It's the Quine part of the QDT that has the real problem.
You see, an epistemological assumption that we can never know truth comes either from a limitation of human conscience or from an ontological assumption that there is no truth to be found.
In reality, there is a reality, there is truth, we are simply constrained by our human limitations when it comes to interpreting it.
If you read what I said I didn't argue that pure falsifiability can be obtained any more than the pure utility of a theory can be obtained; simply that these are theoretical anchor points on which the continuum of theory lies.
Remember: objective, not subjective, Bayesian inferences are what have brought us to the spam filters, etc.
Actually theories are abstractions of the relationships between concepts that are only indirectly-measurable, while hypothesis are the more concrete understanding of the world derived from empirical evidence and link that which is measurable to that which is not. Without some level of indirect-measurement required there is no need for a theory, we would simply have fact... such as the fact of microbial evolution, the fact that DNA exists and so forth.
This means that theory is not something verifiable through observation, but a systematic method of understanding complex reality in a way that is parsimoniously comprehensible. If competing theories have also yet to be disproved then there is no 'right' theory, only a trade off between utility and falsifiability -> the more general the theory, the less well it is defined concretely through variables and hypothesis -> the better it is at abstracting reality and the worse it is at being falsifiable.
The point being that a "theory" is neither the super-hypothesis that you seem to think it is, nor is it the half-witted conjecture that the gpp thinks it is.
It is a multidimensional abstraction of reality that, while useful for explanation and at some point empirically disprovable, must reside at some level of abstraction and thus make trade offs between its usefulness and dis-provability.
That is essentially it, as long as the value proposition (works like a DVR, commercials don't run longer than skipping through commercials on a DVR take, the price is the cost of internet access instead of internet + TV) then migration will happen;
Let say a reasonable HTPC w/ 1080p display costs $1500 and cable with a DVR costs $60 a month, hulu pays for your HTPC w/ new HDTV in about 2 years; Add to that a $5 a month fee for what used to be $15 a month HBO and hulu charging for premium content: Hulu w/ service, after the second year, saves the consumer ~ $850 a year
Or we could just accept that growing the power of the US isn't the goal that we Americans should be seeking but, rather, that having two Silicon Valley's in the world would be better for everyone.
US media is free, and you are free to chose who you listen to
the pre-university education system IS the best in the world!... not for everyone, for example, poor inner city youth are screwed, but for rich-white kids we have the best education on earth
The heath care system is free as well, but not in-expensive. Sure you need to pay $500 a month, but for that you get the best possible care you can get any-ware on earth... once more, our poor get screwed and our lower-middle class even more screwed. But if you are smart and hard working the US has the best health care any human can find
the government policies are some of the least intrusive of any first world country.If you don't like anti-pot laws or speed limits or whatever worthless freedom you find just so nifty in your home shit-hole: just go somewhere they don't care, like Montana or California.
the US is THE WORST first world country in the world.. if you are poor and lazy; but there is no place better if you are someone who can earn his own money because he has honed his talents.
The problem this article notices is that middle management people in the US are good enough to be CEOs back in the old-world; I don't see this as a problem because no matter what country you are in being top-dog is better than being middle-rung elsewhere, if only because you get to be in charge.
NO! the solution is to allow the world labor market to regulate itself. We only live in the US by virtue of birth, any right-thinking American-spirited individual wants the BEST and BRIGHTEST and MOST DRIVEN to be able to get ahead. Why does that egalitarian principle stop at some imaginary line in the water?
You either 1.) didn't even bother to RTFS or 2.) did not comprehend that these claims are about a lack control for other factors that lead to misleading statements about the efficacy of the flu vaccine
The point of the article is that without blocking for socioeconomic status you have a bias sample.
YES you can have bias even if you select everyone! how? You violate the other assumption of regression: that all pertinent factors have been included.
If age, race, ethnicity, family back ground, location, doctor-seeking behavior and a slew of other things are not taken into account then you lack internal validity.
On the other hand, you are right, people do offer us a natural experiment by choosing to or not to take the vaccine and if we simply follow 1000 that do take it and 1000 that don't then we'll have a very high power sample from which to draw a reasonable conclusion.
"Some people you don't care about are saying that character customization is used to keep from having to write story, we don't HAVE to have customization. Some gender studies people are looking at video games. Relate-ability and understandability are two different words! Game markets sell you the LIE. Stories can't and won't be replaced with customizable avatars and content."
Even from an academic paper standpoint this is a bad abstract/introduction. An abstract should say what the objective of the paper is, why that objective is important, to whom the objective is important, when the research does and does not apply and what the findings are... this paper = fail
from a human stand point.. The re-defining of words to mean something that no one else understands is the stupidity of academia. The more I read about this the more I believe this guy time cube
Actually the square created inside of the circle is what matters, making each tower, at best, able to cover a grid square of 625-4050 square miles.
http://www.demographia.com/db-uland2000.htm
then we have not to cover ALL of the US for some reasonable amount of coverage but, instead, the urbanized land where we actually need the towers: 92,505
At $300,000 (the highest possible cost) a 25mi tower(the lowest possible range) it would cost ATT about 44million to double the coverage in urban portions of the US.
