can apply all the adjustments you want and run the models yourself - for just the cost of hardware you already own and electricity.
Anyhow, I hope this clears a few things up. Correcting and massaging data is pretty normal. It's pretty much required, if you want meaningful results. I am pretty sure the uncorrected data sets are also available. You can get so many data sets, for free. They'll even give you the models. Hell, they'll even give you the source code for the models.
I do want to make it clear, the goal isn't a perfect pre
Huh... Thanks. I'd never read/seen that fallacy. In my defense, I was on the debate team at the collegiate level, but this fallacy was coined more recently than my experiences in said team. Yeah, I'm that old...
Anyhow, I am trying to wrap my head around it.
The odds of winning without cheating at 1:1000. The odds of winning with cheating are 1:100. They won, ergo the most probable reason for their winning was they cheated. Which, while true, doesn't actually mean that they cheated - it just means someone doesn't understand statistics and probability. Thus, the assumption that the win was because of cheating is fallacious.
Am I understanding that properly?
I am also pretty sure this is covered by another formal fallacy classification but, for the life of me, the name escapes me at the moment.
I have been out of academia since the very early 1990s. My publications, those that went on to peer review and journal publications, are not nearly as numerous as the guy listed. No, he's a whole order of magnitude more prolific than I.
Which makes me kinda giggle. How the hell does he even have that many publications?!?
What is curious is how the numbers are so different from society. For example, that's a large percentage of respondents who are gay. Maybe allowing self selection for polling is unsound methodology?
I am no expert, but I am not sure that calorie counts is a valid metric for determining health qualities. I do stuff like go outside. Dense calories are good, for me. No, I don't drink much soda, but I am not sure caloric count is as great an indicator as you imply.
Back in the last part of the last century, Google was displeased with sites that didn't display the same content to the user that they displayed to the spider. So, the spider should see the same paywall that the user sees, theoretically. If it doesn't, they would rank the site lower, or even ban it.
I didn't want the Echo. I didn't want the Home. I don't want this, either.
In fact, I'm not exactly sure why anyone would want something like this. I really don't want something in my home that's always listening and potentially sending my speech out to computers that I don't control.
> it's actually the telephone company which owns the iPhone
I hate to do this, mostly 'cause I like you, but that's simply not true - by precedent. To give two good examples:
1. Your home. If you're paid and current with your mortgage and the bank has not foreclosed and taken possession then the lending agency can not grant rights. 2. Your car, just like the above. The dealership or credit agency can not give the police permission to search your vehicle. Well, they can. It won't hold up in court.
So long as you're current then you have most every right you'd have with complete ownership. You own your house even while the bank owns it. You have the deed, they have a lien on the deed. The same thing for your car if it is not yet fully paid off. I'm not positive but I strongly suspect that if you're incarcerated and unable to make your payment then they still can't give permission to search.
>> not everyone starts with the same level of driving ability
Funny you should mention that. Up above, I mentioned that I used to drive while very intoxicated. I never had an accident, got violated, and got my first (and only) moving violation in 1975. Yet, I drove professionally for a while (it was my MOS) and am an automotive aficionado who has taken many, many lessons and driven on-track and rallied - all strictly amateur. I've even done those things while moderately (for a drunk) intoxicated.
There is a component that is skill and I don't think people put much stock in it. I know, for example, that I drove better while moderately impaired than many non-impaired drivers. (Only an idiots says they drive better drunk. You do not. Though you might drive better after one or two if you're nervous about driving. I'd not call that drunk.)
So, two things... I do believe that training and ability come into play. I do not believe I am skilled enough to drive drunk safely. It was stupid and negligent when I did so.
In a perfect world, driving drunk would probably be legal but infractions while driving drunk would be penalized more heavily. It is not a perfect world and.08 was not far from my baseline. I do, really, think that having had a great deal of experience and formal training helped.
When you drive drunk, and are so drunk that you truly have a hard time seeing, then just close one eye. It actually works. I had a drunken buddy share that kernel of wisdom with me. I have no idea how I never got an OUI or caused an accident - no infractions since a speeding ticket in something like 1975 and zero at-fault accidents ever - and I drive a whole lot more than most.
