Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Schooling. With the fishes. (Score 2) 342

Psychology 102:

Smart people also do Dumb things.
Dumb people also do Good things.
Good people also do Bad things.
Bad people also do Smart things.

Psychology 103:

Smart people also do Good things.
Dumb people also do Bad things.
Good people also do Smart things.
Bad people also do Dumb things.

Psychology 104:

Smart people also do Bad things.
Dumb people also do Smart things.
Good people also do Dumb things.
Bad people also do Good things.

Second year:

Psychology 201:

How to use statistics to imply anything

Psychology 202:

The zen of tiny sample sizes

Psychology 203:

Regression therapy, or, How to make someone think they remember something that never happened

Psychology 204:

The more letters you have, the more authoritative you can pretend you are. So come back for a baccalaureate!

Congratulations! You are now the proud owner of an Associate's Degree in Psychology!

Comment Re:It should be obvious (Score 1) 342

Why a central bank would elevate economics to the status of awarding a Nobel prize is because they recognize just how valuable the field is to their work.

  Why a central bank would elevate economics to the status of awarding a Nobel prize is because they recognize just how valuable the field is to defrauding the general public.


Comment Re:It should be obvious (Score 1) 342

If you broaden your definition of science to include all fields of human investigation, sure.

Science is a method. When the only results of the method you can generate iare cloudy statistical results that may, or may not, apply to any specific instance you actually need to, or are trying to, understand, then you have not done anything useful or new, scientifically speaking.

On the other hand, if you can convince some moneyed party to part with same in following your cloudy statistical results, why then you do have something useful. This is the basis for every psychology shingle ever hung out, and every economic theory more meta than the math for interest and debt put on the table (which is really more simple math than economics anyway.) But you still have not done worthy science.

Comment Re:It should be obvious (Score 1) 342

Psychology is a science, although a fairly new one.

Yes? Freud or Erikson? Psychosocial or psychosexual or psychoanalytic? Or primal screaming? Regression therapy and "repressed memories"? Momma's skirts and "everything is sex"? Standardized personality tests that are based on mid 20th century, middle-American groups of minimal sample size?

The only thing really "scientific" about psychology is its misuse of statistics to apply a behavioral theory that has some statistical traction, to the individual who may not fall into that theory's particular use of metaphor.

Psychology must start from this basis: Knowing how the mind works. But the fact is, we don't know how the mind works.

Ergo, psychology is something else. IMHO, that something else is significantly more akin to religion (by which I mean formalized superstition) than it is to a science that actually produces worthwhile conclusions.

Let's review science in a nutshell: Idea, prediction, test, data, peer review resulting in reliable, consensual, repeatable results... or right back to drawing board, folks.

Now psychology: a veritable cornucopia of ideas, consequent prediction failures, massively disjoint results, outliers and exceptions everywhere, fad driven and reminiscent of nothing so much as a pendulum that with a colony of rabid, highly kinetic squirrels nesting on the pendulum.

Science? No. The word we use for this kind of nonsense is "bunkum."

Comment The relevant commentary (Score 4, Funny) 79

McCoy: It's dead, Jim.
Spock: Fascinating.
Scott: I cannae get ye any mor power!
Rand: [flashes legs, wiggles]
Uhura: Transmission lost, sir.
Chekov: It's a Russian invention.
Sulu: Captain, stay away from the controls! If you touch them, we'll be destroyed!
Kirk: There’s another way to survive (proceeds to write TekWar)

Comment Re:The country is too big (Score 1) 184

Why not? The Federal government violates the constitution every day.

People run over other people with cars every day. So why not do it yourself?

Could it be because it's a really bad idea, same as the proposition you are putting forth with your question?

Truly a conundrum for the ages. :)

Comment The meat of the matter (Score 3, Funny) 216

From TFS:

"If I can get on that stage and say the rocket can't get off the ground, and we have to change this dynamic first," the narrative shifts in a way that the leading candidates can't address.

Yes, that's precisely why he can't get on the stage. The entire circus is predicated on the illusion that the rocket can get off the ground. Circus de-bunkers are not, pretty much by definition, members of the circus.

Comment Re:Am I missing something? (Score 1) 81

Same as Amazon's Echo/Alexa.

Although I hope to heck it's smarter than "Alexa" is. The way Alexa deals with human language is... pitifully simplistic. The speech recognition itself is good, but from there on, it's a morass of completely naive "if THIS IS SPOKEN then DO THAT" statements. No smarts whatsoever.

IOW, if the recog is...

"turn on the lights" ...but the user says...

"turn on my lights" get nothing.

So you add it...

"turn on the lights"
"turn on my lights" ...but the user says...

"lights on, please" get nothing.

Developing an application is literally an exercise in guessing everything a user might say that is relevant to your thing, and then providing an appropriate response for that voice input. Anything you didn't "can" in advance won't work. There is no provision for any kind of actual understanding of what is being said, no grammar handling, no understanding of anything, really. It just matches speech-to-text input with canned phrases.

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis