I have a way to be fair to this guy, as well as punish people abusing torts. It's very simple: a) If he can demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions, they'll consider his case. b) If he can't demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions significantly more than chance, he owes the plaintiff the same amount he's seeking.
I call this the `put up or shut up` principle. Although, it might be more widely known as the `Let's not be flaming idiots` principle.
There's a few issues here. First, the man may just be suing for equity, as in suing to obtain an order of restraint requiring his neighbor to disable his EM emissions. As well, there are situations where a court considering some complex issue where an order of restraint may result in unfair damages against the other party to have the initiating party place a bond against such damages.
This guy faces an uphill battle, since he has to prove to a better than 50% confidence that his neighbor's EM emissions are causing him injury. That's the important thing, the law does not require him to prove 100%, or to a reasonable scientific certainty that his claims are valid. He has to prove to either a judge or a jury that it's more likely that his claims are true than his opponent.
You wouldn't want to bump into her, even by accident. She'll kick you in your nuts and then press charges against your testicles for raping her foot.
Then after you go bankrupt settling out of court, she'll writhe all over her bed while eating chocolate ice cream and listening to the new Tori Amos CD she bought with your money.
To show that I have a sense of humor, I laughed my butt off from this.:)
OK, I'm curious. Why Arizona? I'm not from the USA, so maybe I'm missing something there...
Arizona does not place the restriction that only members of the bar can practice law. Thus, anyone can provide you with legal advice... you just need to realize yourself when you can't, or can rely upon the information.
How do I make sure I'm legally in the clear without hiring an expensive lawyer
Laws have become horribly, horribly complex. I'm not sure any of us can do that for anything we do.
This is very true. I've been reading a lot about law recently, because it's become pertinent to my everyday life. In this case, and ALL legal cases, the law is SUPER crazy complex. First you need to read up on rules governing this stuff, then laws, then amendments to those laws, then you have to read a bunch of court cases on the matter, and then you have to have the legal background to understand how all of those apply to your specific situation.
The summary author really only has one of two choices: a) pay a lawyer, or b) ignore the legal consequences and only deal with them if you get sued.
Very simply, that's the plain ugly truth hanging-all-out-there-naked version of every question of, "what should I do about law X, or law Y"... well, unless you're in Arizona. Then there's an option c) pay someone who is willing to do the research for you, even if they're not a lawyer, but understand their qualifications before trusting their evaluations. Outside of Arizona, no one can even give you any clues about your legal liability without running aground of questions of practicing law.
For the record, I have no taken any "feminist philosophy" classes, and have studied linguistics extensively, and I understand why it's entirely normal and natural for the German language to insist that the word for "girl" is neuter, despite having a feminine gender.
As well the word "Computer" has the masculine gender in German. So, when talking about my computer, I could say, "I took him apart, and then put everything back together again, and he still worked."
If you want to mix linguistic definitions with biological definitions and equivocate everything, then I have no interest in communicating with you, because it's like trying to have a conversation with a kitchen table. Even though you both are masculine in the German language, I still don't think either of you have anything meaningful to say.
For the record, there exist a statistically significant number of people in the world, whom you would call "she" even though they have a Y-chromosome... and they would be this way from birth, and if you called them "he", everyone would look at you like you were crazy. The Y-chromosome plays no necessary (but is often significant) role in which pronoun you're going to use for any particular individual.
Quoting your debate opponent, and seeking to explain how you understand what they're claiming is part of the proper method of debate. It is absolutely vital in a debate to consider that your opponent is using words in a different way than yourself, and seek reconciliation of terms before proceeding to have any debate worth any meaning.
Your worldview seems to contain too many false premises, and you seem unwilling to consider that your premises are incorrect, your definitions are flawed, or that someone could misinterpret your words, because you've made them unclear. Therefore, there is no point in arguing with you any further.
That is a real argument, yes. But it’s still wrong. Because evolution does not require replication. It only requires directed changes.
Replication is a property of reproduction. Which is one way to grow its own mass, e.g. when consuming resources. Which itself is a property of life.
But there can be evolution without life (E.g. evolution-simulating software). Just as there can be life without evolution. (E.g. a life form that stopped evolving because there was no competition anymore.)
Evolution simulating software works by replicating values and then modifying them.
Life cannot be removed from evolution, because of the inherent errors in duplication. If we place an imperfectly replicating entity on an infinite resource pool, then we will find that at some point, one of the replications will replicate FASTER, and thus will begin to dominate the overall population. EVEN WITHOUT ANY COMPETITION BETWEEN EACH DUPLICATE!
Sex isn't male (neither are y-chromosomes), you are thinking of gender. Regardless, you would find a statistically significant relationship between males having a y-chromosome, because its part of the definition of how you define gender. This would be like sampling a population of red cars to determine if they are red.