So, yeah... Do NOT do that. I learned my lesson without any actual repercussions but I drove drunk more often than I drove sober - for a very long time. I'm actually not sure if I'll ever be able to speculate that I've driven more sober than I've driven while intoxicated. I no longer drink. I have had alcoholic beverages since but never more than two and, in three years, I think I've had 7 total drinks and most of those were not finished.
Still, my retarded ass drove everywhere intoxicated. I mean everywhere. I drove across the country, multiple times, while drunk. Sometimes, too drunk to walk. I've always gotten away with it. I'm shocked that I never killed anyone or had an accident. I have had my car hit, twice, while stopped at a stop light and while parked, but was not at fault for either. I do a bit of amateur rally racing and I've crashed there. I was not, on the other hand, drunk for that - at least not very. (I've competed while marginally drunk.)
I had a friend who had a BAC testing, portable thing, and it is not accurate but I've pegged it out at.38. I know that I've been much more drunk than that. At the time, I was probably pretty normal seeming until I hit.2 - maybe more. I used to get to what I'd estimate would be.12 and then just maintain it throughout the day. I do miss drinking but I was going to end up harming myself or others.
Yes, yes they are. The concept of better 9 criminals be set free than 1 innocent person not going to jail is seen as quaint.
Yes, they'll deprive all for the sake of the few. (See firearms as an example.)
There's a certain level of risk assumed with operating a motor vehicle on a public road. I'm not suggesting that we allow unfettered access and lawlessness but I am suggesting that we honestly look at the probabilities and then make a realistic choice regarding where the lines should be drawn.
However, the idea of accepting risk is crazy talk these days. I think there are people who would ban most anything just so they could maybe stop someone from doing harm with it. I'm not really sure where this leads but I suspect we'll all be incarcerated to protect us from ourselves in a few thousand years. No, you may not go outside - there's danger!
Really, a lot of people are just cowards at heart and others really get off in restricting rights that they, themselves, do not make use of. For an example, I'm not really a religious person but I have no problem with that right being removed. How many times have you seen others suggesting some sort of "final solution" for the religious?
Sorry for the late reply - I ran out of posts. Even with the highest karma levels, you're limited to 50/day.
Anyhow, I'll probably stick with it until it is EOL. I'm likely to get the Ubuntu phone next. I do like WP 8, a bunch. I've never come across something I wanted to do with my phone that I could not do with my phone - easily and quickly. So, I'm not missing any features.
Then again... I text, email, make calls, surf the web, and check weather - maybe check video at my home in Maine, etc... Not much, really.
LOL Yup. Though, unlike you, I've had great Karma from the start, pretty much. I had an older account but it was tied to the email of the company I used to own and I don't know the username. I drank a lot back then. I thought it was Incognito but that isn't my account. I want to say that my first account was in 2002-2003 range. It was 7x,xxx or so I recollect. No biggie, I'm reasonably sure I said stupid shit.
On the other hand, I've been mod bombed to hell and it's never actually impacted my karma's rating. I've been "excellent" since just about day one. I have no idea why. It's not like I hold my tongue or am the least bit bashful about saying things that might irk someone - so long as they're factual. I hold some rather odd views, very different from most, and I voice them. Even concerning politics.
So yeah, I've been mod bombed to hell but never had an issue. I've opened the message notifications and seen the scroll bar be very, very tiny. (I want to say that my record is about 80 mod points - good and bad and in total) being spent in one day by angry people. At one point, someone was running around and moderating anything I said down.
I have no idea how the karma system really works, I guess. I thought I did but no... I must have near infinite points. LOL
Anyhow, no... I'd not moderate you down. I'd not moderate anyone down. I don't even moderate anyone up. I don't moderate. If you stop spending all of your points then the system seems to forget about you. My scores are better than ever and I still don't get mod points any more. I used to but not any more. I stopped spending them years and years ago. Who am I to judge?
Vonnegut was a hell of an author. If you get a minute, check out Tom Robbins too. Even Cowgirls get the Blues has even been made into a movie but that's not his best work, by far. I'd consider "Another Roadside Attraction" to be a good choice if you're into trying it out AND unfamiliar.
