|
 |
US law has become so convoluted that even actual innocence is no defence. :/
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how among the many people involved no one said "Hey, this is wrong!".
|
|
|
|
|
However, I bet more than a couple said "Its not my fault".
|
|
|
|
|
|
And quite a few will have said "lessons have been learned". 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
That's despicable... if only we could require identification. 
|
|
|
|
|
Admittedly ICE got it wrong but the guy is a cocaine dealing black man and you expect fair treatment!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
It's odd that the timer starts when you are initially detained rather than released as it means you might not be in a state to act on it. That seems wrong  But on the other hand a man who came to the country not to be a productive member but to ruin it by becoming a drug dealer has been kept off the streets for a few years and isn't being given a huge payout. So it's swings and roundabouts really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That site seems to be gone. But if you want to see developers swearing, there's a Twitter bot for that[^]. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: That site seems to be gone
The one I linked to? Hm, both links (the main one and the open in new window) work for me. gitdrunk.com
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you really bringing this page back to Trump  
|
|
|
|
|
Did I mention Americas' finest brain drain? Noooo....
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
[^] (PDF)
Another example of science telling us what we already know...
|
|
|
|
|
This is low quality bait.
|
|
|
|
|
Someone's paid you to say that, haven't they? You can't fool me...
|
|
|
|
|
It is truly pathetic isn't it.
|
|
|
|
|
I am no fan of the Grauniad however psychology does have a reputation of being not the most scientific of sciences: Psychology experiments are failing the replication test – how is this surprising?[^]
One of the greatest scientists of our age: Richard Feynman on Pseudoscience - YouTube[^]
In no part of this paper did I find the word "blind" or more importantly "double-blind".
I don't know how their results can be taken seriously if they cannot state this in their paper.
"To develop a measure of pattern perception, we usedthe website https://www.random.org to create a ran-dom coin toss 100 times, with the only predeterminedrestriction being 50 Heads and 50 Tails (i.e., the ex-pected distribution in a random process)."
This is so poor that it pretty much discounts the writers as non-scientists as far as I am concerned. I ran a random test on the site quoted, selecting 1 or 2 for 100 iterations and got 55 1's and 45 2's.
In other words how can you test someone's beliefs in being able to predict outcomes when you have actually fixed the outcomes by as much as a 5% difference from a random outcome?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I expect the whole thing is just a conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
|
These are probably the same "scientists" that brought us "global warming".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Double blinding is only needed where the observer is making a subjective interpretation of data. That's irrelevant to this study. It's also obvious by reading it that it uses deception research which is implicitly blinded.
You also don't seem to get the point of the random distribution. A random distribution is EXPECTED to be 50 heads and tails but can obviously wander. Hell, in 100 flips, a 10 series of HHHHHHHHHH is an unlikely but possible sequence of random coin tosses. The point is that ALL of the sequences are randomly determined but conspiracy theorists are more likely than normies to see deterministic patterns where none exist when given the same sequence. That was also only one phase of the study, an admittedly weaker phase (because they admit that randomly determined sequences can look deterministic to anyone) but they triangulated the results with their other phases.
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
Sablerz wrote: Double blinding is only needed where the observer is making a subjective interpretation of data.
Double blinding is also needed when the experimenter knows whether the subject is in the control group or not or could possibly influence the outcome of the subjects responses.
I would say that knowing that there are 50 heads and 50 tails is enough of a problem in this case that the experimenter could most definitely influence the subject.
The paper doe not actually set out the details of the experiment which again for me is a huge fail - if they did not set out the exact details it is not possible to reproduce the experiment hence the paper should never have got past peer review.
I thin I get random distribution - random means that there is no pattern(Randomness - Wikipedia[^]). Yes there is a probability of 50/50 however probability does not dictate the results.
I ran a 100 coin toss experiment 10 million times on my pc. The smallest number of heads/tails in one of the 100 tosses was 25.
If I had more time I would like to run the experiment again and plot the distribution.
The point I am making is that if the baseline for an experiment, used to determine whether a pattern exists in a set of coin tosses, is not actually random as you have fixed the coin tosses you cannot then measure the subjects response as your baseline is not random but determined and what you may be measuring is the subjects ability to see a pattern where there is in fact a pattern.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Double blinding is also needed when the experimenter knows whether the subject is in the control group or not or could possibly influence the outcome of the subjects responses.
I would say that knowing that there are 50 heads and 50 tails is enough of a problem in this case that the experimenter could most definitely influence the subject.
How, exactly, is the experimenter going to influence the results when it's a web survey?!?!?
GuyThiebaut wrote:
The paper doe not actually set out the details of the experiment which again for me is a huge fail
Of course they do.
GuyThiebaut wrote:
I would say that knowing that there are 50 heads and 50 tails is enough of a problem in this case that the experimenter could most definitely influence the subject.
Except the subject doesn't know that, and the arrangement is randomly determined. Even if they know there are 50 heads and 50 tails exactly in the pool of 100, the question is "was this 10 part sequence randomly determined or not?"
GuyThiebaut wrote: and what you may be measuring is the subjects ability to see a pattern where there is in fact a pattern.
The point is that there is no pattern because the sequence was randomly determined.
GuyThiebaut wrote: s not actually random as you have fixed the coin tosses you cannot then measure the subjects response as your baseline is not random but determined and what you may be measuring is the subjects ability to see a pattern where there is in fact a pattern.
Edit: And, to reiterate, the experiment is not looking for absolute results of "was this randomly determined." The experiment is looking for, and found a correlation, between the likelihood of declaring a sequence nonrandom and belief in conspiracy theories.
modified 28 mins ago.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