You are taking the assumption that "male" means "gender", and that the y-chromosome is "part of the definition of how you define gender."
No, GENDER is a social construct that people build regardless of any actual physical properties of the individual. That men and women divide themselves into two separate genders and we thus define one as "masculine" and the other as "feminine" is pretty much just a social construct. We desire to conform with people, and we adapt to the gender roles presented to us by our peers.
SEX however is biologically defined. One's CHROMOSOMAL SEX will always be male (not necessarily masculine) if they have a Y chromosome. One's gonadal sex will always match the fact of if they have testes or ovaries. One's genital sex will always match the physical appearance of their genitalia. However, one's hormonal profile will not always match what would be expected as a result of looking at any of the possible definitions for their sex.
Before we got on this stupid tangent because you're wrong about sexual development of humans, my point was that with a p = 0.0, you can prove STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, regardless of if you jury rigged it in or not. That's one of the CRITICISM of statistical significance, is that it doesn't really say jack shit to someone who doesn't understand statistics, yet SEEMS to says a lot to people who THINK they understand statistics.
(mostly because we're culturally expected to back down to men)
I wish someone would tell my wife that!
Sorry. Couldn't resist. I really don't wish that. I prefer a partner to chattel.
Well, we attract and marry the partner that best fits our expectations, so that you like a partner to chattel is a pretty good indicator of why she won't back down.
Also, I suppose it would be better to say, "predisposed to backing down." It's culturally ok, and has always been pretty ok for a wife to coonflict with her husband's opinions in private. Jewish law, for instance, provides a lot of interesting "progressive" rights to women, even while declaring them little more than property.
Second thought experiment - Sex isn't male (neither are y-chromosomes), you are thinking of gender. Regardless, you would find a statistically significant relationship between males having a y-chromosome, because its part of the definition of how you define gender. This would be like sampling a population of red cars to determine if they are red.
Actually, a Y chromosome is NOT guaranteed to produce a male. For instance, if there is a mutation in the SRY gene that makes it inactive, then the person will develop entirely as if they had a nominal X chromosome (they will develop ovaries). Next, the SRY gene only guides the development of the gonads.
Once the gonads have been established, they secrete hormones which influence the further development of what we consider to be "primary sexual characteristics". If there is a mutation in the androgen receptor gene, or in the androgen gene itself, then the person will respond ineffectively to the hormones produced by the testicles, thus resulting in the person developing female primary sexual characteristics. But, even then, there are at least two different kinds of primary sexual characteristics.
Androgens affect the development of the external genitalia between being a penis and scrotum, to being a clitoris, and labia with a shallow vagina. As well, Anti-Müllerian Hormones (AMH) affect the development of the Müllerian ducts (the upper vagina, cervix, uterus, and fallopian tubes). And so a mutational error in the processing of AMH can result in a person with testicles, a penis and a uterus.
THIS is why I'm talking about "expectations have nothing to do with statistics"... we have stupid built-in assumptions that we take for granted, and we make assumptions about the odds and everything that exist.
While you like to think this second thought experiment contains no variation, it's more accurately like sampling a population of Model Ts for what color they are. The vast almost entire amount of them are black, but some are not.
Try coming up with a population that has variability, so that taking a sample makes sense, and you will see that statistical significance matters.
Funny, because I did, you just lacked the biological understanding about what ACTUALLY causes sex, because you were drawn into the assumption that f(x) = x with a p = 0.0 In actuality, the p is not 0.0, and never will be, because the system is a fuckload more complicated than you thought it was, which... brace yourself for this...
But you’re no better. You insult the other side, and bring no arguments to the table. You’re obviously right... to us... but to them, you now just made it worse, making them protect themselves from your pointless attacks even more.
This time, I’ll do it for you: The difference is, that Rocks have no fitness function. Which is the difference between undirected change and directed evolution.
But the next time, if you wanna act superior, bring an argument. Like a common basis, and proper logic on top of it.
Rocks don't REPLICATE THEMSELVES... this has nothing to do with a lack of fitness function... rocks don't copy themselves, or cause copies of themselves to be created.
Actually, after RTFA, I found that it's pretty much a case of what I suspected to be the case... if you have replication in nature, you have evolution. Think about it, replication cannot happen without some error rate, and if that error results in a better replication of the entity being replicated, then those entities containing that error will replicate more than the non-error version.
Basically, it's a model that allows for evolution even in the absence of direct competition, or limited resources, which would have to, at one time, be the case for any and all replicating entities.
