<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_09_2154224</id>
	<title>Why Programmers Need To Learn Statistics</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263036960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://newstechnica.com/" rel="nofollow">David Gerard</a> writes <i>"Zed Shaw writes an impassioned plea to programmers: <a href="http://zedshaw.com/essays/programmer\_stats.html">Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them All</a>. Quoting: 'I go insane when I hear programmers talking about statistics like they know s*** when it's clearly obvious they do not. I've been studying it for years and years and still don't think I know anything. ... I have taken a bunch of math classes, studied statistics in grad school, learned the R language, and read tons of books on the subject. Despite all of this I'm not at all confident in my understanding of such a vast topic. What I can do is apply the techniques to common problems I encounter at work. My favorite problem to attack with the statistics wolverine is performance measurement and tuning. All of this leads to a curse since none of my colleagues have any clue about what they don't understand. I'll propose a measurement technique and they'll scoff at it. I try to show them how to properly graph a run chart and they're indignant. I question their metrics and they try to back it up with lame attempts at statistical reasoning. I really can't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Gerard writes " Zed Shaw writes an impassioned plea to programmers : Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them All .
Quoting : 'I go insane when I hear programmers talking about statistics like they know s * * * when it 's clearly obvious they do not .
I 've been studying it for years and years and still do n't think I know anything .
... I have taken a bunch of math classes , studied statistics in grad school , learned the R language , and read tons of books on the subject .
Despite all of this I 'm not at all confident in my understanding of such a vast topic .
What I can do is apply the techniques to common problems I encounter at work .
My favorite problem to attack with the statistics wolverine is performance measurement and tuning .
All of this leads to a curse since none of my colleagues have any clue about what they do n't understand .
I 'll propose a measurement technique and they 'll scoff at it .
I try to show them how to properly graph a run chart and they 're indignant .
I question their metrics and they try to back it up with lame attempts at statistical reasoning .
I really ca n't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Gerard writes "Zed Shaw writes an impassioned plea to programmers: Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them All.
Quoting: 'I go insane when I hear programmers talking about statistics like they know s*** when it's clearly obvious they do not.
I've been studying it for years and years and still don't think I know anything.
... I have taken a bunch of math classes, studied statistics in grad school, learned the R language, and read tons of books on the subject.
Despite all of this I'm not at all confident in my understanding of such a vast topic.
What I can do is apply the techniques to common problems I encounter at work.
My favorite problem to attack with the statistics wolverine is performance measurement and tuning.
All of this leads to a curse since none of my colleagues have any clue about what they don't understand.
I'll propose a measurement technique and they'll scoff at it.
I try to show them how to properly graph a run chart and they're indignant.
I question their metrics and they try to back it up with lame attempts at statistical reasoning.
I really can't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710652</id>
	<title>shut the fuck up you homo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>go suck some dick.  Us heteros have shit to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>go suck some dick .
Us heteros have shit to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>go suck some dick.
Us heteros have shit to do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712688</id>
	<title>Re:The funny thing is he's doing exactly the same</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263060840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's expressing the futility of communicating the importance of something that is generally disrespected, he feels disrespected and therefore disrespectful. Theo De Raadt probably went through the same thing, advocating an item of great importance that is too often overlooked. I get that way right here on Slashdot when I get mod-bombed. I start swearing, it almost doesn't even matter to me if people quit listening so long as I keep banging away at the communication problem. Irritating, non-senseical, sure, but that's human nature. I disagree with his threat of violence or Theo's threats of hackery but whatever. The short definition is that we are fools that believe we can change the world if we work on a problem long enough and preach the word. You're basically saying he's wrong because of the way he's communicating, you're right, but this is the practical application of a rather obvious logical fallacy. Anyways, once he swallows his angst, he probably will affect the change he is looking for. The misanthropy, calls attention to his every single communication issue and elicits feedback and attention he wouldn't otherwise recieve. Sometimes, people throw a fit, because the problem is more important than the pride of their peers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's expressing the futility of communicating the importance of something that is generally disrespected , he feels disrespected and therefore disrespectful .
Theo De Raadt probably went through the same thing , advocating an item of great importance that is too often overlooked .
I get that way right here on Slashdot when I get mod-bombed .
I start swearing , it almost does n't even matter to me if people quit listening so long as I keep banging away at the communication problem .
Irritating , non-senseical , sure , but that 's human nature .
I disagree with his threat of violence or Theo 's threats of hackery but whatever .
The short definition is that we are fools that believe we can change the world if we work on a problem long enough and preach the word .
You 're basically saying he 's wrong because of the way he 's communicating , you 're right , but this is the practical application of a rather obvious logical fallacy .
Anyways , once he swallows his angst , he probably will affect the change he is looking for .
The misanthropy , calls attention to his every single communication issue and elicits feedback and attention he would n't otherwise recieve .
Sometimes , people throw a fit , because the problem is more important than the pride of their peers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's expressing the futility of communicating the importance of something that is generally disrespected, he feels disrespected and therefore disrespectful.
Theo De Raadt probably went through the same thing, advocating an item of great importance that is too often overlooked.
I get that way right here on Slashdot when I get mod-bombed.
I start swearing, it almost doesn't even matter to me if people quit listening so long as I keep banging away at the communication problem.
Irritating, non-senseical, sure, but that's human nature.
I disagree with his threat of violence or Theo's threats of hackery but whatever.
The short definition is that we are fools that believe we can change the world if we work on a problem long enough and preach the word.
You're basically saying he's wrong because of the way he's communicating, you're right, but this is the practical application of a rather obvious logical fallacy.
Anyways, once he swallows his angst, he probably will affect the change he is looking for.
The misanthropy, calls attention to his every single communication issue and elicits feedback and attention he wouldn't otherwise recieve.
Sometimes, people throw a fit, because the problem is more important than the pride of their peers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714332</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>jozmala</author>
	<datestamp>1263136560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>statistics is EASY atleast in university.</p><p>Just look dozen of previous exams<br>spend one hour with someone who really knows their math to solve some of the problems.<br>Go to exam.<br>Repeat until passed.</p><p>Sometimes statistical analysis gives you enough exact questions that are coming in next exam.<br>
&nbsp; If it doesn't then you can continue collecting more data, until you get it right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>And it doesn't even matter if its the anomalous data point the time when you pass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>statistics is EASY atleast in university.Just look dozen of previous examsspend one hour with someone who really knows their math to solve some of the problems.Go to exam.Repeat until passed.Sometimes statistical analysis gives you enough exact questions that are coming in next exam .
  If it does n't then you can continue collecting more data , until you get it right ; ) And it does n't even matter if its the anomalous data point the time when you pass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>statistics is EASY atleast in university.Just look dozen of previous examsspend one hour with someone who really knows their math to solve some of the problems.Go to exam.Repeat until passed.Sometimes statistical analysis gives you enough exact questions that are coming in next exam.
  If it doesn't then you can continue collecting more data, until you get it right ;)And it doesn't even matter if its the anomalous data point the time when you pass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713138</id>
	<title>Re:93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1263154380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You naysayers made me check my answer on the interweb. I'm right. Which is kinda funny: your horrified reactions... apply to yourselves<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You naysayers made me check my answer on the interweb .
I 'm right .
Which is kinda funny : your horrified reactions... apply to yourselves : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You naysayers made me check my answer on the interweb.
I'm right.
Which is kinda funny: your horrified reactions... apply to yourselves :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713984</id>
	<title>Re:Summarized for people who don't want to read Ze</title>
	<author>janwedekind</author>
	<datestamp>1263130320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>What will you do if the 1000 tests takes 10 hours?</p></div><p>Either ctrl+c, or try it 10 times.</p></div><p>Why 10 times? Maybe 5 times is enough or at least 20 times is required?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It doesn't have to be statistically accurate. It just has to be close enough.</p></div><p>How do you know that you are close enough?</p><p>One can do a benchmark a couple of times to see whether the results are more or less the same. A more sophisticated approach is to measure the standard deviation as well. However there are situations where accuracy is critical. In that case one makes a distribution assumption (e.g. Normal distribution) and then a statistical estimator is used to give a confidence interval for the estimated parameter. I.e. the confidence that the parameter will be within that interval is 95\%.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will you do if the 1000 tests takes 10 hours ? Either ctrl + c , or try it 10 times.Why 10 times ?
Maybe 5 times is enough or at least 20 times is required ? It does n't have to be statistically accurate .
It just has to be close enough.How do you know that you are close enough ? One can do a benchmark a couple of times to see whether the results are more or less the same .
A more sophisticated approach is to measure the standard deviation as well .
However there are situations where accuracy is critical .
In that case one makes a distribution assumption ( e.g .
Normal distribution ) and then a statistical estimator is used to give a confidence interval for the estimated parameter .
I.e. the confidence that the parameter will be within that interval is 95 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will you do if the 1000 tests takes 10 hours?Either ctrl+c, or try it 10 times.Why 10 times?
Maybe 5 times is enough or at least 20 times is required?It doesn't have to be statistically accurate.
It just has to be close enough.How do you know that you are close enough?One can do a benchmark a couple of times to see whether the results are more or less the same.
A more sophisticated approach is to measure the standard deviation as well.
However there are situations where accuracy is critical.
In that case one makes a distribution assumption (e.g.
Normal distribution) and then a statistical estimator is used to give a confidence interval for the estimated parameter.
I.e. the confidence that the parameter will be within that interval is 95\%.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710884</id>
	<title>Maybe you suck?</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1263043080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, studying stuff in college for years doesn't make you smart.  Maybe these are clever, practical people, and you're just not a good communicator?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , studying stuff in college for years does n't make you smart .
Maybe these are clever , practical people , and you 're just not a good communicator ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, studying stuff in college for years doesn't make you smart.
Maybe these are clever, practical people, and you're just not a good communicator?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712784</id>
	<title>Re:93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>genner</author>
	<datestamp>1263062340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone knows that 98.2\% of all statistics are made up on the spot.</p></div><p>Duh, 74.2\% of all people already know that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that 98.2 \ % of all statistics are made up on the spot.Duh , 74.2 \ % of all people already know that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that 98.2\% of all statistics are made up on the spot.Duh, 74.2\% of all people already know that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710870</id>
	<title>Gift them a MANGA Guide</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is somewhat tangential to the discussion but I recommend the<br>MANGA GUIDE TO STATISTICS<br>http://www.amazon.com/Manga-Guide-Statistics-Shin-Takahashi/dp/1593271891</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is somewhat tangential to the discussion but I recommend theMANGA GUIDE TO STATISTICShttp : //www.amazon.com/Manga-Guide-Statistics-Shin-Takahashi/dp/1593271891</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is somewhat tangential to the discussion but I recommend theMANGA GUIDE TO STATISTICShttp://www.amazon.com/Manga-Guide-Statistics-Shin-Takahashi/dp/1593271891</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710706</id>
	<title>bloggers need to learn to write or ...</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1263041640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... something inside me wants to flame him for being a rude twat who wasted 1 minute of my lifetime, even though he has some valid points. I'd be surprised if he didn't get some responses along the lines of "cry me a river" etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... something inside me wants to flame him for being a rude twat who wasted 1 minute of my lifetime , even though he has some valid points .
I 'd be surprised if he did n't get some responses along the lines of " cry me a river " etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... something inside me wants to flame him for being a rude twat who wasted 1 minute of my lifetime, even though he has some valid points.
I'd be surprised if he didn't get some responses along the lines of "cry me a river" etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713446</id>
	<title>4 out of 5 programmers said: Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a probable fact, that in casual conversations, 48.35\% of all statistics are made up on the spot.  However, if the person talking is a politician, the number rises to 94.7\%.  If its a politician trying to get elected, 100\%, 19 times out of 20.  SO THERE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a probable fact , that in casual conversations , 48.35 \ % of all statistics are made up on the spot .
However , if the person talking is a politician , the number rises to 94.7 \ % .
If its a politician trying to get elected , 100 \ % , 19 times out of 20 .
SO THERE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a probable fact, that in casual conversations, 48.35\% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
However, if the person talking is a politician, the number rises to 94.7\%.
If its a politician trying to get elected, 100\%, 19 times out of 20.
SO THERE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710684</id>
	<title>For actual arguments...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as opposed to strawmen and insults, scroll to the power of ten syndrome heading on the linked page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as opposed to strawmen and insults , scroll to the power of ten syndrome heading on the linked page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as opposed to strawmen and insults, scroll to the power of ten syndrome heading on the linked page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713744</id>
	<title>Opposite problem here</title>
	<author>Kludge</author>
	<datestamp>1263124740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I question their metrics and they try to back it up with lame attempts at statistical reasoning. I really can't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation.</p> </div><p>I work with a number of statisticians and I have the opposite problem.  They look at the data, apply mathematical transforms to it, and come to a conclusion, whether that conclusion makes any sense or not.  They make little attempt to reason that the data may flawed (which experiments often are), or does not really represent what we are trying to measure, or they are using the wrong statistic to summarize the effect.  It is very frustrating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I question their metrics and they try to back it up with lame attempts at statistical reasoning .
I really ca n't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation .
I work with a number of statisticians and I have the opposite problem .
They look at the data , apply mathematical transforms to it , and come to a conclusion , whether that conclusion makes any sense or not .
They make little attempt to reason that the data may flawed ( which experiments often are ) , or does not really represent what we are trying to measure , or they are using the wrong statistic to summarize the effect .
It is very frustrating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I question their metrics and they try to back it up with lame attempts at statistical reasoning.
I really can't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation.
I work with a number of statisticians and I have the opposite problem.
They look at the data, apply mathematical transforms to it, and come to a conclusion, whether that conclusion makes any sense or not.
They make little attempt to reason that the data may flawed (which experiments often are), or does not really represent what we are trying to measure, or they are using the wrong statistic to summarize the effect.
It is very frustrating.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712352</id>
	<title>Statistics is more than probability...</title>
	<author>dylannika</author>
	<datestamp>1263055860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I've read, most of the responders here seem to have a poor grasp of what the field of statistics encompasses. Statistics is not just probability (in the form of flip a coin, choose a door, and poker hands), but can also be used to effectively design an experiment, and reduce the variation in a production line among other things.

Personally, I find statistics to be rewarding field of study and that it is easily applicable in the real world. Just don't tell that to my classmates who stare at me as if I have sprouted extra appendages when I tell them I am not graduating with them because I'm extending my engineering degree with an option in statistics...</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've read , most of the responders here seem to have a poor grasp of what the field of statistics encompasses .
Statistics is not just probability ( in the form of flip a coin , choose a door , and poker hands ) , but can also be used to effectively design an experiment , and reduce the variation in a production line among other things .
Personally , I find statistics to be rewarding field of study and that it is easily applicable in the real world .
Just do n't tell that to my classmates who stare at me as if I have sprouted extra appendages when I tell them I am not graduating with them because I 'm extending my engineering degree with an option in statistics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've read, most of the responders here seem to have a poor grasp of what the field of statistics encompasses.
Statistics is not just probability (in the form of flip a coin, choose a door, and poker hands), but can also be used to effectively design an experiment, and reduce the variation in a production line among other things.
Personally, I find statistics to be rewarding field of study and that it is easily applicable in the real world.
Just don't tell that to my classmates who stare at me as if I have sprouted extra appendages when I tell them I am not graduating with them because I'm extending my engineering degree with an option in statistics...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711698</id>
	<title>Re:sounds impossible to please?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263049380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue is that the OP has a more realistic evaluation of his skills in the field.  Its fine for a programmer to say "I'm not too good with statistics, could some one give me some advise?"  Its not fine to say "I'm good at stats, I don't need your help" IF you're wrong.  Going further, its even worse if you overestimate your abilities and then ignore good advice, or offer bad advice as a result.</p><p>At a minimum a lesson is that its fine to ask for help.  You impress people more with timely, working results than with a hacked together system because a bad understanding of the problem resulted in a lot of last minute changes when things didn't work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is that the OP has a more realistic evaluation of his skills in the field .
Its fine for a programmer to say " I 'm not too good with statistics , could some one give me some advise ?
" Its not fine to say " I 'm good at stats , I do n't need your help " IF you 're wrong .
Going further , its even worse if you overestimate your abilities and then ignore good advice , or offer bad advice as a result.At a minimum a lesson is that its fine to ask for help .
You impress people more with timely , working results than with a hacked together system because a bad understanding of the problem resulted in a lot of last minute changes when things did n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is that the OP has a more realistic evaluation of his skills in the field.
Its fine for a programmer to say "I'm not too good with statistics, could some one give me some advise?
"  Its not fine to say "I'm good at stats, I don't need your help" IF you're wrong.
Going further, its even worse if you overestimate your abilities and then ignore good advice, or offer bad advice as a result.At a minimum a lesson is that its fine to ask for help.
You impress people more with timely, working results than with a hacked together system because a bad understanding of the problem resulted in a lot of last minute changes when things didn't work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712122</id>
	<title>Re:Or, how about...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263053040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about "Everyone needs to learn everything or I will nuke the fucking planet"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " Everyone needs to learn everything or I will nuke the fucking planet "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about "Everyone needs to learn everything or I will nuke the fucking planet"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710914</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1263043380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't have much trouble with statistics in college after having studied physics the year before in high school, and firmly formulas are being taught because they've been proven true, so you just need to remember the steps to get something done, and the numbers were just filling in the variables. More numbers involved, but still there's formulas.</p><p>I had such an easy time with the course, and had trouble hiding that, that I would regularly be visited by students asking for help on Sunday on the homework that I had completed after class on Friday. Doing the homework within minutes of it being taught helped greatly. It led me to be totally free of work over the weekend while others put it off, and some waiting for me to return from my hometown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't have much trouble with statistics in college after having studied physics the year before in high school , and firmly formulas are being taught because they 've been proven true , so you just need to remember the steps to get something done , and the numbers were just filling in the variables .
More numbers involved , but still there 's formulas.I had such an easy time with the course , and had trouble hiding that , that I would regularly be visited by students asking for help on Sunday on the homework that I had completed after class on Friday .
Doing the homework within minutes of it being taught helped greatly .
It led me to be totally free of work over the weekend while others put it off , and some waiting for me to return from my hometown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't have much trouble with statistics in college after having studied physics the year before in high school, and firmly formulas are being taught because they've been proven true, so you just need to remember the steps to get something done, and the numbers were just filling in the variables.
More numbers involved, but still there's formulas.I had such an easy time with the course, and had trouble hiding that, that I would regularly be visited by students asking for help on Sunday on the homework that I had completed after class on Friday.
Doing the homework within minutes of it being taught helped greatly.
It led me to be totally free of work over the weekend while others put it off, and some waiting for me to return from my hometown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711014</id>
	<title>I tha nk 7ou for your time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263044160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Geulogies to NBSD's</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Geulogies to NBSD 's [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geulogies to NBSD's [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694</id>
	<title>Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Statistics is HARD, for two reasons:<br><br>(a) Probability theory, on which all practical Statistics is based it both (i) counter-intuitive and (ii) difficult<br><br>(b) The very Mathematics on which it is based is obscure<br><br>And, worst of all, it is uniformly badly taught, even in good universities, and the Statistics for XXX are uniformly awful, blind leading the blind.<br><br>Lastly it is very hard to get a staight answer from a mathematical Statistician.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Statistics is HARD , for two reasons : ( a ) Probability theory , on which all practical Statistics is based it both ( i ) counter-intuitive and ( ii ) difficult ( b ) The very Mathematics on which it is based is obscureAnd , worst of all , it is uniformly badly taught , even in good universities , and the Statistics for XXX are uniformly awful , blind leading the blind.Lastly it is very hard to get a staight answer from a mathematical Statistician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statistics is HARD, for two reasons:(a) Probability theory, on which all practical Statistics is based it both (i) counter-intuitive and (ii) difficult(b) The very Mathematics on which it is based is obscureAnd, worst of all, it is uniformly badly taught, even in good universities, and the Statistics for XXX are uniformly awful, blind leading the blind.Lastly it is very hard to get a staight answer from a mathematical Statistician.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30715136</id>
	<title>Re:Statistical analysis of the summary</title>
	<author>WaZiX</author>
	<datestamp>1263146160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's see, we have one guy complaining about how none of his programmer coworkers understand statistics, and we have X coworkers who undoubtedly disagree with him.  Since we do not know him or any of his colleagues to any meaningful degree, we have to assign equal weight to each of their opinions.  Statistics then tells us there is a 1/(X+1) chance of his being right, and an X/(X+1) chance of their being right.  We can assume that X &gt;= 2 based on his ranting, therefore resulting in the odds favoring them by at least 2/3, and probably much more.  Therefore it is only rational to assume they are correct.</p></div><p>Euh no... The Variable (Zed being right or not) is not stochastic. The "probability" of him being right is either 1 or 0.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , we have one guy complaining about how none of his programmer coworkers understand statistics , and we have X coworkers who undoubtedly disagree with him .
Since we do not know him or any of his colleagues to any meaningful degree , we have to assign equal weight to each of their opinions .
Statistics then tells us there is a 1/ ( X + 1 ) chance of his being right , and an X/ ( X + 1 ) chance of their being right .
We can assume that X &gt; = 2 based on his ranting , therefore resulting in the odds favoring them by at least 2/3 , and probably much more .
Therefore it is only rational to assume they are correct.Euh no... The Variable ( Zed being right or not ) is not stochastic .
The " probability " of him being right is either 1 or 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, we have one guy complaining about how none of his programmer coworkers understand statistics, and we have X coworkers who undoubtedly disagree with him.
Since we do not know him or any of his colleagues to any meaningful degree, we have to assign equal weight to each of their opinions.
Statistics then tells us there is a 1/(X+1) chance of his being right, and an X/(X+1) chance of their being right.
We can assume that X &gt;= 2 based on his ranting, therefore resulting in the odds favoring them by at least 2/3, and probably much more.
Therefore it is only rational to assume they are correct.Euh no... The Variable (Zed being right or not) is not stochastic.
The "probability" of him being right is either 1 or 0.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711340</id>
	<title>Statisticians are like designers...</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1263046800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Statisticians are like designers....they should stick to designing(or statistics as it were).
<br> <br>IE do what they are good at. At my work we hand off these parts as modules. Designers push back a form design. The statistician pushes back some algorithms writen in a high level language.
I really do treat them like library calls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Statisticians are like designers....they should stick to designing ( or statistics as it were ) .
IE do what they are good at .
At my work we hand off these parts as modules .
Designers push back a form design .
The statistician pushes back some algorithms writen in a high level language .
I really do treat them like library calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statisticians are like designers....they should stick to designing(or statistics as it were).
IE do what they are good at.
At my work we hand off these parts as modules.
Designers push back a form design.
The statistician pushes back some algorithms writen in a high level language.
I really do treat them like library calls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610</id>
	<title>Your argument is dead, Zed</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1263040920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the problem is in your presentation. Even here, you tell programmers that you want to kill them for not understanding a topic that even you are unwilling to acknowledge mastery of. Then you tell us how hard the topic is to understand, even though you've spent so much time trying to learn it.</p><p>Is it any wonder that no one takes your suggestions seriously? You are practically sabotaging yourself with self-effacement.</p><p>These aren't homework problems you're tackling here. They are business problems and you need to sell yourself and your ideas if you want to get any traction. Do you have any evidence that your methods are better than the SOP thus far? Do you have any case studies that show how effective statistic analysis is in *any* of your projects?</p><p>Or are you simply taking something that seems like a data point and extrapolating it to cover a vast swath of applications?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the problem is in your presentation .
Even here , you tell programmers that you want to kill them for not understanding a topic that even you are unwilling to acknowledge mastery of .
Then you tell us how hard the topic is to understand , even though you 've spent so much time trying to learn it.Is it any wonder that no one takes your suggestions seriously ?
You are practically sabotaging yourself with self-effacement.These are n't homework problems you 're tackling here .
They are business problems and you need to sell yourself and your ideas if you want to get any traction .
Do you have any evidence that your methods are better than the SOP thus far ?
Do you have any case studies that show how effective statistic analysis is in * any * of your projects ? Or are you simply taking something that seems like a data point and extrapolating it to cover a vast swath of applications ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the problem is in your presentation.
Even here, you tell programmers that you want to kill them for not understanding a topic that even you are unwilling to acknowledge mastery of.
Then you tell us how hard the topic is to understand, even though you've spent so much time trying to learn it.Is it any wonder that no one takes your suggestions seriously?
You are practically sabotaging yourself with self-effacement.These aren't homework problems you're tackling here.
They are business problems and you need to sell yourself and your ideas if you want to get any traction.
Do you have any evidence that your methods are better than the SOP thus far?
Do you have any case studies that show how effective statistic analysis is in *any* of your projects?Or are you simply taking something that seems like a data point and extrapolating it to cover a vast swath of applications?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710846</id>
	<title>Statistical analysis of the summary</title>
	<author>mmmmbeer</author>
	<datestamp>1263042780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see, we have one guy complaining about how none of his programmer coworkers understand statistics, and we have X coworkers who undoubtedly disagree with him.  Since we do not know him or any of his colleagues to any meaningful degree, we have to assign equal weight to each of their opinions.  Statistics then tells us there is a 1/(X+1) chance of his being right, and an X/(X+1) chance of their being right.  We can assume that X &gt;= 2 based on his ranting, therefore resulting in the odds favoring them by at least 2/3, and probably much more.  Therefore it is only rational to assume they are correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , we have one guy complaining about how none of his programmer coworkers understand statistics , and we have X coworkers who undoubtedly disagree with him .
Since we do not know him or any of his colleagues to any meaningful degree , we have to assign equal weight to each of their opinions .
Statistics then tells us there is a 1/ ( X + 1 ) chance of his being right , and an X/ ( X + 1 ) chance of their being right .
We can assume that X &gt; = 2 based on his ranting , therefore resulting in the odds favoring them by at least 2/3 , and probably much more .
Therefore it is only rational to assume they are correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, we have one guy complaining about how none of his programmer coworkers understand statistics, and we have X coworkers who undoubtedly disagree with him.
Since we do not know him or any of his colleagues to any meaningful degree, we have to assign equal weight to each of their opinions.
Statistics then tells us there is a 1/(X+1) chance of his being right, and an X/(X+1) chance of their being right.
We can assume that X &gt;= 2 based on his ranting, therefore resulting in the odds favoring them by at least 2/3, and probably much more.
Therefore it is only rational to assume they are correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711038</id>
	<title>Getting panties in a knot over nothing</title>
	<author>foolish\_to\_be\_here</author>
	<datestamp>1263044280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ditto!</htmltext>
<tokenext>ditto !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ditto!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30716860</id>
	<title>Re:He's not claiming they are wrong - they are uns</title>
	<author>Almahtar</author>
	<datestamp>1263117180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's more accurate to say they are like a variable with named "statistics" with a value that has never been set.<p>That doesn't sound <i>anything</i> like a car. You must be new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's more accurate to say they are like a variable with named " statistics " with a value that has never been set.That does n't sound anything like a car .
You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's more accurate to say they are like a variable with named "statistics" with a value that has never been set.That doesn't sound anything like a car.
You must be new here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713018</id>
	<title>It is a statistical fact that...</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1263066000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Zed Shaw is a cranky, irrelevant whiner 96.3\% of the time, at least according to the lambda standard deviation of the probability factor. Or so the graph shows, when enough data points are confabulated by the denominator of the sigma variation. And he thinks HE knows statistics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Zed Shaw is a cranky , irrelevant whiner 96.3 \ % of the time , at least according to the lambda standard deviation of the probability factor .
Or so the graph shows , when enough data points are confabulated by the denominator of the sigma variation .
And he thinks HE knows statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Zed Shaw is a cranky, irrelevant whiner 96.3\% of the time, at least according to the lambda standard deviation of the probability factor.
Or so the graph shows, when enough data points are confabulated by the denominator of the sigma variation.
And he thinks HE knows statistics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714968</id>
	<title>I don't need to stinking statistics</title>
	<author>corecaptain</author>
	<datestamp>1263144300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, Zed I don't need statistics to do my job.  Zed jumped the shark years ago - isn't he the Rails guy? That is so 2005.  This story is like having deja-vu of a bad hangover.</p><p>Just go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , Zed I do n't need statistics to do my job .
Zed jumped the shark years ago - is n't he the Rails guy ?
That is so 2005 .
This story is like having deja-vu of a bad hangover.Just go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, Zed I don't need statistics to do my job.
Zed jumped the shark years ago - isn't he the Rails guy?
That is so 2005.
This story is like having deja-vu of a bad hangover.Just go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711186</id>
	<title>Re:Your argument is dead, Zed</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1263045480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just the "beige box is the hard drive and the screen is the computer" problem over again.  People pretend they know what they are doing and make stuff up and pretend that they are confident that it is real.  This really annoys those that do know what they are doing but don't want to appear to be overconfident because they haven't written the textbooks themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just the " beige box is the hard drive and the screen is the computer " problem over again .
People pretend they know what they are doing and make stuff up and pretend that they are confident that it is real .
This really annoys those that do know what they are doing but do n't want to appear to be overconfident because they have n't written the textbooks themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just the "beige box is the hard drive and the screen is the computer" problem over again.
People pretend they know what they are doing and make stuff up and pretend that they are confident that it is real.
This really annoys those that do know what they are doing but don't want to appear to be overconfident because they haven't written the textbooks themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710796</id>
	<title>Re:93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows that 98.2\% of all statistics are made up on the spot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that 98.2 \ % of all statistics are made up on the spot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that 98.2\% of all statistics are made up on the spot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712246</id>
	<title>Slashdot Appropriate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263054720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this sort of flame really appropriate for slashdot?  The casual language and superlatives discount any meaning in the note.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; My preference is to read simple reporting on news here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this sort of flame really appropriate for slashdot ?
The casual language and superlatives discount any meaning in the note .
        My preference is to read simple reporting on news here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this sort of flame really appropriate for slashdot?
The casual language and superlatives discount any meaning in the note.
        My preference is to read simple reporting on news here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711172</id>
	<title>Wrong tool?</title>
	<author>meburke</author>
	<datestamp>1263045360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The use of statistics is a means to an end that never ends. It has its uses in specific situations, and programmers trying to reach these ends in those specific situations would be well-off to know statistics? OK, I agree. If you are programming a data-mining application, then knowledge of probability and statistics seems pretty important. If you are programming a plane to land automatically on a runway, or a robot to place a chip on a board, then I want precision, not probability. (Although precision is probabilistic   in itself.)</p><p>What Zed is describing is a situation where statistics could greatly improve the performance of the whole system, and he looks to be right. And that may be the real problem: He's more committed to being right than to resolving the problem.</p><p>I would say this is more a "people problem" than a programming problem. Placing blame, telling people they are ignorant, hostile language and the like are not leadership qualities.</p><p>There is another aspect here that interests me; the type of programming methodology.  If this type of project were approached as a monolithic project, the scope, means and tools would be apparent before the project got to the argument stage. In an "agile" environment, the lack of pre-defined methodology would show up as part of the tweaking/improvement process. Picking the right method might be very important to alleviating the problem of the project with the "long tail" (i.e., the project that seems almost finished but there are a million little things to finish to make it deliverable).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The use of statistics is a means to an end that never ends .
It has its uses in specific situations , and programmers trying to reach these ends in those specific situations would be well-off to know statistics ?
OK , I agree .
If you are programming a data-mining application , then knowledge of probability and statistics seems pretty important .
If you are programming a plane to land automatically on a runway , or a robot to place a chip on a board , then I want precision , not probability .
( Although precision is probabilistic in itself .
) What Zed is describing is a situation where statistics could greatly improve the performance of the whole system , and he looks to be right .
And that may be the real problem : He 's more committed to being right than to resolving the problem.I would say this is more a " people problem " than a programming problem .
Placing blame , telling people they are ignorant , hostile language and the like are not leadership qualities.There is another aspect here that interests me ; the type of programming methodology .
If this type of project were approached as a monolithic project , the scope , means and tools would be apparent before the project got to the argument stage .
In an " agile " environment , the lack of pre-defined methodology would show up as part of the tweaking/improvement process .
Picking the right method might be very important to alleviating the problem of the project with the " long tail " ( i.e. , the project that seems almost finished but there are a million little things to finish to make it deliverable ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The use of statistics is a means to an end that never ends.
It has its uses in specific situations, and programmers trying to reach these ends in those specific situations would be well-off to know statistics?
OK, I agree.
If you are programming a data-mining application, then knowledge of probability and statistics seems pretty important.
If you are programming a plane to land automatically on a runway, or a robot to place a chip on a board, then I want precision, not probability.
(Although precision is probabilistic   in itself.
)What Zed is describing is a situation where statistics could greatly improve the performance of the whole system, and he looks to be right.
And that may be the real problem: He's more committed to being right than to resolving the problem.I would say this is more a "people problem" than a programming problem.
Placing blame, telling people they are ignorant, hostile language and the like are not leadership qualities.There is another aspect here that interests me; the type of programming methodology.
If this type of project were approached as a monolithic project, the scope, means and tools would be apparent before the project got to the argument stage.
In an "agile" environment, the lack of pre-defined methodology would show up as part of the tweaking/improvement process.
Picking the right method might be very important to alleviating the problem of the project with the "long tail" (i.e., the project that seems almost finished but there are a million little things to finish to make it deliverable).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711102</id>
	<title>Re:Logic and Reason *ARE* superior to evidence and</title>
	<author>line-bundle</author>
	<datestamp>1263044760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Logic and Reason are superior to Cubase.</p><p>It's a music joke, laugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Logic and Reason are superior to Cubase.It 's a music joke , laugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Logic and Reason are superior to Cubase.It's a music joke, laugh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714050</id>
	<title>OOPSLA papers on statistics for Java performance</title>
	<author>Itkovian</author>
	<datestamp>1263131460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We did some work involving statistics to correctly report results, see <a href="http://www.itkovian.net/base/statistically-rigorous-java-performance-evaluation" title="itkovian.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.itkovian.net/base/statistically-rigorous-java-performance-evaluation</a> [itkovian.net] (OOPSLA 2007) and <a href="http://www.itkovian.net/base/java-performance-through-rigorous-replay-compilation" title="itkovian.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.itkovian.net/base/java-performance-through-rigorous-replay-compilation</a> [itkovian.net] (OOPSLA 2008).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We did some work involving statistics to correctly report results , see http : //www.itkovian.net/base/statistically-rigorous-java-performance-evaluation [ itkovian.net ] ( OOPSLA 2007 ) and http : //www.itkovian.net/base/java-performance-through-rigorous-replay-compilation [ itkovian.net ] ( OOPSLA 2008 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We did some work involving statistics to correctly report results, see http://www.itkovian.net/base/statistically-rigorous-java-performance-evaluation [itkovian.net] (OOPSLA 2007) and http://www.itkovian.net/base/java-performance-through-rigorous-replay-compilation [itkovian.net] (OOPSLA 2008).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712486</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>Phil06</author>
	<datestamp>1263057540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the first things you learn in statistics is that MTBF is a useless measure of reliability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the first things you learn in statistics is that MTBF is a useless measure of reliability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the first things you learn in statistics is that MTBF is a useless measure of reliability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711126</id>
	<title>Statistics isn't math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263044940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation" is just the kind of ridiculous statement that a "statistician" would make. It's not even real math. It's math perverted to try to justify someone's bias. Math is math. Statistics is math with subjectivity added. Mostly trash with a veneer of math to try to legitamize it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation " is just the kind of ridiculous statement that a " statistician " would make .
It 's not even real math .
It 's math perverted to try to justify someone 's bias .
Math is math .
Statistics is math with subjectivity added .
Mostly trash with a veneer of math to try to legitamize it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation" is just the kind of ridiculous statement that a "statistician" would make.
It's not even real math.
It's math perverted to try to justify someone's bias.
Math is math.
Statistics is math with subjectivity added.
Mostly trash with a veneer of math to try to legitamize it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712088</id>
	<title>CES must be pretty lame this year...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263052740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if this made it on slashdot today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if this made it on slashdot today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if this made it on slashdot today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710990</id>
	<title>Raziel2001au</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a matter of what you do as a programmer... Not trying to brag here, but I get paid a lot if you compare my salary to that of others, my skills are also well-sought after where I work and project managers are always trying to drag me onto their projects. Yet, I don't know ANY statistics.</p><p>Why is this? Because I don't need it for what I do. I think generalizing things and saying all programmers must know statistics is down-right stupid. It comes down to what you do... what I do doesn't require it, so what's my incentive for even knowing about it?</p><p>I think knowing basic logic (getting your ands and ors correct the first time) and generally knowing about good design and having solid debugging skills is much more important for the average programmer. Anything more than that will push you beyond average, but knowing statistics is not necessarily the correct answer. It all comes down to what you do... That is my 2 cents anyway, take it how you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a matter of what you do as a programmer... Not trying to brag here , but I get paid a lot if you compare my salary to that of others , my skills are also well-sought after where I work and project managers are always trying to drag me onto their projects .
Yet , I do n't know ANY statistics.Why is this ?
Because I do n't need it for what I do .
I think generalizing things and saying all programmers must know statistics is down-right stupid .
It comes down to what you do... what I do does n't require it , so what 's my incentive for even knowing about it ? I think knowing basic logic ( getting your ands and ors correct the first time ) and generally knowing about good design and having solid debugging skills is much more important for the average programmer .
Anything more than that will push you beyond average , but knowing statistics is not necessarily the correct answer .
It all comes down to what you do... That is my 2 cents anyway , take it how you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a matter of what you do as a programmer... Not trying to brag here, but I get paid a lot if you compare my salary to that of others, my skills are also well-sought after where I work and project managers are always trying to drag me onto their projects.
Yet, I don't know ANY statistics.Why is this?
Because I don't need it for what I do.
I think generalizing things and saying all programmers must know statistics is down-right stupid.
It comes down to what you do... what I do doesn't require it, so what's my incentive for even knowing about it?I think knowing basic logic (getting your ands and ors correct the first time) and generally knowing about good design and having solid debugging skills is much more important for the average programmer.
Anything more than that will push you beyond average, but knowing statistics is not necessarily the correct answer.
It all comes down to what you do... That is my 2 cents anyway, take it how you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712166</id>
	<title>Re:Very good (from someone who's taken BOTH)... ap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263053580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1.) EASILY SKEWED (as in "4/5 dentists chew trident", oh "sure, sure", especially when they're on the corporate payroll (or paid off to say so by said corporation so their "evidence &amp; observation looks good")</p><p>and</p><p>2.) IS THE SAMPLE SET LARGE &amp; COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH? (most?? Most are not, period)...</p></div></blockquote><p>You know, that particular citation has made me wonder in the past, but not enough to actually research it.  So, I went off looking for more information and <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/165/4-out-of-5-dentists-recommend-sugarless-gum-what-does-the-5th-recommend" title="straightdope.com">found it</a> [straightdope.com].</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The statistic was generated from a July 1976 survey.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The sample group for this statistic was 1,200 dentists.  These dentists were hand picked by the research company, probably with good reason.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; They were asked, what advice would they give gum-chewing patients</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1) sugared gum<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2) sugarless gum<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3) no gum at all.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Sugarless gum got 85\% of the vote.  Not terribly surprising.  I'd be fairly confident that their time had been paid for, or at very least they were told "This survey is being done for Trident Sugarless Gum."  That is only speculation, so hush up.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 17/20 doesn't really sound very good.  It just doesn't stick in your head. 4/5 is close enough, even though it reduces your answer to 80\% (ahhh, a lie).  Since these are marketing folks, I'm sure they pushed all kinds of values past focus groups, until "4 in 5" was accepted as most favorable.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; As the link cites, they're fairly confident that the "sugared gum" answer got at least one response.  There's always someone that'll take the obvious wrong answer.  If you don't believe that, look at any Slashdot poll.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; What they don't say is how many of the 1,200 samples were dropped.  I'm sure there were non-responses, and they could have easily added any number of unfavorable answers in as non-responses.  Of course, they couldn't have 100\% in their favor, so they had to keep some.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) EASILY SKEWED ( as in " 4/5 dentists chew trident " , oh " sure , sure " , especially when they 're on the corporate payroll ( or paid off to say so by said corporation so their " evidence &amp; observation looks good " ) and2 .
) IS THE SAMPLE SET LARGE &amp; COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH ?
( most ? ? Most are not , period ) ...You know , that particular citation has made me wonder in the past , but not enough to actually research it .
So , I went off looking for more information and found it [ straightdope.com ] .