It is important to not that by only paying the top executives at ATT an average of 3.2 million each ATT could double coverage every year.
The problem with what you are saying is that there are often multiple "bleeding obvious" answers to a question.
So, yes, a lot of basic research seems like a "I already knew that" conclusion, but the truth is that "common sense" often cuts both ways.
I like your observation of history, taking historical information and adding it to empirical observation is a great way to cross-validate a study... but it does not mean that the original study is without merit.
Actually, with the rare exception of the sociopath, behavioral research has found that people are most motivated by the idea that they are doing something good.
No, but voluntary regulation is always preferable to the innovation destruction inerrant in top-down regulation. It is only when voluntary regulation isn't working that top-down regulation becomes a necessary evil. That someone could use something for evil doesn't mean we need to keep them from using it for good.
The top 1 percentile would make you in the top 99 percent.. or approximately three standard deviations below median in IQ... giving you an IQ of "above 55".
But I know what you are saying and what you are saying is exactly why half of people who get GEDs are not below average intelligence.
Descent is in the eye of the beholder. I like to buy the better product 5-10 years hence and the one I have breaking down in that time frame helps me do that.
There are already laws and limitations regarding how much ownership constitutes an oligopoly or a 'virtual monopoly'. What we need is to realize that the only solution to the 'last mile' problem is public ownership of the last mile which is then opened up to competition.
The per-CPU licensing was for those manufacturers that made such an agreement with MS. You could always buy from a mom-and-pop shop and not pay the price or, better yet, build the computer yourself.
Taxes are theft by the government. The old MS license is just a vendor losing my business.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the Quine part of the QDT that has the real problem.
You see, an epistemological assumption that we can never know truth comes either from a limitation of human conscience or from an ontological assumption that there is no truth to be found.
In reality, there is a reality, there is truth, we are simply constrained by our human limitations when it comes to interpreting it.
If you read what I said I didn't argue that pure falsifiability can be obtained any more than the pure utility of a theory can be obtained; simply that these are theoretical anchor points on which the continuum of theory lies.
Remember: objective, not subjective, Bayesian inferences are what have brought us to the spam filters, etc.
Actually theories are abstractions of the relationships between concepts that are only indirectly-measurable, while hypothesis are the more concrete understanding of the world derived from empirical evidence and link that which is measurable to that which is not. Without some level of indirect-measurement required there is no need for a theory, we would simply have fact... such as the fact of microbial evolution, the fact that DNA exists and so forth.
This means that theory is not something verifiable through observation, but a systematic method of understanding complex reality in a way that is parsimoniously comprehensible. If competing theories have also yet to be disproved then there is no 'right' theory, only a trade off between utility and falsifiability -> the more general the theory, the less well it is defined concretely through variables and hypothesis -> the better it is at abstracting reality and the worse it is at being falsifiable.
The point being that a "theory" is neither the super-hypothesis that you seem to think it is, nor is it the half-witted conjecture that the gpp thinks it is.
It is a multidimensional abstraction of reality that, while useful for explanation and at some point empirically disprovable, must reside at some level of abstraction and thus make trade offs between its usefulness and dis-provability.
That is essentially it, as long as the value proposition (works like a DVR, commercials don't run longer than skipping through commercials on a DVR take, the price is the cost of internet access instead of internet + TV) then migration will happen;
Let say a reasonable HTPC w/ 1080p display costs $1500 and cable with a DVR costs $60 a month, hulu pays for your HTPC w/ new HDTV in about 2 years; Add to that a $5 a month fee for what used to be $15 a month HBO and hulu charging for premium content: Hulu w/ service, after the second year, saves the consumer ~ $850 a year
Or we could just accept that growing the power of the US isn't the goal that we Americans should be seeking but, rather, that having two Silicon Valley's in the world would be better for everyone.
US media is free, and you are free to chose who you listen to
the pre-university education system IS the best in the world!... not for everyone, for example, poor inner city youth are screwed, but for rich-white kids we have the best education on earth
The heath care system is free as well, but not in-expensive. Sure you need to pay $500 a month, but for that you get the best possible care you can get any-ware on earth... once more, our poor get screwed and our lower-middle class even more screwed. But if you are smart and hard working the US has the best health care any human can find
the government policies are some of the least intrusive of any first world country.If you don't like anti-pot laws or speed limits or whatever worthless freedom you find just so nifty in your home shit-hole: just go somewhere they don't care, like Montana or California.
the US is THE WORST first world country in the world.. if you are poor and lazy; but there is no place better if you are someone who can earn his own money because he has honed his talents.