At some point, if something spontaneously gains the ability of replication, it will replicate with small error rates accounting for small variations in replication rate. Eventually, the faster replicating entities will out-populate the slower replicating entities. Eventually, at some point, the resource pool of raw resources will exhaust itself, and replication will be stagnant until some error allows that entity to deconstruct other entities for resources, and then direct competition is created, and there starts becoming more selection criteria than just "faster replication".
Again, it's important to realize that all that is required for this model is replication itself. Nothing else.
But that's true of every generation. Just as each generation thinks it invented sex, each generation thinks it invented the sophistication to call bullshit to marketing techniques.
The truth is, pitch tuning is a fine art, and most intelligent people see the bullshit in a sales pitch tuned for someone else. The teenagers wonder why their parents fall for X, while the parents watch their kids fall for why. Urban mocks rural for falling for Z, rural scoffs at urban for falling for W. Everyone thinks they are the one independent thinker in a herd of sheep.
There was a British magician/mentalist that took a couple of marketing guys on a drive to a place, and then had them think of an idea for a pet cemetery. Once were finished, he showed them what he expected them to come up with, and it was pretty much spot on. He basically programmed them during their trip to the location, and they didn't even notice.
Even marketing critters are not immune to marketing techniques...
Indeed. The truth is, it is all a dream. My dream, in fact. It all emanates from me, I designed it all based on what you know as mathematical principles.
That assertion can also never be proved wrong, and it is mathematically sound.
You're pretty confident for a figment of my imagination....
...unfortunately, they are mostly lost in the irony of statements like this:
I think women are better programmers because they have less ego and are typically more interested in the gear rather than the pissing contest.
I doubt I've seen anyone more thoroughly entrenched in a pissing contest than Zed Shaw, of the website formerly known as "Zed's So Fucking Awesome".
Actually, the statement makes complete sense... Because he believes that women are less likely to engage in pissing contests, he finds that he wins all those contests, which placates his personality.
My older sister got mad at me because she couldn't shop for clothes the same way she did with her friends. I straight up blew off some of her ideas, because they weren't my style... but her friends just kind of fold, and listen to her. My sister has a better time shopping with her friends than with me... because I threaten her perceived superiority.
As a woman, I must say, there are some pissing contests that happen between women, but most of them take place entirely outside of the view of men (mostly because we're culturally expected to back down to men), and even then it's mostly two faced stuff. Sure there won't be a scene where we both whip it out and measure, but it's kind of likely that the woman who backs down first is plotting to be passively aggressive to the "winner".
You have got it so wrong it hurts to read. The number of days since the project started on day 4 will always be 4. If it turns out that it is 5, then this finding is statistically significant. If it turns out to be 4, then it is not.
If something is statistically significant, it simply means that it was unlikely to have occurred by chance. In your example, there would be no deviation from expectations, as r^2 = 1, so there is no statistically significant deviation, nor would the findings be significant. It is almost certain that your example would have such an r^2 value because it occurred by chance, as there was no possibility of deviation. This does not mean that in a separate example (such as one where the population contains deviations from the mean), finding an r^2 value of 1 and no deviation would not be a significant finding; in fact, for most studies, finding no deviation from expectation would indicate that you did your study incorrectly.
Next time, try understanding the words you use before posting.
Metapwn coming. Let's conduct a thought experiment. Everyday, you ask a person for a number, and they give you a value, which you then record. You then evaluate those numbers, and find that each day that you ask the person for a number, they gave the number of days that had elapsed since you started asking them that number.
It is statistically significant to say that the number given by the person is equal to the number of days since the beginning of the questioning. It is, however, unsurprising in the case where you knew that the person was going to do so after the fact.
Statistical significance has nothing to do with expectations, it simply states that what you're showing is unlikely to be because of chance... NOT that results are interesting, practically significant, or unexpected.
Another thought experiment. We sample a population for Y chromosomes, and their sex. We find a statistically significant relationship between having a Y chromosome and the sex being male. Namely, it is not just chance that the sex of the individual is male, and they have a Y chromosome.
Honestly, I really enjoy stats - if I had to do it all over again I would probably have spent a LOT more time working with stats than I did as a programmer in my younger years - but I won't pretend that it's totally clear what tools to use when. The author of TFA should do well to realize that even fellow statisticians would probably slap the shit out of him over some of his beliefs about how to properly go about utilizing stats toolsets
If I had it to do over again, I'd probably actually go to my stats class, rather than not even show up for half of the semester, then study for 24-hours before learning it all, and then collapsing asleep after the test.
Funny thing was, I ended up with a B in the class, because I aced the final. It's really the only test I ever studied for, and of course if you didn't know this, cramming for a test means that you won't remember any of it later... same with me, I'm at a complete lose for doing any of the stuff from my stats class.