    The statistic was generated from a July 1976 survey .
    The sample group for this statistic was 1,200 dentists .
These dentists were hand picked by the research company , probably with good reason .
    They were asked , what advice would they give gum-chewing patients     1 ) sugared gum     2 ) sugarless gum     3 ) no gum at all .
    Sugarless gum got 85 \ % of the vote .
Not terribly surprising .
I 'd be fairly confident that their time had been paid for , or at very least they were told " This survey is being done for Trident Sugarless Gum .
" That is only speculation , so hush up .
    17/20 does n't really sound very good .
It just does n't stick in your head .
4/5 is close enough , even though it reduces your answer to 80 \ % ( ahhh , a lie ) .
Since these are marketing folks , I 'm sure they pushed all kinds of values past focus groups , until " 4 in 5 " was accepted as most favorable .
    As the link cites , they 're fairly confident that the " sugared gum " answer got at least one response .
There 's always someone that 'll take the obvious wrong answer .
If you do n't believe that , look at any Slashdot poll .
: )     What they do n't say is how many of the 1,200 samples were dropped .
I 'm sure there were non-responses , and they could have easily added any number of unfavorable answers in as non-responses .
Of course , they could n't have 100 \ % in their favor , so they had to keep some .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
) EASILY SKEWED (as in "4/5 dentists chew trident", oh "sure, sure", especially when they're on the corporate payroll (or paid off to say so by said corporation so their "evidence &amp; observation looks good")and2.
) IS THE SAMPLE SET LARGE &amp; COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH?
(most?? Most are not, period)...You know, that particular citation has made me wonder in the past, but not enough to actually research it.
So, I went off looking for more information and found it [straightdope.com].
    The statistic was generated from a July 1976 survey.
    The sample group for this statistic was 1,200 dentists.
These dentists were hand picked by the research company, probably with good reason.
    They were asked, what advice would they give gum-chewing patients
    1) sugared gum
    2) sugarless gum
    3) no gum at all.
    Sugarless gum got 85\% of the vote.
Not terribly surprising.
I'd be fairly confident that their time had been paid for, or at very least they were told "This survey is being done for Trident Sugarless Gum.
"  That is only speculation, so hush up.
    17/20 doesn't really sound very good.
It just doesn't stick in your head.
4/5 is close enough, even though it reduces your answer to 80\% (ahhh, a lie).
Since these are marketing folks, I'm sure they pushed all kinds of values past focus groups, until "4 in 5" was accepted as most favorable.
    As the link cites, they're fairly confident that the "sugared gum" answer got at least one response.
There's always someone that'll take the obvious wrong answer.
If you don't believe that, look at any Slashdot poll.
:)
    What they don't say is how many of the 1,200 samples were dropped.
I'm sure there were non-responses, and they could have easily added any number of unfavorable answers in as non-responses.
Of course, they couldn't have 100\% in their favor, so they had to keep some.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711216</id>
	<title>Um . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263045720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" I've been studying it for years and years and still don't think I know anything."</p><p>Excatly, dumbass.</p><p>The first rule of programmers: whatever is the most expeditious path to the most usable solution is the one a programmer will take.  The great skill a programmer has is the ability to assimilate and apply new information in as short a span of time as possible.  If it takes years in order to not use and apply something, you can forget about a programmer ever bothering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've been studying it for years and years and still do n't think I know anything .
" Excatly , dumbass.The first rule of programmers : whatever is the most expeditious path to the most usable solution is the one a programmer will take .
The great skill a programmer has is the ability to assimilate and apply new information in as short a span of time as possible .
If it takes years in order to not use and apply something , you can forget about a programmer ever bothering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" I've been studying it for years and years and still don't think I know anything.
"Excatly, dumbass.The first rule of programmers: whatever is the most expeditious path to the most usable solution is the one a programmer will take.
The great skill a programmer has is the ability to assimilate and apply new information in as short a span of time as possible.
If it takes years in order to not use and apply something, you can forget about a programmer ever bothering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711460</id>
	<title>Re:Very good (from someone who's taken BOTH)... ap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263047640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup. Also, for a guy who claims to know so much about statistics and measurement, it's weird how he judges programmers so sweepingly on the sole basis of his anecdotal experiences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
Also , for a guy who claims to know so much about statistics and measurement , it 's weird how he judges programmers so sweepingly on the sole basis of his anecdotal experiences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
Also, for a guy who claims to know so much about statistics and measurement, it's weird how he judges programmers so sweepingly on the sole basis of his anecdotal experiences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710852</id>
	<title>Who needs stats?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>83\% of programmers know that 67\% of statistics are made up on the fly anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>83 \ % of programmers know that 67 \ % of statistics are made up on the fly anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>83\% of programmers know that 67\% of statistics are made up on the fly anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711212</id>
	<title>Thanks for the tip bro!</title>
	<author>c4t3y3</author>
	<datestamp>1263045660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been doing J2EE apps for 10 years and now that we are sending a rocket to mars on our next project, I'm so sorry I didn't spend my whole life learning statistics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been doing J2EE apps for 10 years and now that we are sending a rocket to mars on our next project , I 'm so sorry I did n't spend my whole life learning statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been doing J2EE apps for 10 years and now that we are sending a rocket to mars on our next project, I'm so sorry I didn't spend my whole life learning statistics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710876</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>But statistics is one of those fields that benefits <i>everybody</i>; it's a bit like probability, logic, or (further afield) history.  Lack of a fundamental understanding of statistic can lead you astray in a near-infinite number of ways.<br> <br>

I have sat in business meetings <b>hundreds</b> of times where I've seen decisions made on completely meaningless and irrelevant data, because the people involved don't understand statistics.  The same holds true in your personal life; decisions with purchasing products, investing money...<br> <br>

Now, I'll bet that most slashdot readers have the minimum amount of knowledge of statistic to avoid the most egregious errors; but more knowledge is certainly helpful.  It will help you in a myriad of ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But statistics is one of those fields that benefits everybody ; it 's a bit like probability , logic , or ( further afield ) history .
Lack of a fundamental understanding of statistic can lead you astray in a near-infinite number of ways .
I have sat in business meetings hundreds of times where I 've seen decisions made on completely meaningless and irrelevant data , because the people involved do n't understand statistics .
The same holds true in your personal life ; decisions with purchasing products , investing money.. . Now , I 'll bet that most slashdot readers have the minimum amount of knowledge of statistic to avoid the most egregious errors ; but more knowledge is certainly helpful .
It will help you in a myriad of ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But statistics is one of those fields that benefits everybody; it's a bit like probability, logic, or (further afield) history.
Lack of a fundamental understanding of statistic can lead you astray in a near-infinite number of ways.
I have sat in business meetings hundreds of times where I've seen decisions made on completely meaningless and irrelevant data, because the people involved don't understand statistics.
The same holds true in your personal life; decisions with purchasing products, investing money... 

Now, I'll bet that most slashdot readers have the minimum amount of knowledge of statistic to avoid the most egregious errors; but more knowledge is certainly helpful.
It will help you in a myriad of ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30719610</id>
	<title>grow a brain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263141600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so you've been carrying on like a turkey trying to learn the stuff for years and you're still useless. You admit it yourself. Despite this, you still think that people in a different field altogether should waste the same amount of time on learning statistics instead of learning how to actually design and write software.<br>you are a fool.<br>fucking statisticians should learn some common fucking sense or "I will kill them all".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so you 've been carrying on like a turkey trying to learn the stuff for years and you 're still useless .
You admit it yourself .
Despite this , you still think that people in a different field altogether should waste the same amount of time on learning statistics instead of learning how to actually design and write software.you are a fool.fucking statisticians should learn some common fucking sense or " I will kill them all " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so you've been carrying on like a turkey trying to learn the stuff for years and you're still useless.
You admit it yourself.
Despite this, you still think that people in a different field altogether should waste the same amount of time on learning statistics instead of learning how to actually design and write software.you are a fool.fucking statisticians should learn some common fucking sense or "I will kill them all".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711630</id>
	<title>Re:Statistical analysis of the summary</title>
	<author>brian\_tanner</author>
	<datestamp>1263048960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow.  What class did you take that says if you don't know something you should assume equal probability?
<br> <br>
I don't know if there is an invisible elephant in my kitchen, so I guess I should assign equal probability to both outcomes.  I also don't really know how Baccarat works, I guess my odds are 50/50.
<br> <br>
Without knowing something about he or his coworkers, you by definition <b>cannot</b> make any statistical statements.  To make any statements, you would first need to make some <b>observations</b>.  This is how statistics is different from logic.  Statistics is <b>grounded in data</b>.
<br> <br>
I don't agree with Zed, but you may have just proved his point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
What class did you take that says if you do n't know something you should assume equal probability ?
I do n't know if there is an invisible elephant in my kitchen , so I guess I should assign equal probability to both outcomes .
I also do n't really know how Baccarat works , I guess my odds are 50/50 .
Without knowing something about he or his coworkers , you by definition can not make any statistical statements .
To make any statements , you would first need to make some observations .
This is how statistics is different from logic .
Statistics is grounded in data .
I do n't agree with Zed , but you may have just proved his point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
What class did you take that says if you don't know something you should assume equal probability?
I don't know if there is an invisible elephant in my kitchen, so I guess I should assign equal probability to both outcomes.
I also don't really know how Baccarat works, I guess my odds are 50/50.
Without knowing something about he or his coworkers, you by definition cannot make any statistical statements.
To make any statements, you would first need to make some observations.
This is how statistics is different from logic.
Statistics is grounded in data.
I don't agree with Zed, but you may have just proved his point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711484</id>
	<title>Programmers nead to learn ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263047820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... electrical and mechanical engineering, physics, FAA regulations, federal law, product configuration control, and lots of other stuff. Face it, for all but the most trivial applications, programmers need domain experts to define the requirements. Or your app will look cute, but won't work worth a damn.</p><p>Programmers don't need to learn AI. One of the best natural language recognition apps I've ever seen was written by a couple of mechanical engineers. So we've got that handled. You can get back to writing games. Actually, programming is just a sill set needed to solve those domain specific problems. Increasingly, this skill set is a part of the curriculum of said domain experts. Its easier to teach a chemical engineer (for example) programming than it is to teach a programmer Chem Eng. The idea that only the people in the white lab coats can handle the mainframes in the data center is so 20th century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... electrical and mechanical engineering , physics , FAA regulations , federal law , product configuration control , and lots of other stuff .
Face it , for all but the most trivial applications , programmers need domain experts to define the requirements .
Or your app will look cute , but wo n't work worth a damn.Programmers do n't need to learn AI .
One of the best natural language recognition apps I 've ever seen was written by a couple of mechanical engineers .
So we 've got that handled .
You can get back to writing games .
Actually , programming is just a sill set needed to solve those domain specific problems .
Increasingly , this skill set is a part of the curriculum of said domain experts .
Its easier to teach a chemical engineer ( for example ) programming than it is to teach a programmer Chem Eng .
The idea that only the people in the white lab coats can handle the mainframes in the data center is so 20th century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... electrical and mechanical engineering, physics, FAA regulations, federal law, product configuration control, and lots of other stuff.
Face it, for all but the most trivial applications, programmers need domain experts to define the requirements.
Or your app will look cute, but won't work worth a damn.Programmers don't need to learn AI.
One of the best natural language recognition apps I've ever seen was written by a couple of mechanical engineers.
So we've got that handled.
You can get back to writing games.
Actually, programming is just a sill set needed to solve those domain specific problems.
Increasingly, this skill set is a part of the curriculum of said domain experts.
Its easier to teach a chemical engineer (for example) programming than it is to teach a programmer Chem Eng.
The idea that only the people in the white lab coats can handle the mainframes in the data center is so 20th century.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713712</id>
	<title>TLDR</title>
	<author>BlackHawk-666</author>
	<datestamp>1263123720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Zed's a total asshole. No wonder the programmers don't like him and won't listen to him. Maybe if he spent some of that stats time working on people skills he'd find office life much more enjoyable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed 's a total asshole .
No wonder the programmers do n't like him and wo n't listen to him .
Maybe if he spent some of that stats time working on people skills he 'd find office life much more enjoyable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zed's a total asshole.
No wonder the programmers don't like him and won't listen to him.
Maybe if he spent some of that stats time working on people skills he'd find office life much more enjoyable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713792</id>
	<title>Re:Statistical analysis of the summary</title>
	<author>Paradigma11</author>
	<datestamp>1263125580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe he took one in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian\_inference" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian\_inference</a> [wikipedia.org] . I think the principle was introduced by Laplace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he took one in http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian \ _inference [ wikipedia.org ] .
I think the principle was introduced by Laplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he took one in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian\_inference [wikipedia.org] .
I think the principle was introduced by Laplace.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710730</id>
	<title>Is Zed insane?</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1263041880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712606</id>
	<title>Re:Summarized for people who don't want to read Ze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263059520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well kid, you're a fucking idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well kid , you 're a fucking idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well kid, you're a fucking idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710952</id>
	<title>Re:Stats are only as good as the data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm...</p><p>Where to begin?</p><p><i>I used their desired metric, and modified the numbers to show on a 0-100 scale where 75 is average and each standard deviation is 10 points. </i></p><p>OK, so they asked you to compute a statistic and you began by <b>modifying the numbers</b> to adjust the mean to 75 and each standard deviation is 10 points?  That's like saying you adjusted the numbers so that ten equals thirty-five and had unicorns grow apple trees in their magical dung.</p><p><i>The result? The sample sizes were too small, and some groups had widely varying scores when every group member's performance was nearly identical.</i></p><p>And that's ass-backwards.  You don't sample a portion of population to get the results. You don't care about sample size when presumably you're measuring all workers. That's like asking Tabitha and Gerarldine in the marketing department the color of their<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..ummm.. sneakers and then slapping your head and saying, "Man, these results just don't seem to apply to the group!"</p><p>
&nbsp; <i>Then again, maybe I'm doing something wrong.</i></p><p>You think?  You use some of the right terms, but sort of like saying, "I pulled on my CPU across the gigahertz and compiled my keyboard. Then danced in the unicorn dung."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm...Where to begin ? I used their desired metric , and modified the numbers to show on a 0-100 scale where 75 is average and each standard deviation is 10 points .
OK , so they asked you to compute a statistic and you began by modifying the numbers to adjust the mean to 75 and each standard deviation is 10 points ?
That 's like saying you adjusted the numbers so that ten equals thirty-five and had unicorns grow apple trees in their magical dung.The result ?
The sample sizes were too small , and some groups had widely varying scores when every group member 's performance was nearly identical.And that 's ass-backwards .
You do n't sample a portion of population to get the results .
You do n't care about sample size when presumably you 're measuring all workers .
That 's like asking Tabitha and Gerarldine in the marketing department the color of their ..ummm.. sneakers and then slapping your head and saying , " Man , these results just do n't seem to apply to the group !
"   Then again , maybe I 'm doing something wrong.You think ?
You use some of the right terms , but sort of like saying , " I pulled on my CPU across the gigahertz and compiled my keyboard .
Then danced in the unicorn dung .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm...Where to begin?I used their desired metric, and modified the numbers to show on a 0-100 scale where 75 is average and each standard deviation is 10 points.
OK, so they asked you to compute a statistic and you began by modifying the numbers to adjust the mean to 75 and each standard deviation is 10 points?
That's like saying you adjusted the numbers so that ten equals thirty-five and had unicorns grow apple trees in their magical dung.The result?
The sample sizes were too small, and some groups had widely varying scores when every group member's performance was nearly identical.And that's ass-backwards.
You don't sample a portion of population to get the results.
You don't care about sample size when presumably you're measuring all workers.
That's like asking Tabitha and Gerarldine in the marketing department the color of their ..ummm.. sneakers and then slapping your head and saying, "Man, these results just don't seem to apply to the group!
"
  Then again, maybe I'm doing something wrong.You think?
You use some of the right terms, but sort of like saying, "I pulled on my CPU across the gigahertz and compiled my keyboard.
Then danced in the unicorn dung.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712128</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263053100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of second rate CS programs do you associate with? CS is in its purest form is math, you could do proofs using pseudo-code all day. The kind of education you are referring to is not CS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of second rate CS programs do you associate with ?
CS is in its purest form is math , you could do proofs using pseudo-code all day .
The kind of education you are referring to is not CS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of second rate CS programs do you associate with?
CS is in its purest form is math, you could do proofs using pseudo-code all day.
The kind of education you are referring to is not CS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30723822</id>
	<title>Re:Summarized for people who don't want to read Ze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263228720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Eventually, every major science adopted an empiricist view of the world. Except Computer Science of course.</p></div><p>Well there's his problem. He doesn't even know what Computer Science is. It's either math (pure computer science) or engineering (software engineering). Computer Science is poorly named in that it really is not a science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually , every major science adopted an empiricist view of the world .
Except Computer Science of course.Well there 's his problem .
He does n't even know what Computer Science is .
It 's either math ( pure computer science ) or engineering ( software engineering ) .
Computer Science is poorly named in that it really is not a science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually, every major science adopted an empiricist view of the world.
Except Computer Science of course.Well there's his problem.
He doesn't even know what Computer Science is.
It's either math (pure computer science) or engineering (software engineering).
Computer Science is poorly named in that it really is not a science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710828</id>
	<title>Famous last comments</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1263042660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Zed Shaw writes an impassioned plea to programmers: Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them All.</p></div><p>// This will never happen</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed Shaw writes an impassioned plea to programmers : Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them All.// This will never happen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zed Shaw writes an impassioned plea to programmers: Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them All.// This will never happen
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711756</id>
	<title>Re:The reason people ignore you Zed..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263049980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL, everyone hates Zed. LOL!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL , everyone hates Zed .
LOL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL, everyone hates Zed.
LOL!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711006</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1263044100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's hard - I just think it requires a different way of thinking than most programmers usually take to maths.</p><p>As a programmer/developer who went into research (in social sciences, so it's really soft), I can say that in my experience stats is really closer to a programming language than it is to other maths. Here's why:</p><p>1) You have a LOT of tools to pick from. What kind of analysis do you want to do? What kind will give you the most useful result? What kind is your data amenable to?</p><p>2) You don't always have a clear choice as to which is the best for a given situation. Sometimes you need multiple different types of analysis to really get the full picture.</p><p>3) Just because it's math doesn't always mean it's right. There's some crazy ass black-box magic stats stuff we use for one project of ours that, in theory, will let us figure out the demographic composition of an unknown target population. Maybe. Sometimes. If the wind is right. Or not.</p><p>4) At the advanced levels, it's fucking insane. People who hack stuff like ultra optimized 3d engines with large quantities of assembler or whatever always wigged me out because my brain just doesn't work that way. With the really complex stats stuff it's the same way - I can plug and chug with the formulas, but I honestly have about as much comprehension of why some of the more advanced stuff works as my dog has of CPU design.</p><p>5) If you know the basics, you know just enough to be dangerous and really piss off people who know what they're doing. Being able to run an anova or determine correlation makes some people think they actually know what's going on because, hey, it's math. But a lot of people who just do the basic stuff think their results are more meaningful than they actually are - falling prey to the whole "it's statistically significant therefore it must be IMPORTANT" fallacy (when you can certainly have things that are "statistically significant" but actually have virtually no impact on the outcome.</p><p>6) Even when people know their shit, they disagree. A fine example of this would be the Space Shuttle failure rate - you had people saying that the shuttle would suffer a critical failure from everywhere between 1 in 5 and 1 in 50,000 launches. And depending on what tools they used to do their analysis, they were correct. Same as with programming languages - depending on the problem, equally skilled programmers might pick entirely different languages to use because they think one part or another is more critical.</p><p>Honestly, I really enjoy stats - if I had to do it all over again I would probably have spent a LOT more time working with stats than I did as a programmer in my younger years - but I won't pretend that it's totally clear what tools to use when. The author of TFA should do well to realize that even fellow statisticians would probably slap the shit out of him over some of his beliefs about how to properly go about utilizing stats toolsets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's hard - I just think it requires a different way of thinking than most programmers usually take to maths.As a programmer/developer who went into research ( in social sciences , so it 's really soft ) , I can say that in my experience stats is really closer to a programming language than it is to other maths .
Here 's why : 1 ) You have a LOT of tools to pick from .
What kind of analysis do you want to do ?
What kind will give you the most useful result ?