C'mon over. You're gonna need to sit in the driveway or come inside. My home is 24 miles from the village and at the end of a 1/2 mile drive. Your cantenna isn't going to cut it. So, when they come looking I'll be able to see the logs and say, "Ah ha! I know who it was. In fact, here's my firewall logs. No, you can have those without a warrant, fuck that guy."
Slashdot Mirror
The last study, that I saw, had the total pegged at 3% and that included the entirety of the 'not straight' group. That included bi, trans, gay, and everyone else who didn't identify as straight.
I suppose that number could have changed, but that's a pretty big change. If it has changed, it makes me curious if it hasn't really changed so much as people are just more comfortable admitting it. However, I guess that is digression.
Hmm...
I am not a climate scientist. I am a retired scientist. What did I do? I modeled traffic. As strange as it might sound, there is a lot of similarity between the two. I will try to give some history, as it may help this make more sense. Sorry for the lack of brevity.
In my case, I helped bring traffic modeling to the age of computers. In this process, it was learned that you could improve the model results, significantly, by increasing the amount of data available. Even seemingly trivial things can impact throughput. Simple things, such as signage fonts, can impact throughput. Even the frequency of lane markings, reflectivity of lane markings, and coloration all have an impact on throughput.
To try to put this in perspective, I was working with data sets in the full TB size, before the turn of the century. We did distributed computing, before it even really had a name.
Why is that important?
Well, traffic is a bit like climate. It is a chaotic system. To be clear, a chaotic system is not a system that is random. It appears random but, with more data, you can tease out patterns and make deterministic predictions based on a variety of variables, with some levels of consistency and success.
I am not suggesting, for the record, that the climate science models are 100% accurate. In fact, they have confidence ratings. That goes underreported, but they will tell you how confident they are in the results.
Anyhow, that's besides the point. I just want to make it clear and avoid confusion.
What is important is that you have to massage the data. You have to make corrections to the data. You have to remove outliers.
See, we'd collect data and then run it against the models. We'd compare the model output with what was really happening. Sometimes, the results are pretty close. This means you can have greater confidence in the results. Sometimes, it isn't even remotely close.
At that point, you usually start by poking at the model itself. However, you will also poke at the data. You will throw some of that data right into the trash. You will normalize the numbers, and adjust the impact factor. You will also probably swear, like a lot. You will invent whole new languages, just to swear in them.
Either way, you will massage that data until you get the results that most closely match reality. You take existing data and run your models to see how well they match reality. When you get it to the point where you're confident, you use those methods to make predictions about the future, given new variables. This will have varied confidence levels, and pinpoint accuracy isn't expected by anyone versed in the science.
The truth is, you can model all you want but some drunk guy is still going to drive, in reverse, the wrong direction down a one way street. So, you only have so much confidence in the predictions.
The whole point is, you have to massage the data. If you don't, you get horrible results that don't match reality. The expected outcome isn't certainties. The expected outcome is predictions for which you can assign a confidence level.
I suspect part of the problem is poor communication and bad journalism. I've taken some time to examine the models, methods, and reasons. I am not a climate scientist, but I have taken a reasonable amount of time to study it in a scholastic manner. You can download their data AND their models, for free, and run them yourself. You can massage that data any way you want, too. You can apply all the adjustments you want and run the models yourself - for just the cost of hardware you already own and electricity.
Anyhow, I hope this clears a few things up. Correcting and massaging data is pretty normal. It's pretty much required, if you want meaningful results. I am pretty sure the uncorrected data sets are also available. You can get so many data sets, for free. They'll even give you the models. Hell, they'll even give you the source code for the models.
I do want to make it clear, the goal isn't a perfect pre
Huh... Thanks. I'd never read/seen that fallacy. In my defense, I was on the debate team at the collegiate level, but this fallacy was coined more recently than my experiences in said team. Yeah, I'm that old...
Anyhow, I am trying to wrap my head around it.
The odds of winning without cheating at 1:1000.
The odds of winning with cheating are 1:100.
They won, ergo the most probable reason for their winning was they cheated. Which, while true, doesn't actually mean that they cheated - it just means someone doesn't understand statistics and probability. Thus, the assumption that the win was because of cheating is fallacious.
Am I understanding that properly?
I am also pretty sure this is covered by another formal fallacy classification but, for the life of me, the name escapes me at the moment.