I have sat in business meetings hundreds of times where I've seen decisions made on completely meaningless and irrelevant data, because the people involved don't understand statistics. The same holds true in your personal life; decisions with purchasing products, investing money...
Investing money... isn't that why I'm paying $400 a month into the lottery? I mean, I'm going to win it eventually, right?
Really the ideal way to fix the Y2K problem, in most cases, would be to break on a dynamic year, i.e. (current_year + n) where n is the number of years into the future you expect to be needing to use dates from. This keeps your window moving and you never hit a break-point. You can’t keep data around longer than (100 - n) years, unless you also store a full date with it so you can calculate what the 2-digit dates represented. In most cases, though, you don’t need to keep stuff that long anyway.
The joke was not to really solve the problem, but rather two more humorous examples of the "just push it off 10 years" idiocy are presented in order to evoke humor.
The first only takes the problem of pushing it back ten years, and pushes it back ten years.
The second presents a non-round number to push the problem back by, and thus when 2042 arrives, everyone is confused why there is a Y2K bug presenting itself, because it's not on a round year.... the number 42 was chosen as "the answer to life, the universe, and everything" in order to increase the likelihood of the joke being caught, rather than presumed to be real.
Ok, the problem I think I'm having is that, for instance, with photons, the photons themselves cannot ever collide. However, one or both of them can spontaneously fluctuate into a fermion/anti-fermion pair, with which the other photon can interact, whether it fluctuates into a fermion/anti-fermion pair or not.
So, my question remains, considering that Gluons are bosons and have no charge, the idea of thinking about them as small magnets won't help, because they have no charge.... *reads through the Standard Model article at Wikipedia* ok, gluons have an intrinsic QCD color, and thus can interact among themselves through the strong force.
One guy on the site is even ranting about the LHC actually being a "quark cannon"
Actually his credibility is lost there. The LHC is far better described as a gluon collider. The cross-section for gluon-gluon collisions is a lot larger than for quark-quark.
Ok, at risk of sounding like an idiot here... a gluon is a Boson, and thus not subject to Fermi's exclusion principle, meaning that two gluons can occupy the same space at the same time in the same state...
I'm trying to figure out how anything but Fermions can be "collided".
I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion, that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.
I recall that too. However in the parallel universes in which such an explosion does dissolve the atmosphere's atoms, they don't recall that.
One guy on the site is even ranting..
Yeah, I wish they would just ignore those guys too. However, I'd like to know that we're not risking our existence based on the old "only an idiot would think that" logical fallacy.
Well, the thing is, that you have to give the person just enough rope to hang themselves with. I agree, you can't just dismiss these people out of hand. It took half a page of reading his nonsense to come to the definitive conclusion that he's crazy... not just the speculative conclusion.
Scientists can and do listen to critics of their work, or critics to their level of safety, but when it comes to world-ending hypotheses, they suffer from the same issue with all crazy talk... incredible claims require incredible evidence.
You're saying the guy talking about 'runon's has syphilis? That would explain why he's raving mad.
I'm a girl.
Re:Got hit by this one myself
on
Y2.01K
·
· Score: 1
SunPCi cards are essentially x86 PC blades designed to be plugged into a PCI slot on a Sun SPARC machine. I use a SunPCi III in the Sun Blade 1500 (SPARC desktop) I have on my desk to run software I have to run that requires Windows. This Monday, I fired it up and got told by the driver software that my system date was in the future because "I can't believe it's really" 2010 (the exact words of the error message!). Looking at the Sun forum message traffic, apparently *everybody* with a SunPCi III card is getting this. Sun's supposed to be working on a patch now. Right now the only workaround is to set your system clock back to 2009 when you fire up the SunPCi card (you can set it back to correct after it starts).
I remember that when Wing Commander 3 is installing, it will test system performance including your CD-ROM speed. Run on a modern system the test returns the error, "Your CD-ROM is reading faster than is physically possible. Please disable any disk-caching programs you are running to ensure best performance." The second sentence is a paraphrase, but the first is pretty much the exact wording.
I think the proper way to denote year 2010 is Y2K01, just like 14K4 was used for 14400. Of course writing Y2K01 or Y2.01K is more difficult than Y2010, so why bother using that arcane notation.
It was probably a 2-digit year that was designed so the first two digits rolled over when the last two digits hit the year 10. If the year is <10, 2000 + year. If the year is >10, 1900 + year.
It’s a quick and dirty fix of the Y2K problem that merely pushes it off another 10 years.
Easy, just move it to if $year < 20!
Or for even more fun, set if for if $year < 41, and then watch people be all confused in the year 2042, because they have no idea why someone would choose such an unusual number for your century break point.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I have a way to be fair to this guy, as well as punish people abusing torts. It's very simple:
a) If he can demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions, they'll consider his case.
b) If he can't demonstrate his ability to detect electromagnetic fields under reasonable experimental conditions significantly more than chance, he owes the plaintiff the same amount he's seeking.