What kind is your data amenable to ? 2 ) You do n't always have a clear choice as to which is the best for a given situation .
Sometimes you need multiple different types of analysis to really get the full picture.3 ) Just because it 's math does n't always mean it 's right .
There 's some crazy ass black-box magic stats stuff we use for one project of ours that , in theory , will let us figure out the demographic composition of an unknown target population .
Maybe. Sometimes .
If the wind is right .
Or not.4 ) At the advanced levels , it 's fucking insane .
People who hack stuff like ultra optimized 3d engines with large quantities of assembler or whatever always wigged me out because my brain just does n't work that way .
With the really complex stats stuff it 's the same way - I can plug and chug with the formulas , but I honestly have about as much comprehension of why some of the more advanced stuff works as my dog has of CPU design.5 ) If you know the basics , you know just enough to be dangerous and really piss off people who know what they 're doing .
Being able to run an anova or determine correlation makes some people think they actually know what 's going on because , hey , it 's math .
But a lot of people who just do the basic stuff think their results are more meaningful than they actually are - falling prey to the whole " it 's statistically significant therefore it must be IMPORTANT " fallacy ( when you can certainly have things that are " statistically significant " but actually have virtually no impact on the outcome.6 ) Even when people know their shit , they disagree .
A fine example of this would be the Space Shuttle failure rate - you had people saying that the shuttle would suffer a critical failure from everywhere between 1 in 5 and 1 in 50,000 launches .
And depending on what tools they used to do their analysis , they were correct .
Same as with programming languages - depending on the problem , equally skilled programmers might pick entirely different languages to use because they think one part or another is more critical.Honestly , I really enjoy stats - if I had to do it all over again I would probably have spent a LOT more time working with stats than I did as a programmer in my younger years - but I wo n't pretend that it 's totally clear what tools to use when .
The author of TFA should do well to realize that even fellow statisticians would probably slap the shit out of him over some of his beliefs about how to properly go about utilizing stats toolsets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's hard - I just think it requires a different way of thinking than most programmers usually take to maths.As a programmer/developer who went into research (in social sciences, so it's really soft), I can say that in my experience stats is really closer to a programming language than it is to other maths.
Here's why:1) You have a LOT of tools to pick from.
What kind of analysis do you want to do?
What kind will give you the most useful result?
What kind is your data amenable to?2) You don't always have a clear choice as to which is the best for a given situation.
Sometimes you need multiple different types of analysis to really get the full picture.3) Just because it's math doesn't always mean it's right.
There's some crazy ass black-box magic stats stuff we use for one project of ours that, in theory, will let us figure out the demographic composition of an unknown target population.
Maybe. Sometimes.
If the wind is right.
Or not.4) At the advanced levels, it's fucking insane.
People who hack stuff like ultra optimized 3d engines with large quantities of assembler or whatever always wigged me out because my brain just doesn't work that way.
With the really complex stats stuff it's the same way - I can plug and chug with the formulas, but I honestly have about as much comprehension of why some of the more advanced stuff works as my dog has of CPU design.5) If you know the basics, you know just enough to be dangerous and really piss off people who know what they're doing.
Being able to run an anova or determine correlation makes some people think they actually know what's going on because, hey, it's math.
But a lot of people who just do the basic stuff think their results are more meaningful than they actually are - falling prey to the whole "it's statistically significant therefore it must be IMPORTANT" fallacy (when you can certainly have things that are "statistically significant" but actually have virtually no impact on the outcome.6) Even when people know their shit, they disagree.
A fine example of this would be the Space Shuttle failure rate - you had people saying that the shuttle would suffer a critical failure from everywhere between 1 in 5 and 1 in 50,000 launches.
And depending on what tools they used to do their analysis, they were correct.
Same as with programming languages - depending on the problem, equally skilled programmers might pick entirely different languages to use because they think one part or another is more critical.Honestly, I really enjoy stats - if I had to do it all over again I would probably have spent a LOT more time working with stats than I did as a programmer in my younger years - but I won't pretend that it's totally clear what tools to use when.
The author of TFA should do well to realize that even fellow statisticians would probably slap the shit out of him over some of his beliefs about how to properly go about utilizing stats toolsets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30716650</id>
	<title>Performance Statistics are Often Low Priority</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1263115620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In a world where many programmers are lucky to even finish the project with working code (software projects have very high failure rates in the real world), performance tuning of the type where statistics would be useful is often an unaffordable luxury. Most programmers make a genuine effort to avoid the more obvious performance sinks with some knowledge of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big\_O\_notation" title="wikipedia.org">Big O Notation</a> [wikipedia.org] and known <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipattern" title="wikipedia.org">antipatterns</a> [wikipedia.org], but in a world populated by demanding managers and slashed budgets that is really the best that most of us can do. If Zed wants programmers at his company to become experts on statistics and do detailed performance benchmarking then he can pay them himself for the privilege (hint: programmer cycles are <b> <i>vastly</i> </b> more expensive than processor cycles); otherwise he can, with all do respect, shove it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a world where many programmers are lucky to even finish the project with working code ( software projects have very high failure rates in the real world ) , performance tuning of the type where statistics would be useful is often an unaffordable luxury .
Most programmers make a genuine effort to avoid the more obvious performance sinks with some knowledge of Big O Notation [ wikipedia.org ] and known antipatterns [ wikipedia.org ] , but in a world populated by demanding managers and slashed budgets that is really the best that most of us can do .
If Zed wants programmers at his company to become experts on statistics and do detailed performance benchmarking then he can pay them himself for the privilege ( hint : programmer cycles are vastly more expensive than processor cycles ) ; otherwise he can , with all do respect , shove it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a world where many programmers are lucky to even finish the project with working code (software projects have very high failure rates in the real world), performance tuning of the type where statistics would be useful is often an unaffordable luxury.
Most programmers make a genuine effort to avoid the more obvious performance sinks with some knowledge of Big O Notation [wikipedia.org] and known antipatterns [wikipedia.org], but in a world populated by demanding managers and slashed budgets that is really the best that most of us can do.
If Zed wants programmers at his company to become experts on statistics and do detailed performance benchmarking then he can pay them himself for the privilege (hint: programmer cycles are  vastly  more expensive than processor cycles); otherwise he can, with all do respect, shove it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712750</id>
	<title>Re:93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263061740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>//If I flip two coins and one of them is heads, what are the odds the other one is also heads?<br><br>if (coin\_1 == flipped &amp;&amp; coin\_2 == flipped)<br>{<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; if (coin\_1 == heads || coin\_2 == heads)<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; {<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//Odds of other coin being heads is 50\%.<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; else<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; {<br>&nbsp; &nbsp;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//Neither coin was heads.<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>}</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>//If I flip two coins and one of them is heads , what are the odds the other one is also heads ? if ( coin \ _1 = = flipped &amp;&amp; coin \ _2 = = flipped ) {     if ( coin \ _1 = = heads | | coin \ _2 = = heads )     {     //Odds of other coin being heads is 50 \ % .     }     else     {     //Neither coin was heads.     } }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>//If I flip two coins and one of them is heads, what are the odds the other one is also heads?if (coin\_1 == flipped &amp;&amp; coin\_2 == flipped){    if (coin\_1 == heads || coin\_2 == heads)    {    //Odds of other coin being heads is 50\%.    }    else    {    //Neither coin was heads.    }}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711332</id>
	<title>Wiki</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263046680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll be honest, I didn't know who Zed Shaw was, so I fired up google. His wikipedia entry reads thus:<blockquote><div><p>Zed A. Shaw is a troll[1][2][3][4], writer, software developer, and musician, most commonly known for creating the Mongrel web server for Ruby web applications, as well as his controversial opinion pieces on technology, business, and technical communities. He is frequently referred to simply as 'Zed'.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Hm...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be honest , I did n't know who Zed Shaw was , so I fired up google .
His wikipedia entry reads thus : Zed A. Shaw is a troll [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] , writer , software developer , and musician , most commonly known for creating the Mongrel web server for Ruby web applications , as well as his controversial opinion pieces on technology , business , and technical communities .
He is frequently referred to simply as 'Zed' .
Hm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be honest, I didn't know who Zed Shaw was, so I fired up google.
His wikipedia entry reads thus:Zed A. Shaw is a troll[1][2][3][4], writer, software developer, and musician, most commonly known for creating the Mongrel web server for Ruby web applications, as well as his controversial opinion pieces on technology, business, and technical communities.
He is frequently referred to simply as 'Zed'.
Hm...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713332</id>
	<title>Re:Title fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263115080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, no, no.... You cast it to void! Just like a warranty:</p><p>(void)warranty;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no , no.... You cast it to void !
Just like a warranty : ( void ) warranty ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no, no.... You cast it to void!
Just like a warranty:(void)warranty;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30761776</id>
	<title>Re:Very good (from someone who's taken BOTH)... ap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263459660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, dentist do suggest sugerless tirdent.  The extra saliva it causes is good for the mouth and doesn't damege fillings or dental work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , dentist do suggest sugerless tirdent .
The extra saliva it causes is good for the mouth and does n't damege fillings or dental work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, dentist do suggest sugerless tirdent.
The extra saliva it causes is good for the mouth and doesn't damege fillings or dental work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712214</id>
	<title>Dude, maybe the problem is...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263054120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..that you&rsquo;re just too dumb.</p><p>Know nothing after year and years? So what&rsquo;s the point then?<br>Sorry... I can think of several millions of more efficient, more useful and more fun things to do with my life.</p><p>I hear you, about people acting like they are experts, but actually knowing shit. Like someone having read a book about HTML, who now thinks he&rsquo;s a cool programmer. Or someone who clicks together a default database front-end type application, and acts as if he could compete with someone who designs hard math algorithms in Haskell or writes an OS in C/Assembler.</p><p>But I think you put way more importance on statistics, than is needed for programming. Because it&rsquo;s your lovechild (nothing wrong with that). We programmers need to be good programmers. There&rsquo;s only so much time in a day, to keep up-to-date with all the crazy stuff going on in CS. There are little non-science jobs where you <em>have</em> to keep up so much. There&rsquo;s simply no place for also becoming an expert in hardware design, graphics design, usability, physics, all the areas of mathematics, including statistics, etc, etc, etc.</p><p>If I need good statistics, I&rsquo;ll hire you. As soon as you know that you know them. Because there is nothing more valuable, than someone who is in love with his work. Happy?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..that you    re just too dumb.Know nothing after year and years ?
So what    s the point then ? Sorry... I can think of several millions of more efficient , more useful and more fun things to do with my life.I hear you , about people acting like they are experts , but actually knowing shit .
Like someone having read a book about HTML , who now thinks he    s a cool programmer .
Or someone who clicks together a default database front-end type application , and acts as if he could compete with someone who designs hard math algorithms in Haskell or writes an OS in C/Assembler.But I think you put way more importance on statistics , than is needed for programming .
Because it    s your lovechild ( nothing wrong with that ) .
We programmers need to be good programmers .
There    s only so much time in a day , to keep up-to-date with all the crazy stuff going on in CS .
There are little non-science jobs where you have to keep up so much .
There    s simply no place for also becoming an expert in hardware design , graphics design , usability , physics , all the areas of mathematics , including statistics , etc , etc , etc.If I need good statistics , I    ll hire you .
As soon as you know that you know them .
Because there is nothing more valuable , than someone who is in love with his work .
Happy ? : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..that you’re just too dumb.Know nothing after year and years?
So what’s the point then?Sorry... I can think of several millions of more efficient, more useful and more fun things to do with my life.I hear you, about people acting like they are experts, but actually knowing shit.
Like someone having read a book about HTML, who now thinks he’s a cool programmer.
Or someone who clicks together a default database front-end type application, and acts as if he could compete with someone who designs hard math algorithms in Haskell or writes an OS in C/Assembler.But I think you put way more importance on statistics, than is needed for programming.
Because it’s your lovechild (nothing wrong with that).
We programmers need to be good programmers.
There’s only so much time in a day, to keep up-to-date with all the crazy stuff going on in CS.
There are little non-science jobs where you have to keep up so much.
There’s simply no place for also becoming an expert in hardware design, graphics design, usability, physics, all the areas of mathematics, including statistics, etc, etc, etc.If I need good statistics, I’ll hire you.
As soon as you know that you know them.
Because there is nothing more valuable, than someone who is in love with his work.
Happy? :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710838</id>
	<title>Re:Your argument is dead, Zed</title>
	<author>ihavnoid</author>
	<datestamp>1263042780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I think this would be the article Zed needs to read:</p><p><a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000332.html" title="joelonsoftware.com">http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000332.html</a> [joelonsoftware.com]</p><p>Basically, many programmers feel that everybody else around him(or her) is a stupid asshole.  However, if you want succeed, (e.g. have everybody around you learn statistics) you should never, ever, ever make enemies.</p><p>Be productive, work hard, listen to others, and try to do the work in the *right way*.  Gain respect from yor collegues, and then they will get interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I think this would be the article Zed needs to read : http : //www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000332.html [ joelonsoftware.com ] Basically , many programmers feel that everybody else around him ( or her ) is a stupid asshole .
However , if you want succeed , ( e.g .
have everybody around you learn statistics ) you should never , ever , ever make enemies.Be productive , work hard , listen to others , and try to do the work in the * right way * .
Gain respect from yor collegues , and then they will get interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I think this would be the article Zed needs to read:http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000332.html [joelonsoftware.com]Basically, many programmers feel that everybody else around him(or her) is a stupid asshole.
However, if you want succeed, (e.g.
have everybody around you learn statistics) you should never, ever, ever make enemies.Be productive, work hard, listen to others, and try to do the work in the *right way*.
Gain respect from yor collegues, and then they will get interested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711820</id>
	<title>Re:93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263050400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think that then answer the following problem:<br>If I flip two coins and one of them is heads, what are the odds the other one is also heads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think that then answer the following problem : If I flip two coins and one of them is heads , what are the odds the other one is also heads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think that then answer the following problem:If I flip two coins and one of them is heads, what are the odds the other one is also heads?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712238</id>
	<title>Maybe you're preaching instead of suggesting?</title>
	<author>zullnero</author>
	<datestamp>1263054540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I'll propose a measurement technique and they'll scoff at it. I try to show them how to properly graph a run chart and they're indignant. I question their metrics and they try to back it up with lame attempts at statistical reasoning.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Look, programmers tend towards the egotistical at best most of the time.  They like to argue, even about marginally different concepts.  I've watched guys argue about things like for loops and while loops and ifs and switches so many times in my career that I can only try and block as much of that inanity out.  When you approach developers by TELLING them how to do something using statistical analysis, you've got to first convince their supervisor/manager/etc. of the value of it and why it's better.  THEN you approach them and tell them that's how you're doing it.  Otherwise, you better believe they'll argue about that...everyone has their own way of doing things, and you can bet they don't care for someone else telling them that the way they've done things in the past is all wrong.  The only way to make programmers learn is to do something first, have it become successful, and be able to demonstrate the value in doing things that way first.  I've been on very, very few teams with developers who were constantly open to different ways of doing things.  Very few colleges even bother to put emphasis on statistics...some will even let you dodge the course entirely and take an equivalent.  CS and software engineering professors generally fall in line and focus on logic.  Obviously, it's a comfort level thing, and you can't get through to people unless you can demonstratively prove your approach.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll propose a measurement technique and they 'll scoff at it .
I try to show them how to properly graph a run chart and they 're indignant .
I question their metrics and they try to back it up with lame attempts at statistical reasoning .
Look , programmers tend towards the egotistical at best most of the time .
They like to argue , even about marginally different concepts .
I 've watched guys argue about things like for loops and while loops and ifs and switches so many times in my career that I can only try and block as much of that inanity out .
When you approach developers by TELLING them how to do something using statistical analysis , you 've got to first convince their supervisor/manager/etc .
of the value of it and why it 's better .
THEN you approach them and tell them that 's how you 're doing it .
Otherwise , you better believe they 'll argue about that...everyone has their own way of doing things , and you can bet they do n't care for someone else telling them that the way they 've done things in the past is all wrong .
The only way to make programmers learn is to do something first , have it become successful , and be able to demonstrate the value in doing things that way first .
I 've been on very , very few teams with developers who were constantly open to different ways of doing things .
Very few colleges even bother to put emphasis on statistics...some will even let you dodge the course entirely and take an equivalent .
CS and software engineering professors generally fall in line and focus on logic .
Obviously , it 's a comfort level thing , and you ca n't get through to people unless you can demonstratively prove your approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'll propose a measurement technique and they'll scoff at it.
I try to show them how to properly graph a run chart and they're indignant.
I question their metrics and they try to back it up with lame attempts at statistical reasoning.
Look, programmers tend towards the egotistical at best most of the time.
They like to argue, even about marginally different concepts.
I've watched guys argue about things like for loops and while loops and ifs and switches so many times in my career that I can only try and block as much of that inanity out.
When you approach developers by TELLING them how to do something using statistical analysis, you've got to first convince their supervisor/manager/etc.
of the value of it and why it's better.
THEN you approach them and tell them that's how you're doing it.
Otherwise, you better believe they'll argue about that...everyone has their own way of doing things, and you can bet they don't care for someone else telling them that the way they've done things in the past is all wrong.
The only way to make programmers learn is to do something first, have it become successful, and be able to demonstrate the value in doing things that way first.
I've been on very, very few teams with developers who were constantly open to different ways of doing things.
Very few colleges even bother to put emphasis on statistics...some will even let you dodge the course entirely and take an equivalent.
CS and software engineering professors generally fall in line and focus on logic.
Obviously, it's a comfort level thing, and you can't get through to people unless you can demonstratively prove your approach.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710880</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe wherever you went to school they taught "computer troubleshooting" as a degree, but some of us actually got a solid foundation in the various theoretical and practical foundations of computer software engineering.</p><p>Though I do agree that "Computer Science" is a stupid name.  They already have Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, etc - why not just call it "Software Engineering"?  [I'd say "Computer Engineering", but since that was my major and I also had to do transistor physics and VLSI design, it I guess does need to be separate...]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe wherever you went to school they taught " computer troubleshooting " as a degree , but some of us actually got a solid foundation in the various theoretical and practical foundations of computer software engineering.Though I do agree that " Computer Science " is a stupid name .
They already have Mechanical Engineering , Chemical Engineering , Electrical Engineering , etc - why not just call it " Software Engineering " ?
[ I 'd say " Computer Engineering " , but since that was my major and I also had to do transistor physics and VLSI design , it I guess does need to be separate... ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe wherever you went to school they taught "computer troubleshooting" as a degree, but some of us actually got a solid foundation in the various theoretical and practical foundations of computer software engineering.Though I do agree that "Computer Science" is a stupid name.
They already have Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, etc - why not just call it "Software Engineering"?
[I'd say "Computer Engineering", but since that was my major and I also had to do transistor physics and VLSI design, it I guess does need to be separate...]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714306</id>
	<title>Shouldn't this article be titled...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263136140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Why programmers need to learn how to communicate effectively."</p><p>If the only thing you are conveying is how superior you think you are and how angry you are at those you judge to be inferior to you, you are communicating the wrong message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why programmers need to learn how to communicate effectively .
" If the only thing you are conveying is how superior you think you are and how angry you are at those you judge to be inferior to you , you are communicating the wrong message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why programmers need to learn how to communicate effectively.
"If the only thing you are conveying is how superior you think you are and how angry you are at those you judge to be inferior to you, you are communicating the wrong message.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713442</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>dookiesan</author>
	<datestamp>1263117720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much research in statistics is focused on very applied problems in computational biology.  You are right that statisticians do not perform the experiments; it's unrealistic to expect them to have the lab experience necessary.  The mathematical statisticians are working on problems such as multiple testing (in many studies there are hundreds of thousands of hypotheses being tested) and inferences of very high dimensional data.  These are relevant topics and the work is motivated by the recent shift in the types of data we collect in experiments.</p><p>Some interesting subsets of computer science (machine learning and AI) are now focused on statistical models.  You have pointed out that much statistical work isn't developed by statisticians.  That doesn't mean the field is dead -- it is thriving!</p><p>Some Bayesians who rely on MCMC and may not care as much, but generally it is still important to find models with closed form likelihoods and optimization updates.  Applied statisticians work hard to keep things in closed form precisely because it matters in practice (but not in theory).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much research in statistics is focused on very applied problems in computational biology .
