Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Ink? Nope. (Score 1) 76

by denzacar (#47521057) Attached to: Researchers Print Electronic Memory On Paper

Totally creepy and wasteful, I couldn't believe it.

Marketing usually is.

On the other hand... People love their singing boxes.
And you got to admit - it got you talking about it.

Just like the talking packaging of the future will talk to you. Hey! People love when Siri does it!
Just think of the joy of THAT from every shelve.

And of people greeting their detergents and talking to them on their way to register.

User Journal

Journal: Mars, Ho! Chapter Thirty Four

Journal by mcgrew

Engine
An alarm woke me up at quarter to seven and for once I didn't mind a bit, and in fact I was glad it woke me up. I was in the middle of a really weird dream. A herd of cows was stampeding towards me, only they were running on their hind legs and somehow carrying big butcher knives in their front hooves, all singing a Chartov song while coming at me. Too many westerns, I guess.
It was engine seventeen, somethin

Comment: Ink? Nope. (Score 4, Funny) 76

by denzacar (#47516685) Attached to: Researchers Print Electronic Memory On Paper

because ... ink cartridges! ;-)

Think milk cartons. That sing joyful tunes and jingles when you open your fridge.

Packaging that remembers you - wherever you are.
Which will give you your very own personal discount cause it knows that your milk carton at home is only just opened, but it knows from your profile that you like a bargain.

Products will express you when you buy them, and sadness when you don't.
They will be your friends. They will know your favorite things.
They will love you like you were never loved by anyone else.
Your dog will be jealous. Your cat will try to kill them.

Comment: Re:Pft (Score 1) 867

by denzacar (#47514219) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

Actually, that sounds EXACTLY like an internet tough guy, hiding behind perceived immunity of the internet, throwing threats and insults.

To which one should respond in kind and/or worse, ignore them, report them to the admins/authority, post a video of themselves shooting at a target or post an address of one's lawyer.
Sure... all those responses require some action and further responsibility for those actions, but so does any other way or form of protecting one's existence or rights.

I mean... Police can't be watching only one person all the time, checking if someone has made any threats or tried to hurt them.
It's very hard to do that for people who are heads of states.
SOME action (and responsibility for those actions) on one's part IS required.

Comment: Re:Pft (Score 1) 867

by denzacar (#47514165) Attached to: The Daily Harassment of Women In the Game Industry

Yes. Lets ask children if they want to be treated like adults, and trust them to act like adults if they answer in the affirmative.

Actually, there's nothing wrong with that idea.
I've known 17-year-old "children" who were more "adult" than some 40-50-year-old adults I knew at the time.

And we DO practice it.
Only, it's mostly archaic, traditional and uni-directional OR it is a matter arising from legal dispute.
Instead of being something like a social and legal contract that you can both accept and sign and be treated by the society as an adult.
And have those rights taken away or suspended without going through something like being sent to jail.

I'm guessing that the problem is that we'd need some kind of a test... and it's no longer enough just to be able to kill a buffalo or read from a book.
So... we just keep assuming that eventually all people simply become adults on their 18th birthday or whenever.

Comment: Re:It's BIAS, stupid. (Score 1) 599

by denzacar (#47512285) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

I assume you have never had an Intro to Stats class. If you have, you didn't deserve to pass it. I suggest you look up a difference between two means test and categorical variables in regression.

I'm assuming here that you misunderstood this part. Though you quoted the entire post. Slashdot Beta?

Also, East-West bias can be noted in the stats measured and stats assumed.
No regression calculation was reported for West German family, while t-test values were always fixed (i.e. assumed) for East Germans and always calculated for West Germans.
And there's that thing of "East German family background" being marked with a 0 and "West German family background" being marked with a 1.
Someone seems to like West Germans better.

I am not talking about a single issue nor am I conflating their t-tests with their probit regressions.
I'm talking about several separate cases in the survey and in the paper where the language and variables used indicate either a pro-West or anti-East bias.
Which is basically code for "NOT-socialist" in this case, as seen below.

By the end of the paper they simply decide that doing calculations for "West German family" variable isn't needed.
"Meh, we found nothing there.
But look! We got this one point in a very small cherry picked sample that PROVES East Germans are cheaters!"

Nor am I misunderstanding surveying for dichotomous, binary, values.
I'm pointing out that the way the values are set up (i.e. a West German family which is a positive 1 and a NOT West German family - a 0) indicates a pro-West bias.
Which alone, doesn't mean much. But when you take in account the the rest of the paper...

Stuff like this:

As an interaction
term of age and family background is not informative in a non-linear model like Probit
we decided to investigate the exposure to socialism by
examining these distinct age cohorts separately.5 In line with the theory that exposure to
socialism impacts dishonesty, differences in cheating are greater in older cohorts. While East
German subjects born after socialism are 19 percent more likely to report the high side of the
die than their West German counterparts, subjects who lived less than 10 years in socialism
were 28 percent more likely, and subjects who lived for 20 years or more in socialism are 65
percent more likely.

I.e. "Because we can't find any proof for our original hypothesis, here's another cherry picked proof for an unrelated hypothesis - never mind the ignoratio elenchi taking place.
Wasn't it obvious we were gunning for a "proof" that socialism promotes cheating and not that a more general definition of East or West German family heritage does?
Why not just jump on another hypothesis as if we were proving that all the time, cause we can't find enough data to back up our claims for the original hypothesis? How about that?"