I call this the `put up or shut up` principle. Although, it might be more widely known as the `Let's not be flaming idiots` principle.
There's a few issues here. First, the man may just be suing for equity, as in suing to obtain an order of restraint requiring his neighbor to disable his EM emissions. As well, there are situations where a court considering some complex issue where an order of restraint may result in unfair damages against the other party to have the initiating party place a bond against such damages.
This guy faces an uphill battle, since he has to prove to a better than 50% confidence that his neighbor's EM emissions are causing him injury. That's the important thing, the law does not require him to prove 100%, or to a reasonable scientific certainty that his claims are valid. He has to prove to either a judge or a jury that it's more likely that his claims are true than his opponent.
You wouldn't want to bump into her, even by accident. She'll kick you in your nuts and then press charges against your testicles for raping her foot.
Then after you go bankrupt settling out of court, she'll writhe all over her bed while eating chocolate ice cream and listening to the new Tori Amos CD she bought with your money.
To show that I have a sense of humor, I laughed my butt off from this. :)
OK, I'm curious. Why Arizona? I'm not from the USA, so maybe I'm missing something there...
Arizona does not place the restriction that only members of the bar can practice law. Thus, anyone can provide you with legal advice... you just need to realize yourself when you can't, or can rely upon the information.
Laws have become horribly, horribly complex. I'm not sure any of us can do that for anything we do.
This is very true. I've been reading a lot about law recently, because it's become pertinent to my everyday life. In this case, and ALL legal cases, the law is SUPER crazy complex. First you need to read up on rules governing this stuff, then laws, then amendments to those laws, then you have to read a bunch of court cases on the matter, and then you have to have the legal background to understand how all of those apply to your specific situation.
The summary author really only has one of two choices: a) pay a lawyer, or b) ignore the legal consequences and only deal with them if you get sued.
Very simply, that's the plain ugly truth hanging-all-out-there-naked version of every question of, "what should I do about law X, or law Y"... well, unless you're in Arizona. Then there's an option c) pay someone who is willing to do the research for you, even if they're not a lawyer, but understand their qualifications before trusting their evaluations. Outside of Arizona, no one can even give you any clues about your legal liability without running aground of questions of practicing law.
For the record, I have no taken any "feminist philosophy" classes, and have studied linguistics extensively, and I understand why it's entirely normal and natural for the German language to insist that the word for "girl" is neuter, despite having a feminine gender.
As well the word "Computer" has the masculine gender in German. So, when talking about my computer, I could say, "I took him apart, and then put everything back together again, and he still worked."
If you want to mix linguistic definitions with biological definitions and equivocate everything, then I have no interest in communicating with you, because it's like trying to have a conversation with a kitchen table. Even though you both are masculine in the German language, I still don't think either of you have anything meaningful to say.
For the record, there exist a statistically significant number of people in the world, whom you would call "she" even though they have a Y-chromosome... and they would be this way from birth, and if you called them "he", everyone would look at you like you were crazy. The Y-chromosome plays no necessary (but is often significant) role in which pronoun you're going to use for any particular individual.
Quoting your debate opponent, and seeking to explain how you understand what they're claiming is part of the proper method of debate. It is absolutely vital in a debate to consider that your opponent is using words in a different way than yourself, and seek reconciliation of terms before proceeding to have any debate worth any meaning.
Your worldview seems to contain too many false premises, and you seem unwilling to consider that your premises are incorrect, your definitions are flawed, or that someone could misinterpret your words, because you've made them unclear. Therefore, there is no point in arguing with you any further.
I say, Good day, sir.
That is a real argument, yes. But it’s still wrong.
Because evolution does not require replication. It only requires directed changes.
Replication is a property of reproduction. Which is one way to grow its own mass, e.g. when consuming resources.
Which itself is a property of life.
But there can be evolution without life (E.g. evolution-simulating software). Just as there can be life without evolution. (E.g. a life form that stopped evolving because there was no competition anymore.)
Evolution simulating software works by replicating values and then modifying them.
Life cannot be removed from evolution, because of the inherent errors in duplication. If we place an imperfectly replicating entity on an infinite resource pool, then we will find that at some point, one of the replications will replicate FASTER, and thus will begin to dominate the overall population. EVEN WITHOUT ANY COMPETITION BETWEEN EACH DUPLICATE!
Ok, to quote you exactly:
Sex isn't male (neither are y-chromosomes), you are thinking of gender. Regardless, you would find a statistically significant relationship between males having a y-chromosome, because its part of the definition of how you define gender. This would be like sampling a population of red cars to determine if they are red.
You are taking the assumption that "male" means "gender", and that the y-chromosome is "part of the definition of how you define gender."
No, GENDER is a social construct that people build regardless of any actual physical properties of the individual. That men and women divide themselves into two separate genders and we thus define one as "masculine" and the other as "feminine" is pretty much just a social construct. We desire to conform with people, and we adapt to the gender roles presented to us by our peers.
SEX however is biologically defined. One's CHROMOSOMAL SEX will always be male (not necessarily masculine) if they have a Y chromosome. One's gonadal sex will always match the fact of if they have testes or ovaries. One's genital sex will always match the physical appearance of their genitalia. However, one's hormonal profile will not always match what would be expected as a result of looking at any of the possible definitions for their sex.
Before we got on this stupid tangent because you're wrong about sexual development of humans, my point was that with a p = 0.0, you can prove STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, regardless of if you jury rigged it in or not. That's one of the CRITICISM of statistical significance, is that it doesn't really say jack shit to someone who doesn't understand statistics, yet SEEMS to says a lot to people who THINK they understand statistics.
(mostly because we're culturally expected to back down to men)
I wish someone would tell my wife that!
Sorry. Couldn't resist. I really don't wish that. I prefer a partner to chattel.
Well, we attract and marry the partner that best fits our expectations, so that you like a partner to chattel is a pretty good indicator of why she won't back down.
Also, I suppose it would be better to say, "predisposed to backing down." It's culturally ok, and has always been pretty ok for a wife to coonflict with her husband's opinions in private. Jewish law, for instance, provides a lot of interesting "progressive" rights to women, even while declaring them little more than property.
Second thought experiment - Sex isn't male (neither are y-chromosomes), you are thinking of gender. Regardless, you would find a statistically significant relationship between males having a y-chromosome, because its part of the definition of how you define gender. This would be like sampling a population of red cars to determine if they are red.
Actually, a Y chromosome is NOT guaranteed to produce a male. For instance, if there is a mutation in the SRY gene that makes it inactive, then the person will develop entirely as if they had a nominal X chromosome (they will develop ovaries). Next, the SRY gene only guides the development of the gonads.
Once the gonads have been established, they secrete hormones which influence the further development of what we consider to be "primary sexual characteristics". If there is a mutation in the androgen receptor gene, or in the androgen gene itself, then the person will respond ineffectively to the hormones produced by the testicles, thus resulting in the person developing female primary sexual characteristics. But, even then, there are at least two different kinds of primary sexual characteristics.
Androgens affect the development of the external genitalia between being a penis and scrotum, to being a clitoris, and labia with a shallow vagina. As well, Anti-Müllerian Hormones (AMH) affect the development of the Müllerian ducts (the upper vagina, cervix, uterus, and fallopian tubes). And so a mutational error in the processing of AMH can result in a person with testicles, a penis and a uterus.
THIS is why I'm talking about "expectations have nothing to do with statistics"... we have stupid built-in assumptions that we take for granted, and we make assumptions about the odds and everything that exist.
While you like to think this second thought experiment contains no variation, it's more accurately like sampling a population of Model Ts for what color they are. The vast almost entire amount of them are black, but some are not.
Try coming up with a population that has variability, so that taking a sample makes sense, and you will see that statistical significance matters.
Funny, because I did, you just lacked the biological understanding about what ACTUALLY causes sex, because you were drawn into the assumption that f(x) = x with a p = 0.0 In actuality, the p is not 0.0, and never will be, because the system is a fuckload more complicated than you thought it was, which... brace yourself for this...
IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ARTICLE WAS TALKING ABOUT!!!
But you’re no better. You insult the other side, and bring no arguments to the table. You’re obviously right... to us... but to them, you now just made it worse, making them protect themselves from your pointless attacks even more.
This time, I’ll do it for you:
The difference is, that Rocks have no fitness function. Which is the difference between undirected change and directed evolution.
But the next time, if you wanna act superior, bring an argument. Like a common basis, and proper logic on top of it.
Rocks don't REPLICATE THEMSELVES... this has nothing to do with a lack of fitness function... rocks don't copy themselves, or cause copies of themselves to be created.
Actually, after RTFA, I found that it's pretty much a case of what I suspected to be the case... if you have replication in nature, you have evolution. Think about it, replication cannot happen without some error rate, and if that error results in a better replication of the entity being replicated, then those entities containing that error will replicate more than the non-error version.
Basically, it's a model that allows for evolution even in the absence of direct competition, or limited resources, which would have to, at one time, be the case for any and all replicating entities.
