Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Unless (Score 1) 300

If you want to limit it to just the Holocaust, then Goebbels was guilty of (at least) being a co-conspirator in the deaths of 12 million people. This includes 6 million Jews and 6 million other people (political prisoners, gypsies, etc.).

No, it usually does not. The typical definition of "Holocaust" is the genocide of 6 million Jews. Screw the other 5M+ people. They weren't chosen by god, and were just Gypsies or homos.
Ask people about the Nazi genocide. Almost nobody knows/mentions the other half of the victims.

Comment: p-value research is misleading almost always (Score 5, Interesting) 208

by SteveWoz (#49495363) Attached to: Social Science Journal 'Bans' Use of p-values

I studied and tutored experimental design and this use of inferential statistics. I even came up with a formula for 1/5 the calculator keystrokes when learning to calculate the p-value manually. Take the standard deviation and mean for each group, then calculate the standard deviation of these means (how different the groups are) divided by the mean of these standard deviations (how wide the groups of data are) and multiply by the square root of n (sample size for each group). But that's off the point. We had 5 papers in our class for psychology majors (I almost graduated in that instead of engineering) that discussed why controlled experiments (using the p-value) should not be published. In each case my knee-jerk reaction was that they didn't like math or didn't understand math and just wanted to 'suppose' answers. But each article attacked the math abuse, by proficient academics at universities who did this sort of research. I came around too. The math is established for random environments but the scientists control every bit of the environment, not to get better results but to detect thing so tiny that they really don't matter. The math lets them misuse the word 'significant' as though there is a strong connection between cause and effect. Yet every environmental restriction (same living arrangements, same diets, same genetic strain of rats, etc) invalidates the result. It's called intrinsic validity (finding it in the experiment) vs. extrinsic validity (applying in real life). You can also find things that are weaker (by the square root of n) by using larger groups. A study can be set up in a way so as to likely find 'something' tiny and get the research prestige, but another study can be set up with different controls that turn out an opposite result. And none apply to real life like reading the results of an entire population living normal lives. You have to study and think quite a while, as I did (even walking the streets around Berkeley to find books on the subject up to 40 years prior) to see that the words "99 percentage significance level" means not a strong effect but more likely one that is so tiny, maybe a part in a million, that you'd never see it in real life.

Comment: Re:The real extinction (Score 1) 93

by BlackPignouf (#49492253) Attached to: Newly Discovered Sixth Extinction Rivals That of the Dinosaurs

You know, much similar to the end of the world, or global warming will cause the earth to have no ice caps by 2000(said in early 70s and again in the 90s), or the arctic ocean will be free of ice by 2010(early 80s), or New York City will be like Ft. Lauderdale by 1995(said in late 60s).

Yeah, and smoking is supposedly bad for my health. I smoke 20 cigarettes/day, and I didn't die neither yesterday nor today.

Comment: Re:Which is it? Very different cases. (Score 1) 143

Things are always changing an environmentally we (meaning the Earth) are a LOT better off now than we were back in the 60s/70s for example. Especially when the Soviets were in their heyday they were absolutely a massive force for destruction we probably will not see the like of again. The stuff going on these days is really pretty minimal in comparison, which is why some eco-groups try to drum up fear, because they care more about maintaining funding than they do the environment.

Citation needed.
"The stuff going on these days" include global warming and peak oil. They're far from being "pretty minimal", and I'd even argue that mankind never faced bigger challenges.

You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 10^12 to 1. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...