You are right that statisticians do not perform the experiments ; it 's unrealistic to expect them to have the lab experience necessary .
The mathematical statisticians are working on problems such as multiple testing ( in many studies there are hundreds of thousands of hypotheses being tested ) and inferences of very high dimensional data .
These are relevant topics and the work is motivated by the recent shift in the types of data we collect in experiments.Some interesting subsets of computer science ( machine learning and AI ) are now focused on statistical models .
You have pointed out that much statistical work is n't developed by statisticians .
That does n't mean the field is dead -- it is thriving ! Some Bayesians who rely on MCMC and may not care as much , but generally it is still important to find models with closed form likelihoods and optimization updates .
Applied statisticians work hard to keep things in closed form precisely because it matters in practice ( but not in theory ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much research in statistics is focused on very applied problems in computational biology.
You are right that statisticians do not perform the experiments; it's unrealistic to expect them to have the lab experience necessary.
The mathematical statisticians are working on problems such as multiple testing (in many studies there are hundreds of thousands of hypotheses being tested) and inferences of very high dimensional data.
These are relevant topics and the work is motivated by the recent shift in the types of data we collect in experiments.Some interesting subsets of computer science (machine learning and AI) are now focused on statistical models.
You have pointed out that much statistical work isn't developed by statisticians.
That doesn't mean the field is dead -- it is thriving!Some Bayesians who rely on MCMC and may not care as much, but generally it is still important to find models with closed form likelihoods and optimization updates.
Applied statisticians work hard to keep things in closed form precisely because it matters in practice (but not in theory).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710996</id>
	<title>Burn in flames</title>
	<author>Rivalz</author>
	<datestamp>1263043980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>" I have taken a bunch of math classes, studied statistics in grad school, learned the R language, and read tons of books on the subject. Despite all of this I'm not at all confident in my understanding of such a vast topic."

I'm presented with 1 of 2 scenarios.

Either he is smart and I should not bother studying statistics because it is vast and complicated and should only do research on a as needed basis.
Or
He is stupid. And I should just ignore the guy completely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I have taken a bunch of math classes , studied statistics in grad school , learned the R language , and read tons of books on the subject .
Despite all of this I 'm not at all confident in my understanding of such a vast topic .
" I 'm presented with 1 of 2 scenarios .
Either he is smart and I should not bother studying statistics because it is vast and complicated and should only do research on a as needed basis .
Or He is stupid .
And I should just ignore the guy completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" I have taken a bunch of math classes, studied statistics in grad school, learned the R language, and read tons of books on the subject.
Despite all of this I'm not at all confident in my understanding of such a vast topic.
"

I'm presented with 1 of 2 scenarios.
Either he is smart and I should not bother studying statistics because it is vast and complicated and should only do research on a as needed basis.
Or
He is stupid.
And I should just ignore the guy completely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710982</id>
	<title>Re:Is Zed insane?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He admits as much in the summary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He admits as much in the summary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He admits as much in the summary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711590</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just statistics</title>
	<author>RobinEggs</author>
	<datestamp>1263048720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've found that more than just about any other degree Computer Science and to a less extent Medical Degrees imbue the recipient with an unnatural ego when it comes to subjects with which they are unfamiliar.</p></div><p>+5 insightful<br> <br>In the last couple years I've come to my own theory that economists, physicists, and computer "scientists" all suffer some delusion that they can solve all problems in all other fields with slightly esoteric applications of the standard methods from their discipline. See <i>Freakonomics</i>, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found that more than just about any other degree Computer Science and to a less extent Medical Degrees imbue the recipient with an unnatural ego when it comes to subjects with which they are unfamiliar. + 5 insightful In the last couple years I 've come to my own theory that economists , physicists , and computer " scientists " all suffer some delusion that they can solve all problems in all other fields with slightly esoteric applications of the standard methods from their discipline .
See Freakonomics , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found that more than just about any other degree Computer Science and to a less extent Medical Degrees imbue the recipient with an unnatural ego when it comes to subjects with which they are unfamiliar.+5 insightful In the last couple years I've come to my own theory that economists, physicists, and computer "scientists" all suffer some delusion that they can solve all problems in all other fields with slightly esoteric applications of the standard methods from their discipline.
See Freakonomics, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710890</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1263043140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I studied it for years, so my e-peen is bigger. It worked in school, so it has to work in reality and thus they are wrong when they tell me it does not, despite them having experience with real applications while I have not.</p><p>Ok, snideness aside. Statistics is a wonderful tool (hey, my degree is in statistics actually), but I wouldn't want to impose my metrics on real applications without first looking whether they measure anything sensible. I turned for programming because, well, it's more suitable to me. But when I look at the metrics some of my superiors designed, cringing is all I can do.</p><p>Example: A metric that measures how much code you produce. Which is in theory nice. Who creates more code has done more work. Right? From a statistician's point of view, yes. But any programmer will tell you that it's trivial to write lots of lines or few, and they will do the same work. Most programming languages support that just fine. Does the statistician know? Probably not, unless he is a programmer too.</p><p>Example: A metric that measures the amount of code you alter. Which is in theory nice. You check out, change and check in code, and who checks out and checks in more (and does alteration in between) does more work than others. Right? No. For reference, see the Wikipedia game.</p><p>The reason why programmers scoff at metrics is that we've all seen our share of really, really crappy metrics that led to less instead of more productivity because everyone started gaming the system. Had to do that, because if you actually did sensible work, you fell behind in the metric against those that gamed (i.e. those that didn't produce in the first place).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I studied it for years , so my e-peen is bigger .
It worked in school , so it has to work in reality and thus they are wrong when they tell me it does not , despite them having experience with real applications while I have not.Ok , snideness aside .
Statistics is a wonderful tool ( hey , my degree is in statistics actually ) , but I would n't want to impose my metrics on real applications without first looking whether they measure anything sensible .
I turned for programming because , well , it 's more suitable to me .
But when I look at the metrics some of my superiors designed , cringing is all I can do.Example : A metric that measures how much code you produce .
Which is in theory nice .
Who creates more code has done more work .
Right ? From a statistician 's point of view , yes .
But any programmer will tell you that it 's trivial to write lots of lines or few , and they will do the same work .
Most programming languages support that just fine .
Does the statistician know ?
Probably not , unless he is a programmer too.Example : A metric that measures the amount of code you alter .
Which is in theory nice .
You check out , change and check in code , and who checks out and checks in more ( and does alteration in between ) does more work than others .
Right ? No .
For reference , see the Wikipedia game.The reason why programmers scoff at metrics is that we 've all seen our share of really , really crappy metrics that led to less instead of more productivity because everyone started gaming the system .
Had to do that , because if you actually did sensible work , you fell behind in the metric against those that gamed ( i.e .
those that did n't produce in the first place ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I studied it for years, so my e-peen is bigger.
It worked in school, so it has to work in reality and thus they are wrong when they tell me it does not, despite them having experience with real applications while I have not.Ok, snideness aside.
Statistics is a wonderful tool (hey, my degree is in statistics actually), but I wouldn't want to impose my metrics on real applications without first looking whether they measure anything sensible.
I turned for programming because, well, it's more suitable to me.
But when I look at the metrics some of my superiors designed, cringing is all I can do.Example: A metric that measures how much code you produce.
Which is in theory nice.
Who creates more code has done more work.
Right? From a statistician's point of view, yes.
But any programmer will tell you that it's trivial to write lots of lines or few, and they will do the same work.
Most programming languages support that just fine.
Does the statistician know?
Probably not, unless he is a programmer too.Example: A metric that measures the amount of code you alter.
Which is in theory nice.
You check out, change and check in code, and who checks out and checks in more (and does alteration in between) does more work than others.
Right? No.
For reference, see the Wikipedia game.The reason why programmers scoff at metrics is that we've all seen our share of really, really crappy metrics that led to less instead of more productivity because everyone started gaming the system.
Had to do that, because if you actually did sensible work, you fell behind in the metric against those that gamed (i.e.
those that didn't produce in the first place).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714644</id>
	<title>Re:Zed Shaw sounds like a douche.</title>
	<author>shallot</author>
	<datestamp>1263140820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first part of the article is an annoying rant, but once you get past the first dozen paragraph it's fairly factual and grounded in reasoning rather than emotion. Whereas your comment is equally judgmental yet has too little factual content to be rated +4, informative (which is the rating I see on it now).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first part of the article is an annoying rant , but once you get past the first dozen paragraph it 's fairly factual and grounded in reasoning rather than emotion .
Whereas your comment is equally judgmental yet has too little factual content to be rated + 4 , informative ( which is the rating I see on it now ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first part of the article is an annoying rant, but once you get past the first dozen paragraph it's fairly factual and grounded in reasoning rather than emotion.
Whereas your comment is equally judgmental yet has too little factual content to be rated +4, informative (which is the rating I see on it now).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714064</id>
	<title>Testing</title>
	<author>turgid</author>
	<datestamp>1263131880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Statistics are very important when testing a system. You really need to know (especially if the bug was intermittent) what the probability is of NOT seeing the error per test run iteration.
</p><p>It's not good enough to say, "It happens one in ten times, so if I run it 11 times I will definitely see the bug if it's still there."
</p><p>The probability of not seeing the bug per test is 9 in 10 i.e. 90\% or 0.9. These probabilities multiply, so if you perform the experiment (do a test run) 10 times, the probability of NOT seeing the bug (with the unfixed code) is 0.9^10 i.e. 0.349 or about 35\%.
</p><p>Would you be confident with that?
</p><p>If you wanted a 1\% probability (0.01) of not seeing the bug (in the unfixed code) how many runs would it take? Well, do your logs.
</p><p>0.01 = 0.9^x
</p><p>x=43.7
</p><p>So you would need to run the test 44 times to have a 99\% confidence that you'd fixed the bug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Statistics are very important when testing a system .
You really need to know ( especially if the bug was intermittent ) what the probability is of NOT seeing the error per test run iteration .
It 's not good enough to say , " It happens one in ten times , so if I run it 11 times I will definitely see the bug if it 's still there .
" The probability of not seeing the bug per test is 9 in 10 i.e .
90 \ % or 0.9 .
These probabilities multiply , so if you perform the experiment ( do a test run ) 10 times , the probability of NOT seeing the bug ( with the unfixed code ) is 0.9 ^ 10 i.e .
0.349 or about 35 \ % .
Would you be confident with that ?
If you wanted a 1 \ % probability ( 0.01 ) of not seeing the bug ( in the unfixed code ) how many runs would it take ?
Well , do your logs .
0.01 = 0.9 ^ x x = 43.7 So you would need to run the test 44 times to have a 99 \ % confidence that you 'd fixed the bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statistics are very important when testing a system.
You really need to know (especially if the bug was intermittent) what the probability is of NOT seeing the error per test run iteration.
It's not good enough to say, "It happens one in ten times, so if I run it 11 times I will definitely see the bug if it's still there.
"
The probability of not seeing the bug per test is 9 in 10 i.e.
90\% or 0.9.
These probabilities multiply, so if you perform the experiment (do a test run) 10 times, the probability of NOT seeing the bug (with the unfixed code) is 0.9^10 i.e.
0.349 or about 35\%.
Would you be confident with that?
If you wanted a 1\% probability (0.01) of not seeing the bug (in the unfixed code) how many runs would it take?
Well, do your logs.
0.01 = 0.9^x
x=43.7
So you would need to run the test 44 times to have a 99\% confidence that you'd fixed the bug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711010</id>
	<title>Re:Reply from a programmer that knows no statistic</title>
	<author>doublegauss</author>
	<datestamp>1263044100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You probably still think I am a lunatic, but hear me out.</p></div><p>
You don't qualify as a lunatic; just as someone who has no idea of what he's talking about. Absolutely no idea. Your post, my friend, is so full of ideas you obviously misunderstood that I won't even attempt to make a list.
</p><p>And yes, I do statistics for a living.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably still think I am a lunatic , but hear me out .
You do n't qualify as a lunatic ; just as someone who has no idea of what he 's talking about .
Absolutely no idea .
Your post , my friend , is so full of ideas you obviously misunderstood that I wo n't even attempt to make a list .
And yes , I do statistics for a living .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably still think I am a lunatic, but hear me out.
You don't qualify as a lunatic; just as someone who has no idea of what he's talking about.
Absolutely no idea.
Your post, my friend, is so full of ideas you obviously misunderstood that I won't even attempt to make a list.
And yes, I do statistics for a living.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712646</id>
	<title>Why is this being posted as news?</title>
	<author>coreb</author>
	<datestamp>1263060120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read this post a couple of years ago. Why is it just now making Slashdot? <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060821191148/www.zedshaw.com/blog/programming/programmer\_stats.html" title="archive.org" rel="nofollow">According to the wayback machine</a> [archive.org], this essay must have been written in May of 2006.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this post a couple of years ago .
Why is it just now making Slashdot ?
According to the wayback machine [ archive.org ] , this essay must have been written in May of 2006 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this post a couple of years ago.
Why is it just now making Slashdot?
According to the wayback machine [archive.org], this essay must have been written in May of 2006.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620</id>
	<title>Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1263041040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
We know as much statistics as we need to know.
</p><p>
Some know more, some less. Each has traded off hours vs. knowledge in many fields.
</p><p>
For example: Why would a programmer who's job is to automate bean counting need to know more then basic statistics? (s)he rightfully focuses his efforts on accounting.
</p><p>
One post calculus statistics course gives me enough grounding to know what I don't know and punt to experts when I need to.
</p><p>
Fucking specialists forget all the things they don't know and only look at the world through one lens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We know as much statistics as we need to know .
Some know more , some less .
Each has traded off hours vs. knowledge in many fields .
For example : Why would a programmer who 's job is to automate bean counting need to know more then basic statistics ?
( s ) he rightfully focuses his efforts on accounting .
One post calculus statistics course gives me enough grounding to know what I do n't know and punt to experts when I need to .
Fucking specialists forget all the things they do n't know and only look at the world through one lens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
We know as much statistics as we need to know.
Some know more, some less.
Each has traded off hours vs. knowledge in many fields.
For example: Why would a programmer who's job is to automate bean counting need to know more then basic statistics?
(s)he rightfully focuses his efforts on accounting.
One post calculus statistics course gives me enough grounding to know what I don't know and punt to experts when I need to.
Fucking specialists forget all the things they don't know and only look at the world through one lens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714006</id>
	<title>It's not statistics or CS, but communication</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1263130980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me greatly of my previous assignment, where I had to work with (yet another) "difficult user". He had a Ph.D in statistics and sounded a bit by Zed. He had also done some work in datamining and data warehouses, so he started our first conversation by declaring himself an expert in my field. Great start<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Ofcourse, as it turned out he was just very frustrated with his colleagues because he couldn't explain his ideas. No surprise there: he tried to explain very advanced mathematics with formulas, to people who barely managed to get a highschool education. After I provided an interface between the parties involved (my CS study came with a course in probability calculus so I could actually understand what he was doing) things went pretty smooth from there on. My advice to this user when I left was "get a good communications training". He said his manager was saying the same for about a year now but now it was coming from me (a techie) he'd actually think about it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>People who can communicate are paid lots of money. You can have all the skills, but if you can't access them, or combine them, you're not getting much use out of that expertise. Zed's article being a case in point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me greatly of my previous assignment , where I had to work with ( yet another ) " difficult user " .
He had a Ph.D in statistics and sounded a bit by Zed .
He had also done some work in datamining and data warehouses , so he started our first conversation by declaring himself an expert in my field .
Great start : ) Ofcourse , as it turned out he was just very frustrated with his colleagues because he could n't explain his ideas .
No surprise there : he tried to explain very advanced mathematics with formulas , to people who barely managed to get a highschool education .
After I provided an interface between the parties involved ( my CS study came with a course in probability calculus so I could actually understand what he was doing ) things went pretty smooth from there on .
My advice to this user when I left was " get a good communications training " .
He said his manager was saying the same for about a year now but now it was coming from me ( a techie ) he 'd actually think about it : ) People who can communicate are paid lots of money .
You can have all the skills , but if you ca n't access them , or combine them , you 're not getting much use out of that expertise .
Zed 's article being a case in point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me greatly of my previous assignment, where I had to work with (yet another) "difficult user".
He had a Ph.D in statistics and sounded a bit by Zed.
He had also done some work in datamining and data warehouses, so he started our first conversation by declaring himself an expert in my field.
Great start :)Ofcourse, as it turned out he was just very frustrated with his colleagues because he couldn't explain his ideas.
No surprise there: he tried to explain very advanced mathematics with formulas, to people who barely managed to get a highschool education.
After I provided an interface between the parties involved (my CS study came with a course in probability calculus so I could actually understand what he was doing) things went pretty smooth from there on.
My advice to this user when I left was "get a good communications training".
He said his manager was saying the same for about a year now but now it was coming from me (a techie) he'd actually think about it :)People who can communicate are paid lots of money.
You can have all the skills, but if you can't access them, or combine them, you're not getting much use out of that expertise.
Zed's article being a case in point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714088</id>
	<title>Zed Shaw posted a reponse</title>
	<author>lena\_10326</author>
	<datestamp>1263132240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zed fired off an angry post yesterday after noticing he was slashdotted. It looks like some sort of retaliation swing for the onslaught of pissed off programmers gunning for Zed.  <a href="http://zedshaw.com/blog/2010-01-09.html" title="zedshaw.com">http://zedshaw.com/blog/2010-01-09.html</a> [zedshaw.com] </p><p>My first thought was is Zed on some heavy duty medication? He seriously has some sort of anger problem going on and a deep seeded hatred toward his idealized concept of the "programmer". Maybe a programmer made him feel bad so now he's got a vendetta. Programmers surely can be dicks. I know because I work with them, but Zed is coming off like a dick programmer times 1000. (I chose 1000 because it's a power of 10.)</p><p>If he wants programmers to listen to him and actually change their ways, why doesn't he go with the educator approach instead of going with the approach of flame the world, stomp my feet, and call everyone stupid until they pay attention to me? The best way to get someone to ignore everything you say is to call them an idiot jackass who can't remember anything after 2 minutes. They will kindly oblige by living up to your expectation.</p><p>This Zed character may be good at some things like stats but he's damned awful at communication and demonstrating tact. I wonder if he behaves this way on the job, because I would not want to work with such a caustic person. Maybe at work he keeps the anger under wraps and behaves like a great guy, but if I were his coworker I'd lose all respect for him after reading those 2 posts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed fired off an angry post yesterday after noticing he was slashdotted .
It looks like some sort of retaliation swing for the onslaught of pissed off programmers gunning for Zed .
http : //zedshaw.com/blog/2010-01-09.html [ zedshaw.com ] My first thought was is Zed on some heavy duty medication ?
He seriously has some sort of anger problem going on and a deep seeded hatred toward his idealized concept of the " programmer " .
Maybe a programmer made him feel bad so now he 's got a vendetta .
Programmers surely can be dicks .
I know because I work with them , but Zed is coming off like a dick programmer times 1000 .
( I chose 1000 because it 's a power of 10 .
) If he wants programmers to listen to him and actually change their ways , why does n't he go with the educator approach instead of going with the approach of flame the world , stomp my feet , and call everyone stupid until they pay attention to me ?
The best way to get someone to ignore everything you say is to call them an idiot jackass who ca n't remember anything after 2 minutes .
They will kindly oblige by living up to your expectation.This Zed character may be good at some things like stats but he 's damned awful at communication and demonstrating tact .
I wonder if he behaves this way on the job , because I would not want to work with such a caustic person .
Maybe at work he keeps the anger under wraps and behaves like a great guy , but if I were his coworker I 'd lose all respect for him after reading those 2 posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zed fired off an angry post yesterday after noticing he was slashdotted.
It looks like some sort of retaliation swing for the onslaught of pissed off programmers gunning for Zed.
http://zedshaw.com/blog/2010-01-09.html [zedshaw.com] My first thought was is Zed on some heavy duty medication?
He seriously has some sort of anger problem going on and a deep seeded hatred toward his idealized concept of the "programmer".
Maybe a programmer made him feel bad so now he's got a vendetta.
Programmers surely can be dicks.
I know because I work with them, but Zed is coming off like a dick programmer times 1000.
(I chose 1000 because it's a power of 10.
)If he wants programmers to listen to him and actually change their ways, why doesn't he go with the educator approach instead of going with the approach of flame the world, stomp my feet, and call everyone stupid until they pay attention to me?