At some point, if something spontaneously gains the ability of replication, it will replicate with small error rates accounting for small variations in replication rate. Eventually, the faster replicating entities will out-populate the slower replicating entities. Eventually, at some point, the resource pool of raw resources will exhaust itself, and replication will be stagnant until some error allows that entity to deconstruct other entities for resources, and then direct competition is created, and there starts becoming more selection criteria than just "faster replication".
Again, it's important to realize that all that is required for this model is replication itself. Nothing else.
But that's true of every generation. Just as each generation thinks it invented sex, each generation thinks it invented the sophistication to call bullshit to marketing techniques.
The truth is, pitch tuning is a fine art, and most intelligent people see the bullshit in a sales pitch tuned for someone else. The teenagers wonder why their parents fall for X, while the parents watch their kids fall for why. Urban mocks rural for falling for Z, rural scoffs at urban for falling for W. Everyone thinks they are the one independent thinker in a herd of sheep.
There was a British magician/mentalist that took a couple of marketing guys on a drive to a place, and then had them think of an idea for a pet cemetery. Once were finished, he showed them what he expected them to come up with, and it was pretty much spot on. He basically programmed them during their trip to the location, and they didn't even notice.
Even marketing critters are not immune to marketing techniques...
Indeed. The truth is, it is all a dream. My dream, in fact. It all emanates from me, I designed it all based on what you know as mathematical principles.
That assertion can also never be proved wrong, and it is mathematically sound.
You're pretty confident for a figment of my imagination....
...unfortunately, they are mostly lost in the irony of statements like this:
I think women are better programmers because they have less ego and are typically more interested in the gear rather than the pissing contest.
I doubt I've seen anyone more thoroughly entrenched in a pissing contest than Zed Shaw, of the website formerly known as "Zed's So Fucking Awesome".
Actually, the statement makes complete sense... Because he believes that women are less likely to engage in pissing contests, he finds that he wins all those contests, which placates his personality.
My older sister got mad at me because she couldn't shop for clothes the same way she did with her friends. I straight up blew off some of her ideas, because they weren't my style... but her friends just kind of fold, and listen to her. My sister has a better time shopping with her friends than with me... because I threaten her perceived superiority.
As a woman, I must say, there are some pissing contests that happen between women, but most of them take place entirely outside of the view of men (mostly because we're culturally expected to back down to men), and even then it's mostly two faced stuff. Sure there won't be a scene where we both whip it out and measure, but it's kind of likely that the woman who backs down first is plotting to be passively aggressive to the "winner".
You have got it so wrong it hurts to read. The number of days since the project started on day 4 will always be 4. If it turns out that it is 5, then this finding is statistically significant. If it turns out to be 4, then it is not.
If something is statistically significant, it simply means that it was unlikely to have occurred by chance. In your example, there would be no deviation from expectations, as r^2 = 1, so there is no statistically significant deviation, nor would the findings be significant. It is almost certain that your example would have such an r^2 value because it occurred by chance, as there was no possibility of deviation. This does not mean that in a separate example (such as one where the population contains deviations from the mean), finding an r^2 value of 1 and no deviation would not be a significant finding; in fact, for most studies, finding no deviation from expectation would indicate that you did your study incorrectly.
Next time, try understanding the words you use before posting.
Metapwn coming. Let's conduct a thought experiment. Everyday, you ask a person for a number, and they give you a value, which you then record. You then evaluate those numbers, and find that each day that you ask the person for a number, they gave the number of days that had elapsed since you started asking them that number.
It is statistically significant to say that the number given by the person is equal to the number of days since the beginning of the questioning. It is, however, unsurprising in the case where you knew that the person was going to do so after the fact.
Statistical significance has nothing to do with expectations, it simply states that what you're showing is unlikely to be because of chance... NOT that results are interesting, practically significant, or unexpected.
Another thought experiment. We sample a population for Y chromosomes, and their sex. We find a statistically significant relationship between having a Y chromosome and the sex being male. Namely, it is not just chance that the sex of the individual is male, and they have a Y chromosome.
Honestly, I really enjoy stats - if I had to do it all over again I would probably have spent a LOT more time working with stats than I did as a programmer in my younger years - but I won't pretend that it's totally clear what tools to use when. The author of TFA should do well to realize that even fellow statisticians would probably slap the shit out of him over some of his beliefs about how to properly go about utilizing stats toolsets
If I had it to do over again, I'd probably actually go to my stats class, rather than not even show up for half of the semester, then study for 24-hours before learning it all, and then collapsing asleep after the test.
Funny thing was, I ended up with a B in the class, because I aced the final. It's really the only test I ever studied for, and of course if you didn't know this, cramming for a test means that you won't remember any of it later... same with me, I'm at a complete lose for doing any of the stuff from my stats class.