The problem this article notices is that middle management people in the US are good enough to be CEOs back in the old-world; I don't see this as a problem because no matter what country you are in being top-dog is better than being middle-rung elsewhere, if only because you get to be in charge.
NO! the solution is to allow the world labor market to regulate itself. We only live in the US by virtue of birth, any right-thinking American-spirited individual wants the BEST and BRIGHTEST and MOST DRIVEN to be able to get ahead. Why does that egalitarian principle stop at some imaginary line in the water?
PHD land and Masters work if you have an assistance-ship (and most foreigners do) then you get paid AND you'll have in-state tuition.
You either 1.) didn't even bother to RTFS or 2.) did not comprehend that these claims are about a lack control for other factors that lead to misleading statements about the efficacy of the flu vaccine
The point of the article is that without blocking for socioeconomic status you have a bias sample.
YES you can have bias even if you select everyone! how? You violate the other assumption of regression: that all pertinent factors have been included.
If age, race, ethnicity, family back ground, location, doctor-seeking behavior and a slew of other things are not taken into account then you lack internal validity.
On the other hand, you are right, people do offer us a natural experiment by choosing to or not to take the vaccine and if we simply follow 1000 that do take it and 1000 that don't then we'll have a very high power sample from which to draw a reasonable conclusion.
"Some people you don't care about are saying that character customization is used to keep from having to write story, we don't HAVE to have customization. Some gender studies people are looking at video games. Relate-ability and understandability are two different words! Game markets sell you the LIE. Stories can't and won't be replaced with customizable avatars and content."
Even from an academic paper standpoint this is a bad abstract/introduction. An abstract should say what the objective of the paper is, why that objective is important, to whom the objective is important, when the research does and does not apply and what the findings are... this paper = fail
from a human stand point.. The re-defining of words to mean something that no one else understands is the stupidity of academia. The more I read about this the more I believe this guy time cube
In soviet/fox-news Russia/America Google pay YOU for adverting your site.
Actually the square created inside of the circle is what matters, making each tower, at best, able to cover a grid square of 625-4050 square miles.
http://www.demographia.com/db-uland2000.htm
then we have not to cover ALL of the US for some reasonable amount of coverage but, instead, the urbanized land where we actually need the towers: 92,505
At $300,000 (the highest possible cost) a 25mi tower(the lowest possible range) it would cost ATT about 44million to double the coverage in urban portions of the US.
It is important to not that by only paying the top executives at ATT an average of 3.2 million each ATT could double coverage every year.
The problem with what you are saying is that there are often multiple "bleeding obvious" answers to a question.
So, yes, a lot of basic research seems like a "I already knew that" conclusion, but the truth is that "common sense" often cuts both ways.
I like your observation of history, taking historical information and adding it to empirical observation is a great way to cross-validate a study... but it does not mean that the original study is without merit.
Actually, with the rare exception of the sociopath, behavioral research has found that people are most motivated by the idea that they are doing something good.
" Judge... all of Compton is very dangerous and we need to tail them all, please sign this blanket warrant"
You aren't good with definitions of words are you? Or does ignorance prove non-existence.
Get past simple emotional responses and start thinking or you're doomed to stay as small as you've always been.
your system only works one person at a time, any number of people can ware glasses and see the 3d tv;
eye tracking would fix the depth problem.
No, but voluntary regulation is always preferable to the innovation destruction inerrant in top-down regulation. It is only when voluntary regulation isn't working that top-down regulation becomes a necessary evil. That someone could use something for evil doesn't mean we need to keep them from using it for good.
The top 1 percentile would make you in the top 99 percent.. or approximately three standard deviations below median in IQ... giving you an IQ of "above 55".
But I know what you are saying and what you are saying is exactly why half of people who get GEDs are not below average intelligence.
That was the only one of the litany that you thought wasn't "obvious and true"?
Descent is in the eye of the beholder. I like to buy the better product 5-10 years hence and the one I have breaking down in that time frame helps me do that.
There are already laws and limitations regarding how much ownership constitutes an oligopoly or a 'virtual monopoly'. What we need is to realize that the only solution to the 'last mile' problem is public ownership of the last mile which is then opened up to competition.
You are ignorant and it shows.
Earnings before depreciation and amortization makes sense because these are not actual losses but 'funny money' losses.
The per-CPU licensing was for those manufacturers that made such an agreement with MS. You could always buy from a mom-and-pop shop and not pay the price or, better yet, build the computer yourself.
Taxes are theft by the government. The old MS license is just a vendor losing my business.
Taking photos isn't bio-engineering and their is a lot of competition.
I am sure that you can get an up-start who knows what he's doing and pay a reasonable amount and get a good photo.