LOL If you're gonna put that much effort into it, you might just as well do the damned study.
I have been out of academia since the very early 1990s. My publications, those that went on to peer review and journal publications, are not nearly as numerous as the guy listed. No, he's a whole order of magnitude more prolific than I.
Which makes me kinda giggle. How the hell does he even have that many publications?!?
You do know that there's no shortage of software, right?
What is curious is how the numbers are so different from society. For example, that's a large percentage of respondents who are gay. Maybe allowing self selection for polling is unsound methodology?
I am no expert, but I am not sure that calorie counts is a valid metric for determining health qualities. I do stuff like go outside. Dense calories are good, for me. No, I don't drink much soda, but I am not sure caloric count is as great an indicator as you imply.
Back in the last part of the last century, Google was displeased with sites that didn't display the same content to the user that they displayed to the spider. So, the spider should see the same paywall that the user sees, theoretically. If it doesn't, they would rank the site lower, or even ban it.
What is different, today?
If it is too long, and you didn't read it, why would you type a reply?
Huh... Whatcho know 'bout Maine?
You're that lazy that you need hands-free? That's your reason for wanting one?
Huh... I am an asshole, but I'm pretty sure this doesn't make me an asshole. This just makes me confused and feel a little sorry for you.
No. Yes, an older one without even a microphone. Yes - it runs Linux. No. Not with any network connectivity.
I believe I sent an email just a short time ago. There is also a post in my journal but you should have an email.
Your math confuses me.
I offer no other opinion, just that.
I didn't want the Echo. I didn't want the Home. I don't want this, either.
In fact, I'm not exactly sure why anyone would want something like this. I really don't want something in my home that's always listening and potentially sending my speech out to computers that I don't control.
> it's actually the telephone company which owns the iPhone
I hate to do this, mostly 'cause I like you, but that's simply not true - by precedent. To give two good examples:
1. Your home. If you're paid and current with your mortgage and the bank has not foreclosed and taken possession then the lending agency can not grant rights.
2. Your car, just like the above. The dealership or credit agency can not give the police permission to search your vehicle. Well, they can. It won't hold up in court.
So long as you're current then you have most every right you'd have with complete ownership. You own your house even while the bank owns it. You have the deed, they have a lien on the deed. The same thing for your car if it is not yet fully paid off. I'm not positive but I strongly suspect that if you're incarcerated and unable to make your payment then they still can't give permission to search.
>> not everyone starts with the same level of driving ability
Funny you should mention that. Up above, I mentioned that I used to drive while very intoxicated. I never had an accident, got violated, and got my first (and only) moving violation in 1975. Yet, I drove professionally for a while (it was my MOS) and am an automotive aficionado who has taken many, many lessons and driven on-track and rallied - all strictly amateur. I've even done those things while moderately (for a drunk) intoxicated.
There is a component that is skill and I don't think people put much stock in it. I know, for example, that I drove better while moderately impaired than many non-impaired drivers. (Only an idiots says they drive better drunk. You do not. Though you might drive better after one or two if you're nervous about driving. I'd not call that drunk.)
So, two things... I do believe that training and ability come into play. I do not believe I am skilled enough to drive drunk safely. It was stupid and negligent when I did so.
In a perfect world, driving drunk would probably be legal but infractions while driving drunk would be penalized more heavily. It is not a perfect world and .08 was not far from my baseline. I do, really, think that having had a great deal of experience and formal training helped.
Do NOT do this.
When you drive drunk, and are so drunk that you truly have a hard time seeing, then just close one eye. It actually works. I had a drunken buddy share that kernel of wisdom with me. I have no idea how I never got an OUI or caused an accident - no infractions since a speeding ticket in something like 1975 and zero at-fault accidents ever - and I drive a whole lot more than most.
So, yeah... Do NOT do that. I learned my lesson without any actual repercussions but I drove drunk more often than I drove sober - for a very long time. I'm actually not sure if I'll ever be able to speculate that I've driven more sober than I've driven while intoxicated. I no longer drink. I have had alcoholic beverages since but never more than two and, in three years, I think I've had 7 total drinks and most of those were not finished.