They had to get the sample down to 41 people (from a sample of 110, from a population of 259 - note how they only had 90 East Germans a table ago) in order to get ANY significant result regarding the age - cause that's what they are proving now.
Literally, that's the ONLY SIGNIFICANT RESULT IN THEIR ENTIRE REGRESSION CALCULATION.
That AGE of the subject matters and NOT his/her family heritage they've been talking about the whole time.

AND there is NO (zero, zip, nada, keine...) data presented for West Germans in that same period.
Apparently, there were no West Germans in 1970s but there were at least 41 East Germans.

That's cherry picking and replacing of the original argument with a different one, which though it sounds similar is ultimately irrelevant to the original hypothesis.

Plus they are misrepresenting results for other marginal effects of their probit regression - quoting them THOUGH they are not statistically significant for the p-value they've set up.
The link to the paper is in the summary. Go look it up.

User Journal

Journal: Morgan Freeman on Mars

Journal by mcgrew

As I was going through Google News this morning I ran across an item about actor Morgan Freeman talking to a couple of astronauts on the ISS at a round table discussion at JPL before an audience of what looked like two or three hundred people, all of whom were JPL employees.

He was there with the producer of his show on the Science Channel Through the Wormhole and with its writer, a physicist.

Comment: It's BIAS, stupid. (Score 4, Insightful) 599

by denzacar (#47506505) Attached to: Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More

But thanks for showing it.

Study was done on 259 Germans.
Out of which "90 subjects reported having an East German family background and 98 subjects having a West German family background."

Too small a sample size to be of any use? Indeed.
They are way out in the "our numbers mean diddly-squat" territory, as their margins of error are 7.82% (WGFB) and 8.36% (EGFB).
http://www.raosoft.com/samples...

I.e. when they report 9% and 19% average cheating that's actually 9 +/- 7.82% and 19 +/- 8.36%.
It could just as well be that WGFB are cheating 16% of the time while EGFB are cheating only 11% of the time.
Oh damn! Now it means that "because democracy, stupid", levels of interpersonal trust are lowered in the west.

Also...
They all rolled the dice only 40 times. A fair dice should give an average mean of 3.5.
They report average mean for "East German family background" (90 people) to be 3.83.
For "West German family background" (98 people) they report an average mean of 3.68.
But when you sample those same Germans whether they CONSIDER THEMSELVES East, West or just Germans - simply Germans (141 people) have an average mean of 3.70 while East/West Germans (73 people) have an average of 3.83.

Note how, smaller the sample the more extreme the result gets? That's because the overall sample size is too small.
A couple of people misreporting the results could be throwing the whole thing off.
AND they have a really strange sample of "German family heritage" (37 people), whatever that should mean as East-West was set as a 0-1 choice, who are practically not cheating at all, giving the average of 3.57.
While "others" (i.e. immigrants) cheat the most. 3.85. And yes, they are the smallest sample of only 30 people.

On the other hand... the incentive to cheat was simply not there.
At best, rolling a 6 all the time (i.e. cheating 100%), they'd get 6 Euros in the end. A cup of coffee costs about 4.2 Euros.
So people were supposedly cheating in order to get between 0.07 and 0.35 Euros?

After agreeing to participate, each subject received an envelope with six single 1 EUR coins,
the maximal possible payout on the die task we used to measure cheating. Subjects were then
asked to throw a physical die 40 times.

  ...
 
The payout that subjects ultimately received was determined by selecting one of their
rolls at random, by having the experimenter draw a number from 1 to 40 out of an envelope.
Subjects earned 1 EUR for each dot on this particular roll. If subjects were completely honest,
they would be expected to report deciding on the high side of the die in 50 percent of cases,
and the expected value of the average payout would be 3.50 EUR.

But there was plenty room for false positives as they used physical dice they ASSUMED were fair.
When IRL a dice shorter by 3% on one side gives 6% more results on that side.
And low quality, toy store bought, dice are even worse.

Also, East-West bias can be noted in the stats measured and stats assumed.
No regression calculation was reported for West German family, while t-test values were always fixed (i.e. assumed) for East Germans and always calculated for West Germans.
And there's that thing of "East German family background" being marked with a 0 and "West German family background" being marked with a 1.
Someone seems to like West Germans better.

Science

Experiment Shows People Exposed To East German Socialism Cheat More 599

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the roll-high-or-be-sent-to-siberia dept.
An anonymous reader writes The Economist reports, "'UNDER capitalism', ran the old Soviet-era joke, 'man exploits man. Under communism it is just the opposite.' In fact new research suggests that the Soviet system inspired not just sarcasm but cheating too: in East Germany, at least, communism appears to have inculcated moral laxity. Lars Hornuf of the University of Munich and Dan Ariely, Ximena García-Rada and Heather Mann of Duke University ran an experiment last year to test Germans' willingness to lie for personal gain. Some 250 Berliners were randomly selected to take part in a game where they could win up to €6 ($8). ... The authors found that, on average, those who had East German roots cheated twice as much as those who had grown up in West Germany under capitalism. They also looked at how much time people had spent in East Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The longer the participants had been exposed to socialism, the greater the likelihood that they would claim improbable numbers ... when it comes to ethics, a capitalist upbringing appears to trump a socialist one."

"Help Mr. Wizard!" -- Tennessee Tuxedo

Working...