Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We're happy to hear your stories. But, listen: maybe they should go on the fridge, instead of the front page of Slashdot. Ok, bud?
I didn't know Mom posted the "F" graded assigments on the fridge?
People here like to poke fun at the long posts by Bennett Hassleton. This one is actually pretty good.
He saw something, constructed an experiement using readily available resources, got statistically significant results (just about) and made an intereesting post detailing the methodology.
To my mind this is interesting in comparison to more formal academic studies as it shows that you can get reasonable results as a lone wolf with a limited budget and no research institution.
I like this post. Go Bennett.
He posted an ad hoc, anecdotal, unscientific "survey" and generated 101 responses and then claims credibility, and you commend him?!?! You must have been dropped on your head, too, then, yes?
Or, in car analogy terms:
If one guy tailgates you and then passes you on the right, he's an asshole.
If 50 people tailgate you and then pass you on the right, take a goddamn hint.
That's the first car analogy that I've seen actually not be fallacious posted to
A new report concludes that the use of eyewitness accounts need tighter control, and among its recommendations is a call for a more scientific approach to how eyewitnesses identify suspects during the classic police lineup.
The whole lineup process is usually rigged, and can easily be rigged to single out an individual from a pack of "suspects". The lineup is the problem as that tool can too easily be manipulated to garner eyewitness testimony from someone that only "thinks" that's the person they saw and is then coached to say they are "positive" that's the person they saw. And yes, I like the example noted above of "My Cousin Vinny". It's somewhat comically presented, but the fact is people have been wrongfully convicted from dubious "eyewitness testimony" for centuries! Forensic evidence has been helping to curtail these type of wrongful convictions, but sometimes long after the fact.
It's easy for him to bash the current Regime, especially that crack about pushing harder to keep troops in Iraq. They wanted us GONE. Hell, WE wanted us GONE.
Yep, and they conveniently leave out that W signed the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq in 2008 that got us out, including the time table for doing so.
Awful damned easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. Where was HE when the shit was getting ready to pile up?
Apparently, he was writing a book... because at no time during either of his positions under the Obama administration did I ever hear him say one word about "we must leave troops in Iraq" or anything even close to that. Maybe someone can find a quote or video for me, but this sounds a lot like pandering to a base constituency to buy his book given how popular Obama bashing is these days.
If you've done something to earn that much hate, maybe you ought to take a step back and re-evaluate your position.
Who says he earned it? Trolls and just plain socipathic and psychopathic people don't need reasons to hate. Reason rarely factors into their behavior at all. They hate someone because they have a different viewpoint, or they called a shitty piece of code (possibly written by one of these psychopaths) a shitty piece of code. And from his post I would say that he is definitely re-evaluating his position, much to the loss of the Open Source community.
"And that's all about this topic from me. I have no intentions to ever talk about this again on a public forum." -- LP
Spoken like a true Anonymous Coward. I find it hypocritical of you to throw stones and call someone else a coward while posting as an AC on
Likely means they miscalculated all the past prediction models as well. It works BOTH ways. It's called an "equation".
It's also called science, which some people want to nay say as it self corrects its assumptions based on new data. The whole point of scientific theories and models is that they change over time as new information is added. Why people go off on this as if it were proof that science is "wrong" is mind boggling. Even if it is "wrong" as of today, it wasn't wrong based on the information we had before today! New data changes the model and we get a more accurate answer.
A "might" "suggest" gets us no where until that is refined into something more definite.
Correct, which means nay saying is also dubious based on the results of one study. Most rational people, however, tend to err on the side of caution and not the side of apathy. More studies will follow as graduate students build on the previous research and add to the findings. This is how research works. Once a concensus is reached then scietific facts change to incorporate this new data. At that time, anyone is welcome to their dissent of the facts. They are also welcome to a unicorn, a lifetime subscription to Fox News and a flying pig.
No, 99% safe vaccine is not ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better that disease. It is not even better than disease itself. Will you get yourself vaccinated against AIDS if it has 1% of chance giving you AIDS in first place?
Vaccines are safe to 99.9999% or more. And you always have to put it into context. If Ebola will spread to billions, 99% safe vaccine might be acceptable. If AIDS is perfectly preventable in normal case, even 1:million safety might be not enough. But please be careful with 99% and 'orders of magnitude' in same sentence - there are not that many orders of magnitude in 1:100.
Except we're talking about billions of people, not one hundred, so yes, orders of magnitude and percentages do apply in context. Nice try. And yes, if AIDS had become a pandemic like Ebola threatens to become I would definitely take a 1% chance of getting AIDS if it meant that I would not get AIDS at all should the vaccine work. The bottom line on that is if I didn't get the vaccine the odds of contracting the disease could be much higher than 1% of six billion (and change). Some of us do have the capacity to work with numbers larger than 100, and do floating point math on those numbers in our heads, i.e., we're over the age of 12 years.