Still, my retarded ass drove everywhere intoxicated. I mean everywhere. I drove across the country, multiple times, while drunk. Sometimes, too drunk to walk. I've always gotten away with it. I'm shocked that I never killed anyone or had an accident. I have had my car hit, twice, while stopped at a stop light and while parked, but was not at fault for either. I do a bit of amateur rally racing and I've crashed there. I was not, on the other hand, drunk for that - at least not very. (I've competed while marginally drunk.)
I had a friend who had a BAC testing, portable thing, and it is not accurate but I've pegged it out at .38. I know that I've been much more drunk than that. At the time, I was probably pretty normal seeming until I hit .2 - maybe more. I used to get to what I'd estimate would be .12 and then just maintain it throughout the day. I do miss drinking but I was going to end up harming myself or others.
Yes, yes they are. The concept of better 9 criminals be set free than 1 innocent person not going to jail is seen as quaint.
Yes, they'll deprive all for the sake of the few. (See firearms as an example.)
There's a certain level of risk assumed with operating a motor vehicle on a public road. I'm not suggesting that we allow unfettered access and lawlessness but I am suggesting that we honestly look at the probabilities and then make a realistic choice regarding where the lines should be drawn.
However, the idea of accepting risk is crazy talk these days. I think there are people who would ban most anything just so they could maybe stop someone from doing harm with it. I'm not really sure where this leads but I suspect we'll all be incarcerated to protect us from ourselves in a few thousand years. No, you may not go outside - there's danger!
Really, a lot of people are just cowards at heart and others really get off in restricting rights that they, themselves, do not make use of. For an example, I'm not really a religious person but I have no problem with that right being removed. How many times have you seen others suggesting some sort of "final solution" for the religious?
So I should stick with it?
Sorry for the late reply - I ran out of posts. Even with the highest karma levels, you're limited to 50/day.
Anyhow, I'll probably stick with it until it is EOL. I'm likely to get the Ubuntu phone next. I do like WP 8, a bunch. I've never come across something I wanted to do with my phone that I could not do with my phone - easily and quickly. So, I'm not missing any features.
Then again... I text, email, make calls, surf the web, and check weather - maybe check video at my home in Maine, etc... Not much, really.
LOL Yup. Though, unlike you, I've had great Karma from the start, pretty much. I had an older account but it was tied to the email of the company I used to own and I don't know the username. I drank a lot back then. I thought it was Incognito but that isn't my account. I want to say that my first account was in 2002-2003 range. It was 7x,xxx or so I recollect. No biggie, I'm reasonably sure I said stupid shit.
On the other hand, I've been mod bombed to hell and it's never actually impacted my karma's rating. I've been "excellent" since just about day one. I have no idea why. It's not like I hold my tongue or am the least bit bashful about saying things that might irk someone - so long as they're factual. I hold some rather odd views, very different from most, and I voice them. Even concerning politics.
So yeah, I've been mod bombed to hell but never had an issue. I've opened the message notifications and seen the scroll bar be very, very tiny. (I want to say that my record is about 80 mod points - good and bad and in total) being spent in one day by angry people. At one point, someone was running around and moderating anything I said down.
I have no idea how the karma system really works, I guess. I thought I did but no... I must have near infinite points. LOL
Anyhow, no... I'd not moderate you down. I'd not moderate anyone down. I don't even moderate anyone up. I don't moderate. If you stop spending all of your points then the system seems to forget about you. My scores are better than ever and I still don't get mod points any more. I used to but not any more. I stopped spending them years and years ago. Who am I to judge?
Vonnegut was a hell of an author. If you get a minute, check out Tom Robbins too. Even Cowgirls get the Blues has even been made into a movie but that's not his best work, by far. I'd consider "Another Roadside Attraction" to be a good choice if you're into trying it out AND unfamiliar.
I'm gonna guess you don't actually understand the substance in my post. That's okay. It wasn't actually going to have any impact at all.
C'mon over. You're gonna need to sit in the driveway or come inside. My home is 24 miles from the village and at the end of a 1/2 mile drive. Your cantenna isn't going to cut it. So, when they come looking I'll be able to see the logs and say, "Ah ha! I know who it was. In fact, here's my firewall logs. No, you can have those without a warrant, fuck that guy."