I think I see where the question goes. Could the concern here be mainly founded with the monopolies? The analogy that I'm thinking of is the car. Ultimately the combustion engine or major design approaches haven't changed in a century. There was plenty of research that could've been done, should still be done, and plenty of people who could do it, but monopolies in the form of car manufacturers and oil-producers have essentially stagnated the development. Could Apple, Microsoft, Adobe etc. be dulling advancement due to their production based business model? They "research" the same way the car manufacturers "research".
I have to concur. Why spend the money, i.e. peoples time, when anyone who cares can find it on the web. To be honest OpenOffice would be better putting these resources into a fool-proof downloader and installer for the complete novice and broader advertising. (Please note - I too believe the downloader and installer for OpenOffice works great, I'm talking about one for my 60 year-old mum who's a technaphobe)
See http://thcnet.net/zork/index.php although not the original it may help your understanding. And for further understanding of the thread, type in "what is a grue"
You will now be sued by Apple for infringement of their flashtops trade mark. This will then be followed by Steve Jobs making a public statement that having to not use trade marks would be adopted whole heartedly by Apple.
Call volume's not high enough. The unlimited UK is for the $25 package and we only just hit that monthly with the $14/month plus the international calls.
We do domestic calls on the cell phone and use our $15/month Vonage for international calls to and from our family in UK (4 cents/min), South Africa (9 cents/min) and Mexico (a hefty 12 cents/min). Even with the international calls we only hit ~$25/month so no point switching to the unlimted package. We probably could find VOIP cheaper, but I had it for a couple of years, never had to call customer service it works perfectly fine (except for the couple of times our Comcast internet went down) and simply spliced it directly into the house phone circuit so it's available on all the house phones. The family have a fixed line to call us without us worrying about cell phone issues.
That's actually very interesting. I'm a process chemist and typically look at chemical systems relationships in a plant. Complex in a way as there's a lot going on, but in essence simple as most of the dominate things are, or can be, controlled. However, my CEO is an environmental modeler who specializes in watershed mass balances, and every time we sit down for beer he tells me about his desire to applied the same complex models to the stock market. He believes that he has something, but I have to believe that most of it has already been tried.
You're inference by stating "In cases where there it is known that there is only one variable, correlation does imply causation" was that global warming (as that is the subject discussed) was the result of one variable. By then going on an saying that "And scientists have conducted experiments in which they have ensured that the only variable is the amount of CO2 in the experiment" you are saying that this one variable you are discussing is CO2. You then state "and we know from these experiments that systems with greenhouses retain more heat than systems without" which is contrary to your CO2-only variable argument as CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and you indicate plural gases, thus the experiments to which you refer must have had more than one gas, i.e. more than one variable.
Wiki is easy to cite, I could go hunting through the literature, and discuss direction and causation as a function of quantum mechanics, human social interaction, law, evolution, etc., but for what major reason on Slashdot. And as you know from where I cited, you also have been tarnished by the ick of ease. You are correct, I was thinking about the sign of the coefficient. The philosophical problems from college that I have been left with come from using direction with causation and defaulting into the realm of time. i.e. Correlation is the study of a relationship as it exits, causation is the determination if the variables affect each other, which requires a time period to study. There are some interesting philosophical arguments about backwards causation (http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archives/fall2001 /entries/causation-backwards/) and Aristotles description of Final Causation v's Efficient Causation. I'm not sure that moving into the area of metaphysics discussing the relationship of direction, causation and time is one that could be easily had here. To be honest I'm scratching the ground of my memories for these concepts, thus the brevity in earlier emails. My very first post intended to simply say that I believed the GP was correct when saying "The bottom line is the correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature is well known". It is a well known correlation. I saw no reason why the GP should have to go look up the definition of correlation.
indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. Doesn't mean that the relationship has to go up. If you look at a correlation such as people that were in world war II verses the number of radios listened to by families at night, there would be a negative correlation, one with a downward trend. If the correlation coefficient is +1 then both variables increase equally, if it is -1 then both variables decrease equally, if it is zero then there is no correlation. Try this link http://noppa5.pc.helsinki.fi/koe/corr/cor7.html and you may understand how strength and direction can be predicted from the correlation coefficient. However, to truly understand the closeness of the serendipitous relationship, you need more than just the correlation coefficient, and that is most peoples mistake. Same for the over emphasis of just reporting a standard deviation.
I fully agree, but you should check where the funding comes from to understand the potential bias. There are plenty of examples out there where fear of funding loss has driven a particular point of view.
"Positive correlation indicates that both variables increase or decrease together, whereas negative correlation indicates that as one variable increases, so the other decreases, and vice versa.
"In probability theory and statistics, correlation, also called correlation coefficient, indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. In general statistical usage, correlation or co-relation refers to the departure of two variables from independence, although correlation does not imply causation." Methinks the parent got it right. Green house gases go up and temperature goes up, that's a correlation. The causation argument is something that can be debated by all.