The best way to get someone to ignore everything you say is to call them an idiot jackass who can't remember anything after 2 minutes.
They will kindly oblige by living up to your expectation.This Zed character may be good at some things like stats but he's damned awful at communication and demonstrating tact.
I wonder if he behaves this way on the job, because I would not want to work with such a caustic person.
Maybe at work he keeps the anger under wraps and behaves like a great guy, but if I were his coworker I'd lose all respect for him after reading those 2 posts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710842</id>
	<title>This is why Science is starting to suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm really starting to fucking hate science. I finally, after 6 years, decided I should go back to university and get a stupid piece of paper on something. So I start down the two things I loved best in school: Biology and Computers. But oh its not that simple, because to learn computers "right" I have to take algebra, calculus, statistics and physics (just incase i'm ever lost in the desert and need to build an iPhone out of sand and snake shit). To learn Biology I have to know chemisty, physics, sociology and psychology (which requires fucking statistics anyways). Stupid!</p><p>I shoulda just been like every other lemming and got a business degree so I could earn six figures a year with my thumb up my ass and my brain on a tropical island.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really starting to fucking hate science .
I finally , after 6 years , decided I should go back to university and get a stupid piece of paper on something .
So I start down the two things I loved best in school : Biology and Computers .
But oh its not that simple , because to learn computers " right " I have to take algebra , calculus , statistics and physics ( just incase i 'm ever lost in the desert and need to build an iPhone out of sand and snake shit ) .
To learn Biology I have to know chemisty , physics , sociology and psychology ( which requires fucking statistics anyways ) .
Stupid ! I shoulda just been like every other lemming and got a business degree so I could earn six figures a year with my thumb up my ass and my brain on a tropical island .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really starting to fucking hate science.
I finally, after 6 years, decided I should go back to university and get a stupid piece of paper on something.
So I start down the two things I loved best in school: Biology and Computers.
But oh its not that simple, because to learn computers "right" I have to take algebra, calculus, statistics and physics (just incase i'm ever lost in the desert and need to build an iPhone out of sand and snake shit).
To learn Biology I have to know chemisty, physics, sociology and psychology (which requires fucking statistics anyways).
Stupid!I shoulda just been like every other lemming and got a business degree so I could earn six figures a year with my thumb up my ass and my brain on a tropical island.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711034</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>HornWumpus</author>
	<datestamp>1263044280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Statistics does not benefit everybody equally.
</p><p>
I'd say that if someone has not completed calculus then any statistics in their reach is simply memorize and regurgitate.
</p><p>
Put things in the correct order. Finish calculus then study stats.
</p><p>
The business majors understanding of statistics is the most dangerous.
</p><p>
They don't even know what they don't know.
</p><p>
They can regurgitate the definition of standard deviation but don't remember what normal distribution means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Statistics does not benefit everybody equally .
I 'd say that if someone has not completed calculus then any statistics in their reach is simply memorize and regurgitate .
Put things in the correct order .
Finish calculus then study stats .
The business majors understanding of statistics is the most dangerous .
They do n't even know what they do n't know .
They can regurgitate the definition of standard deviation but do n't remember what normal distribution means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Statistics does not benefit everybody equally.
I'd say that if someone has not completed calculus then any statistics in their reach is simply memorize and regurgitate.
Put things in the correct order.
Finish calculus then study stats.
The business majors understanding of statistics is the most dangerous.
They don't even know what they don't know.
They can regurgitate the definition of standard deviation but don't remember what normal distribution means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710644</id>
	<title>empty threats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>statisticians need to stfu or I will kill them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>statisticians need to stfu or I will kill them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>statisticians need to stfu or I will kill them all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711700</id>
	<title>Acknowledged Difficulty is a Good Sign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263049380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>not understanding a topic that even you are unwilling to acknowledge mastery of.</i></p><p>Personally, I think that little acknowledgment increases his credibility quite a bit. It suggests to me that he's actually spent some real time coming to grips not just with glossy overview you get in a high school or college course but with some of the devilish subtleties of actually using the stuff.</p><p>The funny thing about knowledge... the more it grows, the bigger you realize the frontier is. So, how good of a heuristic is apparent confidence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not understanding a topic that even you are unwilling to acknowledge mastery of.Personally , I think that little acknowledgment increases his credibility quite a bit .
It suggests to me that he 's actually spent some real time coming to grips not just with glossy overview you get in a high school or college course but with some of the devilish subtleties of actually using the stuff.The funny thing about knowledge... the more it grows , the bigger you realize the frontier is .
So , how good of a heuristic is apparent confidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not understanding a topic that even you are unwilling to acknowledge mastery of.Personally, I think that little acknowledgment increases his credibility quite a bit.
It suggests to me that he's actually spent some real time coming to grips not just with glossy overview you get in a high school or college course but with some of the devilish subtleties of actually using the stuff.The funny thing about knowledge... the more it grows, the bigger you realize the frontier is.
So, how good of a heuristic is apparent confidence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711318</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263046560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And, worst of all, it is uniformly badly taught, even in good universities</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure the Statistics instructors that I had knew the subject very well. I can't be positive though, because they were all Chinese and I couldn't understand much of what they said. To this day I read the words as "probobirity", "lotate about the axis", and "ashima". Took us a while to figure out the last one was axiom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , worst of all , it is uniformly badly taught , even in good universitiesI 'm pretty sure the Statistics instructors that I had knew the subject very well .
I ca n't be positive though , because they were all Chinese and I could n't understand much of what they said .
To this day I read the words as " probobirity " , " lotate about the axis " , and " ashima " .
Took us a while to figure out the last one was axiom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, worst of all, it is uniformly badly taught, even in good universitiesI'm pretty sure the Statistics instructors that I had knew the subject very well.
I can't be positive though, because they were all Chinese and I couldn't understand much of what they said.
To this day I read the words as "probobirity", "lotate about the axis", and "ashima".
Took us a while to figure out the last one was axiom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713000</id>
	<title>other way around</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1263065760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can find a reason why a programmer needs to learn anything and everything - but that's not practical. I have no qualms about hiring a statistician for special programming work - any one worth their weight is somewhat familiar with tools and languages.

As a programmer I'd rather find a reason for: Why Statisticians Need To Learn Programming! The statistician has much less to learn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can find a reason why a programmer needs to learn anything and everything - but that 's not practical .
I have no qualms about hiring a statistician for special programming work - any one worth their weight is somewhat familiar with tools and languages .
As a programmer I 'd rather find a reason for : Why Statisticians Need To Learn Programming !
The statistician has much less to learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can find a reason why a programmer needs to learn anything and everything - but that's not practical.
I have no qualms about hiring a statistician for special programming work - any one worth their weight is somewhat familiar with tools and languages.
As a programmer I'd rather find a reason for: Why Statisticians Need To Learn Programming!
The statistician has much less to learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714974</id>
	<title>rofl</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263144360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hah, I'll school this guy any day - and I don't even have a degree nor have I ever used R. What a douche.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah , I 'll school this guy any day - and I do n't even have a degree nor have I ever used R. What a douche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah, I'll school this guy any day - and I don't even have a degree nor have I ever used R. What a douche.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714734</id>
	<title>Dear Zed (I know you are reading the forum)</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1263142020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you are perfectly right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... doesn't mean you aren't a complete and total asshole.</p><p>As a reformed asshole myself I can tell you that condescendingly pointing out the failures of your colleagues will not get you what you want. Specifically (and I'm assuming here that your goal is the same as mine) getting your colleagues to stop acting like self-righteous fucktards. Most programmers are convinced they are geniuses. This is crucial to understand if you wish to work with them and wish to get them to do <i>anything</i> at all.</p><p>I am ostensibly in a senior role in my day job and I do find many things these other programmers do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fucktarded. That is they are beyond retarded since a retard would know they are a retard or at least not entertain the delusion of superiority that a fucktard does. No my friends we need to call them fucktards because they are fucking arrogant in their belief of superiority. So I can't <i>tell</i> these geniuses to do anything. Nope. Not at all.</p><p>You need to use psychology on these fucktards. What you need to do is something Socrates used to do with his little fucktards that he taught. Ask questions. Since the genius/fucktard seems to know so much start by asking leading questions that will do one of two things... it will lead the fucktard down a road that will show you both how stupid he is (and you can pretend they figured it out themselves they love to take credit). Or it will show you where you were wrong... and that you were the fucktard.</p><p>Remember we are after end results. So we put aside lesser things (like pride) in the search for a greater goal which should be better software and the ability to make more of it. If you can psychologically manipulate an army of fucktards you will become fucking powerful. Much more fucking powerful than you fucking are on your fucking own. I wish you good fucking luck as I can tell by the response to your post that you are a fucking powerful personality and will definitely lead your own army of fucktards one day.</p><p>Hopefully when we meet on the field we can be allies and not enemies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you are perfectly right ... does n't mean you are n't a complete and total asshole.As a reformed asshole myself I can tell you that condescendingly pointing out the failures of your colleagues will not get you what you want .
Specifically ( and I 'm assuming here that your goal is the same as mine ) getting your colleagues to stop acting like self-righteous fucktards .
Most programmers are convinced they are geniuses .
This is crucial to understand if you wish to work with them and wish to get them to do anything at all.I am ostensibly in a senior role in my day job and I do find many things these other programmers do ... well ... fucktarded. That is they are beyond retarded since a retard would know they are a retard or at least not entertain the delusion of superiority that a fucktard does .
No my friends we need to call them fucktards because they are fucking arrogant in their belief of superiority .
So I ca n't tell these geniuses to do anything .
Nope. Not at all.You need to use psychology on these fucktards .
What you need to do is something Socrates used to do with his little fucktards that he taught .
Ask questions .
Since the genius/fucktard seems to know so much start by asking leading questions that will do one of two things... it will lead the fucktard down a road that will show you both how stupid he is ( and you can pretend they figured it out themselves they love to take credit ) .
Or it will show you where you were wrong... and that you were the fucktard.Remember we are after end results .
So we put aside lesser things ( like pride ) in the search for a greater goal which should be better software and the ability to make more of it .
If you can psychologically manipulate an army of fucktards you will become fucking powerful .
Much more fucking powerful than you fucking are on your fucking own .
I wish you good fucking luck as I can tell by the response to your post that you are a fucking powerful personality and will definitely lead your own army of fucktards one day.Hopefully when we meet on the field we can be allies and not enemies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you are perfectly right ... doesn't mean you aren't a complete and total asshole.As a reformed asshole myself I can tell you that condescendingly pointing out the failures of your colleagues will not get you what you want.
Specifically (and I'm assuming here that your goal is the same as mine) getting your colleagues to stop acting like self-righteous fucktards.
Most programmers are convinced they are geniuses.
This is crucial to understand if you wish to work with them and wish to get them to do anything at all.I am ostensibly in a senior role in my day job and I do find many things these other programmers do ... well ... fucktarded. That is they are beyond retarded since a retard would know they are a retard or at least not entertain the delusion of superiority that a fucktard does.
No my friends we need to call them fucktards because they are fucking arrogant in their belief of superiority.
So I can't tell these geniuses to do anything.
Nope. Not at all.You need to use psychology on these fucktards.
What you need to do is something Socrates used to do with his little fucktards that he taught.
Ask questions.
Since the genius/fucktard seems to know so much start by asking leading questions that will do one of two things... it will lead the fucktard down a road that will show you both how stupid he is (and you can pretend they figured it out themselves they love to take credit).
Or it will show you where you were wrong... and that you were the fucktard.Remember we are after end results.
So we put aside lesser things (like pride) in the search for a greater goal which should be better software and the ability to make more of it.
If you can psychologically manipulate an army of fucktards you will become fucking powerful.
Much more fucking powerful than you fucking are on your fucking own.
I wish you good fucking luck as I can tell by the response to your post that you are a fucking powerful personality and will definitely lead your own army of fucktards one day.Hopefully when we meet on the field we can be allies and not enemies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710746</id>
	<title>sounds impossible to please?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I've been studying it for years and years and still don't think I know anything.</i></p><p>And yet you're expecting someone whose expertise is in a different field to know more about it than <b>you</b>?</p><p>We can't all be experts in everything.  If you're the expert in the field of discussion, get used to educating your coworkers on the topic, or find another job where you're surrounded by people with the same education and expertise as you.</p><p>The average person is an expert in no more than two or three related areas.  That's why people work in teams, to cover each other's blind spots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been studying it for years and years and still do n't think I know anything.And yet you 're expecting someone whose expertise is in a different field to know more about it than you ? We ca n't all be experts in everything .
If you 're the expert in the field of discussion , get used to educating your coworkers on the topic , or find another job where you 're surrounded by people with the same education and expertise as you.The average person is an expert in no more than two or three related areas .
That 's why people work in teams , to cover each other 's blind spots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been studying it for years and years and still don't think I know anything.And yet you're expecting someone whose expertise is in a different field to know more about it than you?We can't all be experts in everything.
If you're the expert in the field of discussion, get used to educating your coworkers on the topic, or find another job where you're surrounded by people with the same education and expertise as you.The average person is an expert in no more than two or three related areas.
That's why people work in teams, to cover each other's blind spots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711710</id>
	<title>Obigatory Stats Joke</title>
	<author>frank249</author>
	<datestamp>1263049500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>I construct two sets of n=100 random samples from the normal distribution. Now, if I just take the average (mean or median) of these two sets they seem almost the same.</i>"</p><p>So its true.  The n's justifies the means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I construct two sets of n = 100 random samples from the normal distribution .
Now , if I just take the average ( mean or median ) of these two sets they seem almost the same .
" So its true .
The n 's justifies the means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I construct two sets of n=100 random samples from the normal distribution.
Now, if I just take the average (mean or median) of these two sets they seem almost the same.
"So its true.
The n's justifies the means.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712176</id>
	<title>Isn't this old news?</title>
	<author>DrShoe</author>
	<datestamp>1263053640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This looked familiar, then I remembered that I read this years ago. <br>

<a href="http://haduken.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=934&amp;sid=ccd988ac3fa9146e94124c1228c4ac35" title="haduken.com" rel="nofollow">http://haduken.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=934&amp;sid=ccd988ac3fa9146e94124c1228c4ac35</a> [haduken.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This looked familiar , then I remembered that I read this years ago .
http : //haduken.com/board/viewtopic.php ? t = 934&amp;sid = ccd988ac3fa9146e94124c1228c4ac35 [ haduken.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This looked familiar, then I remembered that I read this years ago.
http://haduken.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=934&amp;sid=ccd988ac3fa9146e94124c1228c4ac35 [haduken.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711734</id>
	<title>90\% effort + 90\% effort == done</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1263049800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I can tell you that when I tell my boss that the project is 90\% complete and I just have to finish the other 90\% he, and every other SE I have said this to, knows <b> <i>exactly</i></b>  what I mean.  This guy actually thinks that at times the sunset <b>is</b> a brilliant blue.  He clearly doesn't get that how he perceives things is not the same as them <b>actually being</b> the way he perceives them, and so he freaks when smarter people than him don't care what he has to say.  Lickily I learned from the available data I have that 100\% of people named Zed Shaw want to kill me, so at least I have that going for me now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I can tell you that when I tell my boss that the project is 90 \ % complete and I just have to finish the other 90 \ % he , and every other SE I have said this to , knows exactly what I mean .
This guy actually thinks that at times the sunset is a brilliant blue .
He clearly does n't get that how he perceives things is not the same as them actually being the way he perceives them , and so he freaks when smarter people than him do n't care what he has to say .
Lickily I learned from the available data I have that 100 \ % of people named Zed Shaw want to kill me , so at least I have that going for me now ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I can tell you that when I tell my boss that the project is 90\% complete and I just have to finish the other 90\% he, and every other SE I have said this to, knows  exactly  what I mean.
This guy actually thinks that at times the sunset is a brilliant blue.
He clearly doesn't get that how he perceives things is not the same as them actually being the way he perceives them, and so he freaks when smarter people than him don't care what he has to say.
Lickily I learned from the available data I have that 100\% of people named Zed Shaw want to kill me, so at least I have that going for me now ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30717002</id>
	<title>Re:93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>adamdoyle</author>
	<datestamp>1263118020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you think that then answer the following problem:
If I flip two coins and one of them is heads, what are the odds the other one is also heads?</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm pretty sure you don't have to flip a coin in poker...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think that then answer the following problem : If I flip two coins and one of them is heads , what are the odds the other one is also heads ?
I 'm pretty sure you do n't have to flip a coin in poker.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think that then answer the following problem:
If I flip two coins and one of them is heads, what are the odds the other one is also heads?
I'm pretty sure you don't have to flip a coin in poker...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711292</id>
	<title>It's the Zed Effect</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1263046380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Zed Effect:  Whether you're right or wrong people will disagree with you just to piss you off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Zed Effect : Whether you 're right or wrong people will disagree with you just to piss you off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Zed Effect:  Whether you're right or wrong people will disagree with you just to piss you off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713972</id>
	<title>HR Realy needs to learn Statistics</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1263130020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they might realise the whole house of cards that stack ranking and HR&rsquo;s beloved PRM systems are is flawed and invalid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they might realise the whole house of cards that stack ranking and HR    s beloved PRM systems are is flawed and invalid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they might realise the whole house of cards that stack ranking and HR’s beloved PRM systems are is flawed and invalid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711402</id>
	<title>Statisticians need to learn Art, or i will kill</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1263047220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>them all...</p><p>how does that sound, zed ?</p><p>can you make a statistic out of the output of Da vinci ? can you statistically value the work output that was required to create mona lisa ? can you statistically measure the effect of mona lisa in the beholders' psyche ?</p><p>or, can you compare the efficiency and work output of monet to rembrandt ? or bach to handel ?</p><p>let me tell you. you fucking cant. because these are not quantifiable. its ART. it requires muse, talent, luck, inspiration, experience, practice, stars aligned in the right time, EVERY other kind of shit.</p><p>what the fsck does this have in relation to programming then ? listen, for its apparent that you dont know about programming enough, even in your current situation :</p><p>programming is little different than art. some people type out 10.000 lines of code doing multitudes of things, yet all of these provide nothing. one person puts out 50 lines of code, that that provides nothing either.</p><p>but in 3 years time, something happens, and the entire company's ass is saved by that 50 lines of code.</p><p>a brutally simple example, and a common one, but this should be enough to make the point.</p><p>i would sell any shares in a company that statistically tries to quantify the programmers. for, it means that they are one company that dont know shit about information technology, and sure is a company to miss any potential genius or groundbreaker even if they get their hands on one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>them all...how does that sound , zed ? can you make a statistic out of the output of Da vinci ?
can you statistically value the work output that was required to create mona lisa ?
can you statistically measure the effect of mona lisa in the beholders ' psyche ? or , can you compare the efficiency and work output of monet to rembrandt ?
or bach to handel ? let me tell you .
you fucking cant .
because these are not quantifiable .
its ART .
it requires muse , talent , luck , inspiration , experience , practice , stars aligned in the right time , EVERY other kind of shit.what the fsck does this have in relation to programming then ?
listen , for its apparent that you dont know about programming enough , even in your current situation : programming is little different than art .
some people type out 10.000 lines of code doing multitudes of things , yet all of these provide nothing .
one person puts out 50 lines of code , that that provides nothing either.but in 3 years time , something happens , and the entire company 's ass is saved by that 50 lines of code.a brutally simple example , and a common one , but this should be enough to make the point.i would sell any shares in a company that statistically tries to quantify the programmers .
for , it means that they are one company that dont know shit about information technology , and sure is a company to miss any potential genius or groundbreaker even if they get their hands on one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>them all...how does that sound, zed ?can you make a statistic out of the output of Da vinci ?
can you statistically value the work output that was required to create mona lisa ?
can you statistically measure the effect of mona lisa in the beholders' psyche ?or, can you compare the efficiency and work output of monet to rembrandt ?
or bach to handel ?let me tell you.
you fucking cant.
because these are not quantifiable.
its ART.
it requires muse, talent, luck, inspiration, experience, practice, stars aligned in the right time, EVERY other kind of shit.what the fsck does this have in relation to programming then ?
listen, for its apparent that you dont know about programming enough, even in your current situation :programming is little different than art.
some people type out 10.000 lines of code doing multitudes of things, yet all of these provide nothing.
one person puts out 50 lines of code, that that provides nothing either.but in 3 years time, something happens, and the entire company's ass is saved by that 50 lines of code.a brutally simple example, and a common one, but this should be enough to make the point.i would sell any shares in a company that statistically tries to quantify the programmers.
for, it means that they are one company that dont know shit about information technology, and sure is a company to miss any potential genius or groundbreaker even if they get their hands on one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714358</id>
	<title>Re:Statistical analysis of the summary</title>
	<author>jstults</author>
	<datestamp>1263136800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To make any statements, you would first need to make some observations</p></div><p>Or you could be a Bayesian, make some assumptions, include <i>a priori</i> info in the analysis (which you should probably do anyway even if you have data); <i>before</i> you get up to check if there is an elephant in the kitchen assigning equal priors to the two hypothesis is a sound <i>maximum entropy</i> sort of method. You can then update your 50/50 state of knowledge after observing zero or many elephants in your kitchen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To make any statements , you would first need to make some observationsOr you could be a Bayesian , make some assumptions , include a priori info in the analysis ( which you should probably do anyway even if you have data ) ; before you get up to check if there is an elephant in the kitchen assigning equal priors to the two hypothesis is a sound maximum entropy sort of method .