I have sat in business meetings hundreds of times where I've seen decisions made on completely meaningless and irrelevant data, because the people involved don't understand statistics. The same holds true in your personal life; decisions with purchasing products, investing money...
Investing money... isn't that why I'm paying $400 a month into the lottery? I mean, I'm going to win it eventually, right?
Really the ideal way to fix the Y2K problem, in most cases, would be to break on a dynamic year, i.e. (current_year + n) where n is the number of years into the future you expect to be needing to use dates from. This keeps your window moving and you never hit a break-point. You can’t keep data around longer than (100 - n) years, unless you also store a full date with it so you can calculate what the 2-digit dates represented. In most cases, though, you don’t need to keep stuff that long anyway.
The joke was not to really solve the problem, but rather two more humorous examples of the "just push it off 10 years" idiocy are presented in order to evoke humor.
The first only takes the problem of pushing it back ten years, and pushes it back ten years.
The second presents a non-round number to push the problem back by, and thus when 2042 arrives, everyone is confused why there is a Y2K bug presenting itself, because it's not on a round year. ... the number 42 was chosen as "the answer to life, the universe, and everything" in order to increase the likelihood of the joke being caught, rather than presumed to be real.
Or to paraphrase for summary.... "whoosh"
Ok, the problem I think I'm having is that, for instance, with photons, the photons themselves cannot ever collide. However, one or both of them can spontaneously fluctuate into a fermion/anti-fermion pair, with which the other photon can interact, whether it fluctuates into a fermion/anti-fermion pair or not.
So, my question remains, considering that Gluons are bosons and have no charge, the idea of thinking about them as small magnets won't help, because they have no charge. ... *reads through the Standard Model article at Wikipedia* ok, gluons have an intrinsic QCD color, and thus can interact among themselves through the strong force.
One guy on the site is even ranting about the LHC actually being a "quark cannon"
Actually his credibility is lost there. The LHC is far better described as a gluon collider. The cross-section for gluon-gluon collisions is a lot larger than for quark-quark.
Ok, at risk of sounding like an idiot here... a gluon is a Boson, and thus not subject to Fermi's exclusion principle, meaning that two gluons can occupy the same space at the same time in the same state...
I'm trying to figure out how anything but Fermions can be "collided".
I seem to recall that some physics thought that before the Trinity Explosion, that perhaps an atom explosion would vaporise the entire atmosphere.
I recall that too. However in the parallel universes in which such an explosion does dissolve the atmosphere's atoms, they don't recall that.
One guy on the site is even ranting..
Yeah, I wish they would just ignore those guys too. However, I'd like to know that we're not risking our existence based on the old "only an idiot would think that" logical fallacy.
Well, the thing is, that you have to give the person just enough rope to hang themselves with. I agree, you can't just dismiss these people out of hand. It took half a page of reading his nonsense to come to the definitive conclusion that he's crazy... not just the speculative conclusion.
Scientists can and do listen to critics of their work, or critics to their level of safety, but when it comes to world-ending hypotheses, they suffer from the same issue with all crazy talk... incredible claims require incredible evidence.
You're saying the guy talking about 'runon's has syphilis? That would explain why he's raving mad.
I'm a girl.
SunPCi cards are essentially x86 PC blades designed to be plugged into a PCI slot on a Sun SPARC machine. I use a SunPCi III in the Sun Blade 1500 (SPARC desktop) I have on my desk to run software I have to run that requires Windows. This Monday, I fired it up and got told by the driver software that my system date was in the future because "I can't believe it's really" 2010 (the exact words of the error message!). Looking at the Sun forum message traffic, apparently *everybody* with a SunPCi III card is getting this. Sun's supposed to be working on a patch now. Right now the only workaround is to set your system clock back to 2009 when you fire up the SunPCi card (you can set it back to correct after it starts).
I remember that when Wing Commander 3 is installing, it will test system performance including your CD-ROM speed. Run on a modern system the test returns the error, "Your CD-ROM is reading faster than is physically possible. Please disable any disk-caching programs you are running to ensure best performance." The second sentence is a paraphrase, but the first is pretty much the exact wording.
I think the proper way to denote year 2010 is Y2K01, just like 14K4 was used for 14400.
Of course writing Y2K01 or Y2.01K is more difficult than Y2010, so why bother using that arcane notation.
Because Y2.01K is funnier.
It was probably a 2-digit year that was designed so the first two digits rolled over when the last two digits hit the year 10. If the year is <10, 2000 + year. If the year is >10, 1900 + year.
It’s a quick and dirty fix of the Y2K problem that merely pushes it off another 10 years.
Easy, just move it to if $year < 20!
Or for even more fun, set if for if $year < 41, and then watch people be all confused in the year 2042, because they have no idea why someone would choose such an unusual number for your century break point. :)