Naw, I'm too lazy, it's Slashdot after all. But I must remember to not insult Apple or suggest that they can also be lumped into the same controlling category as Microsoft, bad me.
"A bunch of 'roid monkeys in full body armour" Funny irony here. Since Rugby Union went Professional (and since I can remember Rugby League) it seems to me that more and more body armour is appearing on a rugby field and the players seem to be more and more 'roid-full. Are we seeing the evolution of Rugby Union to Rugby League to Amercian Football. Perhaps the ssad thing is that Amercian Football is just the pinicle of this evolution of paying people to play a contact sport? Perhaps we should look at the correlation between salary, physical contact and body armour?
Okay, apart from nuclear weapons, the internal combustion engine, cod fishing on the Grand Banks, clearcutting of rainforest in Brazil to raise cattle, software patents, the patriot act, "the solution to pollution is dilution", lawyers, computers, spacefaring vehicles, medicine, communication networks, agriculture...what did the Romans ever do for us?
I agree, even if the demand has slowed, is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? I'm sure the Nintendo exec's are happier than the Sony exec's at this moment and for a while to come.
If the company policy says that he shouldn't be looking at porn while at work and that if he is found doing so then he will be fired, what's there to argue about? So what if IBM troll the logs for a reason to fire him because of his age? If he hadn't be going against policy then he would'nt have given them anything to find and he could've made it until the end. The real question is what is written as company policy at IBM? Does anyone know? If it's a logged policy then he deserves what he gets for being stupid. If it's an unwritten rule, then they better have recorded the first warning, otherwise he probably can argue his case. But to be honest are we really at the don't-put-your-poodle-in-the-microwave-sticker level or or can we assume 58 year old ex-service vets who work for IBM to understand self-responsabilty and right from wrong, as per the corporate environment?
Most of the time (please note the statement 'most of the time') I find that the people who actually use theirs outside of work hours are the ones who want to feel or look important. "Hey! Look at me everyone! I'm soooo important that my work needs attention at 9pm on a Friday night, when I'm at the bar". The people who are actually that important, and there are not as many as people think, tend to turn theirs off becuase they really need the downtime and they recognize that.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I see where the question goes. Could the concern here be mainly founded with the monopolies? The analogy that I'm thinking of is the car. Ultimately the combustion engine or major design approaches haven't changed in a century. There was plenty of research that could've been done, should still be done, and plenty of people who could do it, but monopolies in the form of car manufacturers and oil-producers have essentially stagnated the development. Could Apple, Microsoft, Adobe etc. be dulling advancement due to their production based business model? They "research" the same way the car manufacturers "research".
I have to concur. Why spend the money, i.e. peoples time, when anyone who cares can find it on the web. To be honest OpenOffice would be better putting these resources into a fool-proof downloader and installer for the complete novice and broader advertising. (Please note - I too believe the downloader and installer for OpenOffice works great, I'm talking about one for my 60 year-old mum who's a technaphobe)
See http://thcnet.net/zork/index.php although not the original it may help your understanding. And for further understanding of the thread, type in "what is a grue"
You will now be sued by Apple for infringement of their flashtops trade mark. This will then be followed by Steve Jobs making a public statement that having to not use trade marks would be adopted whole heartedly by Apple.
I must be somebody then
Am I the only one who found this funny?
Call volume's not high enough. The unlimited UK is for the $25 package and we only just hit that monthly with the $14/month plus the international calls.
We do domestic calls on the cell phone and use our $15/month Vonage for international calls to and from our family in UK (4 cents/min), South Africa (9 cents/min) and Mexico (a hefty 12 cents/min). Even with the international calls we only hit ~$25/month so no point switching to the unlimted package. We probably could find VOIP cheaper, but I had it for a couple of years, never had to call customer service it works perfectly fine (except for the couple of times our Comcast internet went down) and simply spliced it directly into the house phone circuit so it's available on all the house phones. The family have a fixed line to call us without us worrying about cell phone issues.
In college I actually put a second fridge right next to my couch. Was definitely cheaper than building one that threw stuff at me.
No, but the 14-year old gamer inside of me quickly burst out, slapped my forehead and set me straight.
That's actually very interesting. I'm a process chemist and typically look at chemical systems relationships in a plant. Complex in a way as there's a lot going on, but in essence simple as most of the dominate things are, or can be, controlled. However, my CEO is an environmental modeler who specializes in watershed mass balances, and every time we sit down for beer he tells me about his desire to applied the same complex models to the stock market. He believes that he has something, but I have to believe that most of it has already been tried.