You can then update your 50/50 state of knowledge after observing zero or many elephants in your kitchen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To make any statements, you would first need to make some observationsOr you could be a Bayesian, make some assumptions, include a priori info in the analysis (which you should probably do anyway even if you have data); before you get up to check if there is an elephant in the kitchen assigning equal priors to the two hypothesis is a sound maximum entropy sort of method.
You can then update your 50/50 state of knowledge after observing zero or many elephants in your kitchen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713572</id>
	<title>Re:Your argument is dead, Zed</title>
	<author>lena\_10326</author>
	<datestamp>1263120240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Basically, many programmers feel that everybody else around him(or her) is a stupid asshole</p></div></blockquote><p>That's one of the reasons working in IT is not all that <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9143194/Surveys\_IT\_job\_satisfaction\_plummets\_to\_all\_time\_low" title="computerworld.com">satisfying</a> [computerworld.com]. Many problems have multiple solutions which for the most part are equivalent in function but vary on what they're attempting to optimize for (* see below) yet developers seem to latch onto the solution they thought of and become down right rude and nasty when evaluating a teammate's solution. When every developer assumes he is the smartest of the bunch and all others are morons it fosters an environment where everyone is unwilling to compromise and a 3rd person usually has to step in to break the tie. That leads to a hostile work place where thought battles frequently occur. Losing a battle causes a teammate to become afraid of undue criticism in the future, so the next time around they over engineer the code trying to cover all bases. This leads to large systems that solve fairly simple problems with overly complex implementations. After a few cycles of this, the software is unmanageable, which becomes evidence <em>proving</em> to the developer that his teammates and ones who came before are idiots with no clue, and now it is up to that lone hot shot to bitch about fixing the mess, which of course is accompanied with many nasty critiques and insinuations.</p><p>I am a developer with a fairly open mind and I strive to eliminate ego from the workplace by staying on the positive, helpful side, but honestly I'm getting sick of working with people who don't try to do the same.</p><p>* Example, solutions can be optimized to target maintainability, readability, CPU/IO performance, availability, reliability, correctness/precision, recovery, automation, reduction of complexity, extensibility, cross platform, resilience to change, parallelism, security, partitioning, modularization, popular design idioms. The list is nearly endless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , many programmers feel that everybody else around him ( or her ) is a stupid assholeThat 's one of the reasons working in IT is not all that satisfying [ computerworld.com ] .
Many problems have multiple solutions which for the most part are equivalent in function but vary on what they 're attempting to optimize for ( * see below ) yet developers seem to latch onto the solution they thought of and become down right rude and nasty when evaluating a teammate 's solution .
When every developer assumes he is the smartest of the bunch and all others are morons it fosters an environment where everyone is unwilling to compromise and a 3rd person usually has to step in to break the tie .
That leads to a hostile work place where thought battles frequently occur .
Losing a battle causes a teammate to become afraid of undue criticism in the future , so the next time around they over engineer the code trying to cover all bases .
This leads to large systems that solve fairly simple problems with overly complex implementations .
After a few cycles of this , the software is unmanageable , which becomes evidence proving to the developer that his teammates and ones who came before are idiots with no clue , and now it is up to that lone hot shot to bitch about fixing the mess , which of course is accompanied with many nasty critiques and insinuations.I am a developer with a fairly open mind and I strive to eliminate ego from the workplace by staying on the positive , helpful side , but honestly I 'm getting sick of working with people who do n't try to do the same .
* Example , solutions can be optimized to target maintainability , readability , CPU/IO performance , availability , reliability , correctness/precision , recovery , automation , reduction of complexity , extensibility , cross platform , resilience to change , parallelism , security , partitioning , modularization , popular design idioms .
The list is nearly endless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, many programmers feel that everybody else around him(or her) is a stupid assholeThat's one of the reasons working in IT is not all that satisfying [computerworld.com].
Many problems have multiple solutions which for the most part are equivalent in function but vary on what they're attempting to optimize for (* see below) yet developers seem to latch onto the solution they thought of and become down right rude and nasty when evaluating a teammate's solution.
When every developer assumes he is the smartest of the bunch and all others are morons it fosters an environment where everyone is unwilling to compromise and a 3rd person usually has to step in to break the tie.
That leads to a hostile work place where thought battles frequently occur.
Losing a battle causes a teammate to become afraid of undue criticism in the future, so the next time around they over engineer the code trying to cover all bases.
This leads to large systems that solve fairly simple problems with overly complex implementations.
After a few cycles of this, the software is unmanageable, which becomes evidence proving to the developer that his teammates and ones who came before are idiots with no clue, and now it is up to that lone hot shot to bitch about fixing the mess, which of course is accompanied with many nasty critiques and insinuations.I am a developer with a fairly open mind and I strive to eliminate ego from the workplace by staying on the positive, helpful side, but honestly I'm getting sick of working with people who don't try to do the same.
* Example, solutions can be optimized to target maintainability, readability, CPU/IO performance, availability, reliability, correctness/precision, recovery, automation, reduction of complexity, extensibility, cross platform, resilience to change, parallelism, security, partitioning, modularization, popular design idioms.
The list is nearly endless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711232</id>
	<title>definitley a conspiracy</title>
	<author>StickANeedleInMyEye</author>
	<datestamp>1263045960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a vast right wing conspiracy backed by Fox news "Fair and Balanced".</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a vast right wing conspiracy backed by Fox news " Fair and Balanced " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a vast right wing conspiracy backed by Fox news "Fair and Balanced".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710708</id>
	<title>Go ahead and try it</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1263041700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know enough about statistics to know statistically I  know I'm safe from his threats. I suspect if I were a bag of Cheetos the odds were be against me but that's not the case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know enough about statistics to know statistically I know I 'm safe from his threats .
I suspect if I were a bag of Cheetos the odds were be against me but that 's not the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know enough about statistics to know statistically I  know I'm safe from his threats.
I suspect if I were a bag of Cheetos the odds were be against me but that's not the case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686</id>
	<title>The funny thing is he's doing exactly the same</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's just as arrogantly claiming that he's right and they're wrong. Now, he may very well in fact <i>be</i> right, but he's taking the same obstinate position the people he criticizes do.</p><p>It's important to know when your input is not desired. Even if you think it should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's just as arrogantly claiming that he 's right and they 're wrong .
Now , he may very well in fact be right , but he 's taking the same obstinate position the people he criticizes do.It 's important to know when your input is not desired .
Even if you think it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's just as arrogantly claiming that he's right and they're wrong.
Now, he may very well in fact be right, but he's taking the same obstinate position the people he criticizes do.It's important to know when your input is not desired.
Even if you think it should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713056</id>
	<title>Re:The reason people ignore you Zed..</title>
	<author>freedomlinux</author>
	<datestamp>1263066660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><strong>I think all statisticians should have to learn writing communications skills. </strong>
<br>
Zed sure embarrasses himself by writing such an atrocious piece of garbage. <br>
<br>
Maybe people would listen to Zed if he didn't:
<br>  a.) Depend on vulgar language to emphasize an argument (and subsequently)
<br>  b.) Prove himself as a huge douchbag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think all statisticians should have to learn writing communications skills .
Zed sure embarrasses himself by writing such an atrocious piece of garbage .
Maybe people would listen to Zed if he did n't : a .
) Depend on vulgar language to emphasize an argument ( and subsequently ) b .
) Prove himself as a huge douchbag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think all statisticians should have to learn writing communications skills.
Zed sure embarrasses himself by writing such an atrocious piece of garbage.
Maybe people would listen to Zed if he didn't:
  a.
) Depend on vulgar language to emphasize an argument (and subsequently)
  b.
) Prove himself as a huge douchbag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710800</id>
	<title>Show them you're the Boss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is easy to convince your colleagues that you are better than them in statistics. Just play some statistical games with them. I recommend the "Three Door Problem" which is sometimes called the Monty Hall problem. Those people who don't know statistics will be doomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is easy to convince your colleagues that you are better than them in statistics .
Just play some statistical games with them .
I recommend the " Three Door Problem " which is sometimes called the Monty Hall problem .
Those people who do n't know statistics will be doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is easy to convince your colleagues that you are better than them in statistics.
Just play some statistical games with them.
I recommend the "Three Door Problem" which is sometimes called the Monty Hall problem.
Those people who don't know statistics will be doomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712354</id>
	<title>Re:The funny thing is he's doing exactly the same</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263055920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's important to know when your input is not desired. Even if you think it should be.</p></div><p>That's what she said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's important to know when your input is not desired .
Even if you think it should be.That 's what she said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's important to know when your input is not desired.
Even if you think it should be.That's what she said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711912</id>
	<title>Re:The funny thing is he's doing exactly the same</title>
	<author>DMiax</author>
	<datestamp>1263051120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe, but even then he is taking an arrogant stance <b>in his field of expertise</b>, while they are doing the same <b>outside</b> theirs. I assume he would not do the same when talking about programming, since that would obviously be hypocritical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , but even then he is taking an arrogant stance in his field of expertise , while they are doing the same outside theirs .
I assume he would not do the same when talking about programming , since that would obviously be hypocritical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, but even then he is taking an arrogant stance in his field of expertise, while they are doing the same outside theirs.
I assume he would not do the same when talking about programming, since that would obviously be hypocritical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30728850</id>
	<title>Logic and reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263204960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;    "I really can't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation"</p><p>Evidence and observation of the above sentence shows that the author is comparing two things that are not really exclusive. Logic and reason tell me that my time is better spent not reading the rest of the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; " I really ca n't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation " Evidence and observation of the above sentence shows that the author is comparing two things that are not really exclusive .
Logic and reason tell me that my time is better spent not reading the rest of the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;    "I really can't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation"Evidence and observation of the above sentence shows that the author is comparing two things that are not really exclusive.
Logic and reason tell me that my time is better spent not reading the rest of the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714468</id>
	<title>Re:Stats are only as good as the data</title>
	<author>rmm4pi8</author>
	<datestamp>1263138720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of normal curves with standard deviations as something like the curve of adult human heights.  So if you have some other kind of data which clusters very differently (say, incomes, where the high end of the curve goes on for a long time) or like your data, where you might have a team where everyone is very nearly at the median (what we call "narrow-tailed") and you just define the distribution as normal (which is what you're doing when you look at 'standard' deviations) then you're basically using statistics to remap small differences as if they're as large as the difference in human heights.  And yes, for normal distributions you generally want sample sizes of 40 or so depending on the size of the effect (but in my experience that's reasonable for organizational study planning, where you obviously don't know the effect size beforehand).  If what you're trying to do is just rank people in a statistically robust way, then you want something like Pearson's R, which only assumes a rank ordering, not a normal distribution, and is much more robust to small sample sizes.  Of course, this will not result in grade-like scoring, but I'm not sure what can be done about that.  Hope that helps a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of normal curves with standard deviations as something like the curve of adult human heights .
So if you have some other kind of data which clusters very differently ( say , incomes , where the high end of the curve goes on for a long time ) or like your data , where you might have a team where everyone is very nearly at the median ( what we call " narrow-tailed " ) and you just define the distribution as normal ( which is what you 're doing when you look at 'standard ' deviations ) then you 're basically using statistics to remap small differences as if they 're as large as the difference in human heights .
And yes , for normal distributions you generally want sample sizes of 40 or so depending on the size of the effect ( but in my experience that 's reasonable for organizational study planning , where you obviously do n't know the effect size beforehand ) .
If what you 're trying to do is just rank people in a statistically robust way , then you want something like Pearson 's R , which only assumes a rank ordering , not a normal distribution , and is much more robust to small sample sizes .
Of course , this will not result in grade-like scoring , but I 'm not sure what can be done about that .
Hope that helps a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of normal curves with standard deviations as something like the curve of adult human heights.
So if you have some other kind of data which clusters very differently (say, incomes, where the high end of the curve goes on for a long time) or like your data, where you might have a team where everyone is very nearly at the median (what we call "narrow-tailed") and you just define the distribution as normal (which is what you're doing when you look at 'standard' deviations) then you're basically using statistics to remap small differences as if they're as large as the difference in human heights.
And yes, for normal distributions you generally want sample sizes of 40 or so depending on the size of the effect (but in my experience that's reasonable for organizational study planning, where you obviously don't know the effect size beforehand).
If what you're trying to do is just rank people in a statistically robust way, then you want something like Pearson's R, which only assumes a rank ordering, not a normal distribution, and is much more robust to small sample sizes.
Of course, this will not result in grade-like scoring, but I'm not sure what can be done about that.
Hope that helps a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712200</id>
	<title>what a tone</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1263053940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>whatever his professionnal skills, I just hope I never have to work alongside a guy with such a foul mouth and attitude.</p><p>I did manage to hang on long enough to see that below the big "I'm a jerk" sign, there was at least some truth to his argument. Not that original or that strong to warrant such a hissy fit though.</p><p>the real question is: what's worse<br>- the swearing ?<br>- the attitude towards others ?<br>- the ego ?<br>- the lack of perspective ?</p><p>that guy should tone down the statistics skills and brush up on his social ones. Maybe we could send him a guide:</p><p>"fucking idiots devs need to do good like me myself I do, and stop swearing and belittling others like the foul-mouthed idiot fuckers they are they are and learn some modesty, politeness, and perspectve like my godly self, otherwise the world is gonna END !!!!!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whatever his professionnal skills , I just hope I never have to work alongside a guy with such a foul mouth and attitude.I did manage to hang on long enough to see that below the big " I 'm a jerk " sign , there was at least some truth to his argument .
Not that original or that strong to warrant such a hissy fit though.the real question is : what 's worse- the swearing ? - the attitude towards others ? - the ego ? - the lack of perspective ? that guy should tone down the statistics skills and brush up on his social ones .
Maybe we could send him a guide : " fucking idiots devs need to do good like me myself I do , and stop swearing and belittling others like the foul-mouthed idiot fuckers they are they are and learn some modesty , politeness , and perspectve like my godly self , otherwise the world is gon na END ! ! ! ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whatever his professionnal skills, I just hope I never have to work alongside a guy with such a foul mouth and attitude.I did manage to hang on long enough to see that below the big "I'm a jerk" sign, there was at least some truth to his argument.
Not that original or that strong to warrant such a hissy fit though.the real question is: what's worse- the swearing ?- the attitude towards others ?- the ego ?- the lack of perspective ?that guy should tone down the statistics skills and brush up on his social ones.
Maybe we could send him a guide:"fucking idiots devs need to do good like me myself I do, and stop swearing and belittling others like the foul-mouthed idiot fuckers they are they are and learn some modesty, politeness, and perspectve like my godly self, otherwise the world is gonna END !!!!!!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710916</id>
	<title>We love you, Zed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This a classic Zed Shaw post:</p><p>- Makes one really very good point (programmers doing testing should incorporate basic statistical techniques into their tests)<br>- Tells everyone how smart he is, albeit emphasizing his own humility ("I've read tons of books on this subject, but I still don't know shit")<br>- Angrily berates stupid fucking programmers for making fucking stupid mistakes, and for not listening to him when he tries to put them fucking straight<br>- Claims that bad practices afflict the entire community (except him)<br>- Betrays secret hurt feelings ("Screw you guys, I'm going to get a burrito")<br>- Makes creepy and patronizing comments about women<br>- Informs us how tall he is (6'2")<br>- Descends into Daily WTF-style enumerations of fucking stupid things his former boss did</p><p>Unfortunately it is missing some elements that would make it a truly great Zed Shaw post: personal insults, bewildered complaints that he is not rich, and stories about his random good deeds.</p><p>His main point is excellent though: programmers doing testing should understand statistics, and their tests should be statistically valid, just like any other empirical test. A great point and one I have not heard discussed very much in the context of software engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This a classic Zed Shaw post : - Makes one really very good point ( programmers doing testing should incorporate basic statistical techniques into their tests ) - Tells everyone how smart he is , albeit emphasizing his own humility ( " I 've read tons of books on this subject , but I still do n't know shit " ) - Angrily berates stupid fucking programmers for making fucking stupid mistakes , and for not listening to him when he tries to put them fucking straight- Claims that bad practices afflict the entire community ( except him ) - Betrays secret hurt feelings ( " Screw you guys , I 'm going to get a burrito " ) - Makes creepy and patronizing comments about women- Informs us how tall he is ( 6'2 " ) - Descends into Daily WTF-style enumerations of fucking stupid things his former boss didUnfortunately it is missing some elements that would make it a truly great Zed Shaw post : personal insults , bewildered complaints that he is not rich , and stories about his random good deeds.His main point is excellent though : programmers doing testing should understand statistics , and their tests should be statistically valid , just like any other empirical test .
A great point and one I have not heard discussed very much in the context of software engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This a classic Zed Shaw post:- Makes one really very good point (programmers doing testing should incorporate basic statistical techniques into their tests)- Tells everyone how smart he is, albeit emphasizing his own humility ("I've read tons of books on this subject, but I still don't know shit")- Angrily berates stupid fucking programmers for making fucking stupid mistakes, and for not listening to him when he tries to put them fucking straight- Claims that bad practices afflict the entire community (except him)- Betrays secret hurt feelings ("Screw you guys, I'm going to get a burrito")- Makes creepy and patronizing comments about women- Informs us how tall he is (6'2")- Descends into Daily WTF-style enumerations of fucking stupid things his former boss didUnfortunately it is missing some elements that would make it a truly great Zed Shaw post: personal insults, bewildered complaints that he is not rich, and stories about his random good deeds.His main point is excellent though: programmers doing testing should understand statistics, and their tests should be statistically valid, just like any other empirical test.
A great point and one I have not heard discussed very much in the context of software engineering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710810</id>
	<title>Religious experience...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When is comes to statistic it becomes like religion - you either believe that they are telling generating a truth or you don't<br>(Its all about assuming that you are accounting for all the variables)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When is comes to statistic it becomes like religion - you either believe that they are telling generating a truth or you do n't ( Its all about assuming that you are accounting for all the variables )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When is comes to statistic it becomes like religion - you either believe that they are telling generating a truth or you don't(Its all about assuming that you are accounting for all the variables)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710972</id>
	<title>lies, damned lies...</title>
	<author>yalap</author>
	<datestamp>1263043860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lies, damned lies and statistics. Us programmers are too busy dealing with the first two to ever reach the third..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lies , damned lies and statistics .
Us programmers are too busy dealing with the first two to ever reach the third. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Us programmers are too busy dealing with the first two to ever reach the third..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710692</id>
	<title>The reason people ignore you Zed..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is not because they don't understand statistics. It is because you are a dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is not because they do n't understand statistics .
It is because you are a dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is not because they don't understand statistics.
It is because you are a dick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710848</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>nextekcarl</author>
	<datestamp>1263042840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One post calculus statistics course gives me enough grounding to know what I don't know and punt to experts when I need to.</p></div><p>That's actually his argument (though I'm pretty sure he doesn't realize it, having met him a few years ago at a conference). People need to know their limits, and the strengths (and weaknesses) of others, and defer to them when they know what they're talking about, rather than talking out of their asses. As you point out, you can't know everything, but you'll defer to others who know more when you need to. I'm pretty sure Zed would like working with you based upon that fact alone (I know I value that trait and try to express it myself). Far too many people think they aren't allowed to have any weaknesses (and we all do in some area or another) so they talk a big game, and when push comes to shove, they will actively block people who actually know more than they do about the subject at hand. Working with too many people like that has driven Zed insane (IMHO) and I know I've been close to it at a couple of work places before (and really loved the one that wasn't like that hardly at all).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One post calculus statistics course gives me enough grounding to know what I do n't know and punt to experts when I need to.That 's actually his argument ( though I 'm pretty sure he does n't realize it , having met him a few years ago at a conference ) .