You're inference by stating "In cases where there it is known that there is only one variable, correlation does imply causation" was that global warming (as that is the subject discussed) was the result of one variable. By then going on an saying that "And scientists have conducted experiments in which they have ensured that the only variable is the amount of CO2 in the experiment" you are saying that this one variable you are discussing is CO2. You then state "and we know from these experiments that systems with greenhouses retain more heat than systems without" which is contrary to your CO2-only variable argument as CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and you indicate plural gases, thus the experiments to which you refer must have had more than one gas, i.e. more than one variable.
Wiki is easy to cite, I could go hunting through the literature, and discuss direction and causation as a function of quantum mechanics, human social interaction, law, evolution, etc., but for what major reason on Slashdot. And as you know from where I cited, you also have been tarnished by the ick of ease. You are correct, I was thinking about the sign of the coefficient. The philosophical problems from college that I have been left with come from using direction with causation and defaulting into the realm of time. i.e. Correlation is the study of a relationship as it exits, causation is the determination if the variables affect each other, which requires a time period to study. There are some interesting philosophical arguments about backwards causation (http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/archives/fall2001 /entries/causation-backwards/) and Aristotles description of Final Causation v's Efficient Causation. I'm not sure that moving into the area of metaphysics discussing the relationship of direction, causation and time is one that could be easily had here. To be honest I'm scratching the ground of my memories for these concepts, thus the brevity in earlier emails. My very first post intended to simply say that I believed the GP was correct when saying "The bottom line is the correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature is well known". It is a well known correlation. I saw no reason why the GP should have to go look up the definition of correlation.
indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. Doesn't mean that the relationship has to go up. If you look at a correlation such as people that were in world war II verses the number of radios listened to by families at night, there would be a negative correlation, one with a downward trend. If the correlation coefficient is +1 then both variables increase equally, if it is -1 then both variables decrease equally, if it is zero then there is no correlation. Try this link http://noppa5.pc.helsinki.fi/koe/corr/cor7.html and you may understand how strength and direction can be predicted from the correlation coefficient. However, to truly understand the closeness of the serendipitous relationship, you need more than just the correlation coefficient, and that is most peoples mistake. Same for the over emphasis of just reporting a standard deviation.
I fully agree, but you should check where the funding comes from to understand the potential bias. There are plenty of examples out there where fear of funding loss has driven a particular point of view.
"Positive correlation indicates that both variables increase or decrease together, whereas negative correlation indicates that as one variable increases, so the other decreases, and vice versa.
Are you telling me that there is only one variable known in the whole process of climate change? Wow! I never realized it was so simple.
"In probability theory and statistics, correlation, also called correlation coefficient, indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. In general statistical usage, correlation or co-relation refers to the departure of two variables from independence, although correlation does not imply causation." Methinks the parent got it right. Green house gases go up and temperature goes up, that's a correlation. The causation argument is something that can be debated by all.
Naw, I'm too lazy, it's Slashdot after all. But I must remember to not insult Apple or suggest that they can also be lumped into the same controlling category as Microsoft, bad me.
Will Apple insist on it have their DRM licensing and only allow the data to be accessed by iBlackBox software?
"A bunch of 'roid monkeys in full body armour" Funny irony here. Since Rugby Union went Professional (and since I can remember Rugby League) it seems to me that more and more body armour is appearing on a rugby field and the players seem to be more and more 'roid-full. Are we seeing the evolution of Rugby Union to Rugby League to Amercian Football. Perhaps the ssad thing is that Amercian Football is just the pinicle of this evolution of paying people to play a contact sport? Perhaps we should look at the correlation between salary, physical contact and body armour?
Okay, apart from nuclear weapons, the internal combustion engine, cod fishing on the Grand Banks, clearcutting of rainforest in Brazil to raise cattle, software patents, the patriot act, "the solution to pollution is dilution", lawyers, computers, spacefaring vehicles, medicine, communication networks, agriculture...what did the Romans ever do for us?
I agree, even if the demand has slowed, is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? I'm sure the Nintendo exec's are happier than the Sony exec's at this moment and for a while to come.
If the company policy says that he shouldn't be looking at porn while at work and that if he is found doing so then he will be fired, what's there to argue about? So what if IBM troll the logs for a reason to fire him because of his age? If he hadn't be going against policy then he would'nt have given them anything to find and he could've made it until the end. The real question is what is written as company policy at IBM? Does anyone know? If it's a logged policy then he deserves what he gets for being stupid. If it's an unwritten rule, then they better have recorded the first warning, otherwise he probably can argue his case. But to be honest are we really at the don't-put-your-poodle-in-the-microwave-sticker level or or can we assume 58 year old ex-service vets who work for IBM to understand self-responsabilty and right from wrong, as per the corporate environment?
Most of the time (please note the statement 'most of the time') I find that the people who actually use theirs outside of work hours are the ones who want to feel or look important. "Hey! Look at me everyone! I'm soooo important that my work needs attention at 9pm on a Friday night, when I'm at the bar". The people who are actually that important, and there are not as many as people think, tend to turn theirs off becuase they really need the downtime and they recognize that.