People need to know their limits , and the strengths ( and weaknesses ) of others , and defer to them when they know what they 're talking about , rather than talking out of their asses .
As you point out , you ca n't know everything , but you 'll defer to others who know more when you need to .
I 'm pretty sure Zed would like working with you based upon that fact alone ( I know I value that trait and try to express it myself ) .
Far too many people think they are n't allowed to have any weaknesses ( and we all do in some area or another ) so they talk a big game , and when push comes to shove , they will actively block people who actually know more than they do about the subject at hand .
Working with too many people like that has driven Zed insane ( IMHO ) and I know I 've been close to it at a couple of work places before ( and really loved the one that was n't like that hardly at all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One post calculus statistics course gives me enough grounding to know what I don't know and punt to experts when I need to.That's actually his argument (though I'm pretty sure he doesn't realize it, having met him a few years ago at a conference).
People need to know their limits, and the strengths (and weaknesses) of others, and defer to them when they know what they're talking about, rather than talking out of their asses.
As you point out, you can't know everything, but you'll defer to others who know more when you need to.
I'm pretty sure Zed would like working with you based upon that fact alone (I know I value that trait and try to express it myself).
Far too many people think they aren't allowed to have any weaknesses (and we all do in some area or another) so they talk a big game, and when push comes to shove, they will actively block people who actually know more than they do about the subject at hand.
Working with too many people like that has driven Zed insane (IMHO) and I know I've been close to it at a couple of work places before (and really loved the one that wasn't like that hardly at all).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710760</id>
	<title>Zed Shaw needs some serious meds</title>
	<author>optikos</author>
	<datestamp>1263042180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He cannot even write a logical, rational thought supporting why programmers need to know more than a casual level of statistics.  He just rants about blue sunsets and writes the f-word a lot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He can not even write a logical , rational thought supporting why programmers need to know more than a casual level of statistics .
He just rants about blue sunsets and writes the f-word a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He cannot even write a logical, rational thought supporting why programmers need to know more than a casual level of statistics.
He just rants about blue sunsets and writes the f-word a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710834</id>
	<title>stfu!</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1263042720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know how educated your colleagues are, but if they have studied computer science, then you should just shut your dumb mouth, because we learn how to analyze running times WITHOUT actually running it. Even without actually programming it, just by analyzing the problem itself. That is called "complexity theory" and (in that case) you are the one who doesn't have any clue about what you don't understand.<br> <br>

and go away with "tuning". You might improve running times a bit, but no little tuning hack can defeat the improvements you get by better algorithm design by an expert on algorithmics (I mean that e.g. some XOR AX AX might speed up your program by factor 2, but replacing simple backtracking with techniques to keep branching vectors small gets you exponential speed ups!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how educated your colleagues are , but if they have studied computer science , then you should just shut your dumb mouth , because we learn how to analyze running times WITHOUT actually running it .
Even without actually programming it , just by analyzing the problem itself .
That is called " complexity theory " and ( in that case ) you are the one who does n't have any clue about what you do n't understand .
and go away with " tuning " .
You might improve running times a bit , but no little tuning hack can defeat the improvements you get by better algorithm design by an expert on algorithmics ( I mean that e.g .
some XOR AX AX might speed up your program by factor 2 , but replacing simple backtracking with techniques to keep branching vectors small gets you exponential speed ups !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how educated your colleagues are, but if they have studied computer science, then you should just shut your dumb mouth, because we learn how to analyze running times WITHOUT actually running it.
Even without actually programming it, just by analyzing the problem itself.
That is called "complexity theory" and (in that case) you are the one who doesn't have any clue about what you don't understand.
and go away with "tuning".
You might improve running times a bit, but no little tuning hack can defeat the improvements you get by better algorithm design by an expert on algorithmics (I mean that e.g.
some XOR AX AX might speed up your program by factor 2, but replacing simple backtracking with techniques to keep branching vectors small gets you exponential speed ups!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711108</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263044820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ad hominem FTL, get a life AC</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad hominem FTL , get a life AC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad hominem FTL, get a life AC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710728</id>
	<title>Stats are only as good as the data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was tasked recently with developing stat reports that would be used to give the best workers the most important tasks.  I used their desired metric, and modified the numbers to show on a 0-100 scale where 75 is average and each standard deviation is 10 points.  The result?  The sample sizes were too small, and some groups had widely varying scores when every group member's performance was nearly identical.  Then again, maybe I'm doing something wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was tasked recently with developing stat reports that would be used to give the best workers the most important tasks .
I used their desired metric , and modified the numbers to show on a 0-100 scale where 75 is average and each standard deviation is 10 points .
The result ?
The sample sizes were too small , and some groups had widely varying scores when every group member 's performance was nearly identical .
Then again , maybe I 'm doing something wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was tasked recently with developing stat reports that would be used to give the best workers the most important tasks.
I used their desired metric, and modified the numbers to show on a 0-100 scale where 75 is average and each standard deviation is 10 points.
The result?
The sample sizes were too small, and some groups had widely varying scores when every group member's performance was nearly identical.
Then again, maybe I'm doing something wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711600</id>
	<title>Zed Shaw sounds like a douche.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263048780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I read through his article.  Yes, the whole mindless rant.  The conclusion that one should REALLY draw from it is:  Zed Shaw is a douche with Asperger's who clearly feels like his own personal area of expertise is underappreciated.  Hey Zed, get over it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I read through his article .
Yes , the whole mindless rant .
The conclusion that one should REALLY draw from it is : Zed Shaw is a douche with Asperger 's who clearly feels like his own personal area of expertise is underappreciated .
Hey Zed , get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I read through his article.
Yes, the whole mindless rant.
The conclusion that one should REALLY draw from it is:  Zed Shaw is a douche with Asperger's who clearly feels like his own personal area of expertise is underappreciated.
Hey Zed, get over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30761452</id>
	<title>Murphy's Law is a statistical aberration</title>
	<author>tinkwink</author>
	<datestamp>1263411240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I generally think in programming it's the exceptions that cause the problems. I usually only look at averages and maximums, however it must be said many performance problems are caused by a exponential increase in execution time with a linear increase in load/dataset size. I don't really know stats but it's pretty easy to see when this is the case. There are many things that stats will never predict, i.e. when you are going to hit a wall without an underlying knowledge of where the walls are and how close you are to them and what/how you move towards them. It's all pipes and data in the end. You should know what's going to break it (exceptions to your assumptions) and where your bottlenecks are, and what path is going to get followed in what situations. That can get tricky in database queries, say oracle, with stats determining your execution plan. How often does the full table scan in a loop seem to cause a query to never return? Google oracle stats execution plan. I guess it keeps DBAs in a job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I generally think in programming it 's the exceptions that cause the problems .
I usually only look at averages and maximums , however it must be said many performance problems are caused by a exponential increase in execution time with a linear increase in load/dataset size .
I do n't really know stats but it 's pretty easy to see when this is the case .
There are many things that stats will never predict , i.e .
when you are going to hit a wall without an underlying knowledge of where the walls are and how close you are to them and what/how you move towards them .
It 's all pipes and data in the end .
You should know what 's going to break it ( exceptions to your assumptions ) and where your bottlenecks are , and what path is going to get followed in what situations .
That can get tricky in database queries , say oracle , with stats determining your execution plan .
How often does the full table scan in a loop seem to cause a query to never return ?
Google oracle stats execution plan .
I guess it keeps DBAs in a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I generally think in programming it's the exceptions that cause the problems.
I usually only look at averages and maximums, however it must be said many performance problems are caused by a exponential increase in execution time with a linear increase in load/dataset size.
I don't really know stats but it's pretty easy to see when this is the case.
There are many things that stats will never predict, i.e.
when you are going to hit a wall without an underlying knowledge of where the walls are and how close you are to them and what/how you move towards them.
It's all pipes and data in the end.
You should know what's going to break it (exceptions to your assumptions) and where your bottlenecks are, and what path is going to get followed in what situations.
That can get tricky in database queries, say oracle, with stats determining your execution plan.
How often does the full table scan in a loop seem to cause a query to never return?
Google oracle stats execution plan.
I guess it keeps DBAs in a job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712388</id>
	<title>He's not claiming they are wrong - they are unset</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1263056340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>He's just as arrogantly claiming that he's right and they're wrong.</i></p><p>No he doesn't.</p><p>He claims that programmers need to understand statistics more.  The people he is talking about are therefore not wrong - they are ignorant.</p><p>But that term is loaded with negative meaning, it's more accurate to say they are like a variable with named "statistics" with a value that has never been set.  Basically, they don't know what they are missing.</p><p>It's like when programmers try to argue about how a language is bad when they've never used it.  How would they know?  Yet many without understanding of statistics are saying the same thing, they don't need to know any more.</p><p>I know enough to know statistics can be a valuable tool.  Why would you not want another tool that could help you?  The people who refuse do so are less than they could be (as a programmer).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's just as arrogantly claiming that he 's right and they 're wrong.No he does n't.He claims that programmers need to understand statistics more .
The people he is talking about are therefore not wrong - they are ignorant.But that term is loaded with negative meaning , it 's more accurate to say they are like a variable with named " statistics " with a value that has never been set .
Basically , they do n't know what they are missing.It 's like when programmers try to argue about how a language is bad when they 've never used it .
How would they know ?
Yet many without understanding of statistics are saying the same thing , they do n't need to know any more.I know enough to know statistics can be a valuable tool .
Why would you not want another tool that could help you ?
The people who refuse do so are less than they could be ( as a programmer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's just as arrogantly claiming that he's right and they're wrong.No he doesn't.He claims that programmers need to understand statistics more.
The people he is talking about are therefore not wrong - they are ignorant.But that term is loaded with negative meaning, it's more accurate to say they are like a variable with named "statistics" with a value that has never been set.
Basically, they don't know what they are missing.It's like when programmers try to argue about how a language is bad when they've never used it.
How would they know?
Yet many without understanding of statistics are saying the same thing, they don't need to know any more.I know enough to know statistics can be a valuable tool.
Why would you not want another tool that could help you?
The people who refuse do so are less than they could be (as a programmer).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30747376</id>
	<title>NetMBA</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1263320520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suggest programmers to learn <i>management</i> also <a href="http://www.netmba.com/" title="netmba.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.netmba.com/</a> [netmba.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest programmers to learn management also http : //www.netmba.com/ [ netmba.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest programmers to learn management also http://www.netmba.com/ [netmba.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30730248</id>
	<title>You're a MORON!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263210360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Statistics is a pseudo-science which is completely unable to actually PREDICT ANYTHING.  It is basically comparable to Astrology except that Astrology has many more years of use and refinement associated with it.  Statistics and it's bastard child Economics are what brought this country to it's knees.  STOP LISTENING TO STATISTICIANS AND ECONOMISTS - THEY ARE MORONS!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Statistics is a pseudo-science which is completely unable to actually PREDICT ANYTHING .
It is basically comparable to Astrology except that Astrology has many more years of use and refinement associated with it .
Statistics and it 's bastard child Economics are what brought this country to it 's knees .
STOP LISTENING TO STATISTICIANS AND ECONOMISTS - THEY ARE MORONS ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statistics is a pseudo-science which is completely unable to actually PREDICT ANYTHING.
It is basically comparable to Astrology except that Astrology has many more years of use and refinement associated with it.
Statistics and it's bastard child Economics are what brought this country to it's knees.
STOP LISTENING TO STATISTICIANS AND ECONOMISTS - THEY ARE MORONS!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711070</id>
	<title>They probably were told...</title>
	<author>highways</author>
	<datestamp>1263044580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation.'"</p><p>Oh, so they were taught Bayesian rather than Frequentist statistics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation .
' " Oh , so they were taught Bayesian rather than Frequentist statistics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation.
'"Oh, so they were taught Bayesian rather than Frequentist statistics?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711118</id>
	<title>Knowledge isn't the problem</title>
	<author>NitWit005</author>
	<datestamp>1263044880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From his complaints, I can tell knowledge isn't the real issue. Testing performance takes a huge amount of time. You need to simulate other programs running, multiple users and make sure the test matches what real users might do. Generally, this requires writing completely independent test programs and charting the logging from them. People just don't want to go to that kind of effort. It can take weeks just to create proper tests for complex programs like web servers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From his complaints , I can tell knowledge is n't the real issue .
Testing performance takes a huge amount of time .
You need to simulate other programs running , multiple users and make sure the test matches what real users might do .
Generally , this requires writing completely independent test programs and charting the logging from them .
People just do n't want to go to that kind of effort .
It can take weeks just to create proper tests for complex programs like web servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From his complaints, I can tell knowledge isn't the real issue.
Testing performance takes a huge amount of time.
You need to simulate other programs running, multiple users and make sure the test matches what real users might do.
Generally, this requires writing completely independent test programs and charting the logging from them.
People just don't want to go to that kind of effort.
It can take weeks just to create proper tests for complex programs like web servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30727010</id>
	<title>Stats</title>
	<author>Stormcrow309</author>
	<datestamp>1263242100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find tfa pretty clueless when it comes a real understanding on what is needed for performance testing and tweaking. A statistical analysis is nice, especially with monte carlo type analysis, like Bungie running Halo 3 on numerious xboxs simulating load and player interactions.  However, I find that what is lacking with programmers is a basic understanding on the high levels of process analysis, such as network analysis, CPM, and PERT.  Knowing a process has high levels of variance is nice, but not useful for understanding the why. Where is Zed's example of multivariant linear regression or ordered probit? Discussion on hypothesis testing? Anyone, anyone?</p><p>As a side note, <a href="http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596510497" title="oreilly.com">Statistics in a Nutshell</a> [oreilly.com] is the only book programmers really need on stats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find tfa pretty clueless when it comes a real understanding on what is needed for performance testing and tweaking .
A statistical analysis is nice , especially with monte carlo type analysis , like Bungie running Halo 3 on numerious xboxs simulating load and player interactions .
However , I find that what is lacking with programmers is a basic understanding on the high levels of process analysis , such as network analysis , CPM , and PERT .
Knowing a process has high levels of variance is nice , but not useful for understanding the why .
Where is Zed 's example of multivariant linear regression or ordered probit ?
Discussion on hypothesis testing ?
Anyone , anyone ? As a side note , Statistics in a Nutshell [ oreilly.com ] is the only book programmers really need on stats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find tfa pretty clueless when it comes a real understanding on what is needed for performance testing and tweaking.
A statistical analysis is nice, especially with monte carlo type analysis, like Bungie running Halo 3 on numerious xboxs simulating load and player interactions.
However, I find that what is lacking with programmers is a basic understanding on the high levels of process analysis, such as network analysis, CPM, and PERT.
Knowing a process has high levels of variance is nice, but not useful for understanding the why.
Where is Zed's example of multivariant linear regression or ordered probit?
Discussion on hypothesis testing?
Anyone, anyone?As a side note, Statistics in a Nutshell [oreilly.com] is the only book programmers really need on stats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711716</id>
	<title>Re:The reason people ignore you Zed..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263049560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually, it seems to be the reason people pay attention to him</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually , it seems to be the reason people pay attention to him</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually, it seems to be the reason people pay attention to him</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714796</id>
	<title>Re:93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>fbjon</author>
	<datestamp>1263142860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Everyone knows that 98.2\% of all statistics are made up on the spot.</p></div><p>From this we can see that 98.2\% of that statistic was made up on the spot, meaning only 1.8\% of all statistics are really made up on the spot. By repeated application of this we can conclude that either:</p><ul> <li>A: statistics made up on the spot asymptotically reaches zero</li><li>B: my skills in statistics are woefully inadequate.</li></ul><p>My god, TFA is right!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that 98.2 \ % of all statistics are made up on the spot.From this we can see that 98.2 \ % of that statistic was made up on the spot , meaning only 1.8 \ % of all statistics are really made up on the spot .
By repeated application of this we can conclude that either : A : statistics made up on the spot asymptotically reaches zeroB : my skills in statistics are woefully inadequate.My god , TFA is right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that 98.2\% of all statistics are made up on the spot.From this we can see that 98.2\% of that statistic was made up on the spot, meaning only 1.8\% of all statistics are really made up on the spot.
By repeated application of this we can conclude that either: A: statistics made up on the spot asymptotically reaches zeroB: my skills in statistics are woefully inadequate.My god, TFA is right!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711274</id>
	<title>Stick to it</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1263046200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Despite all of this I'm not at all confident in my understanding of such a vast topic.</p></div><p>Some people are a little slow, but stick to it, you'll get there eventually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite all of this I 'm not at all confident in my understanding of such a vast topic.Some people are a little slow , but stick to it , you 'll get there eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite all of this I'm not at all confident in my understanding of such a vast topic.Some people are a little slow, but stick to it, you'll get there eventually.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712258</id>
	<title>Re:Your argument is dead, Zed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263054900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just found a very old hard disk. Double height. MFM/RLL. And after a &ldquo;strings -n 32<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/hdd&rdquo;, I got the following old saying, carved in the bytes of the disk:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Computer science<br>Statistics<br>Social skills</p><p>Choose one.</p></div><p>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just found a very old hard disk .
Double height .
MFM/RLL. And after a    strings -n 32 /dev/hdd    , I got the following old saying , carved in the bytes of the disk : Computer scienceStatisticsSocial skillsChoose one .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just found a very old hard disk.
Double height.
MFM/RLL. And after a “strings -n 32 /dev/hdd”, I got the following old saying, carved in the bytes of the disk:Computer scienceStatisticsSocial skillsChoose one.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710992</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>wfolta</author>
	<datestamp>1263043980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You hit the nail on the head. Statstics is counter-intuitive and badly taught. But extremely important.</p><p>The worst grade I got in undergraduate studies was in Probability, and in graduate studies I've been exposed to statistics now for about the 4th time and it's finally sinking in... mostly... a lot.</p><p>That said, there is need for statistics in any programming endeavor where you are trying to come up with a new algorithm or trying to improve the performance of an existing one. I can think of the kind of pitiful "ran it several times and this one's faster" testing I would have done in the past, and all the logical hand-waving I would have done if questioned, "Can we be SURE it's faster?", and it's embarrassing. If you're just coding, perhaps no need, though a good feel for how real statistics and scientific experimentation is done is very helpful in programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You hit the nail on the head .
Statstics is counter-intuitive and badly taught .
But extremely important.The worst grade I got in undergraduate studies was in Probability , and in graduate studies I 've been exposed to statistics now for about the 4th time and it 's finally sinking in... mostly... a lot.That said , there is need for statistics in any programming endeavor where you are trying to come up with a new algorithm or trying to improve the performance of an existing one .
I can think of the kind of pitiful " ran it several times and this one 's faster " testing I would have done in the past , and all the logical hand-waving I would have done if questioned , " Can we be SURE it 's faster ?
" , and it 's embarrassing .
If you 're just coding , perhaps no need , though a good feel for how real statistics and scientific experimentation is done is very helpful in programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You hit the nail on the head.
Statstics is counter-intuitive and badly taught.
But extremely important.The worst grade I got in undergraduate studies was in Probability, and in graduate studies I've been exposed to statistics now for about the 4th time and it's finally sinking in... mostly... a lot.That said, there is need for statistics in any programming endeavor where you are trying to come up with a new algorithm or trying to improve the performance of an existing one.
I can think of the kind of pitiful "ran it several times and this one's faster" testing I would have done in the past, and all the logical hand-waving I would have done if questioned, "Can we be SURE it's faster?
", and it's embarrassing.
If you're just coding, perhaps no need, though a good feel for how real statistics and scientific experimentation is done is very helpful in programming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568</id>
	<title>93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263040620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything I needed to know about statistics I learned playing poker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything I needed to know about statistics I learned playing poker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything I needed to know about statistics I learned playing poker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711864</id>
	<title>3 doors / Monty Hall</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263050760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love pissing people of with this one. I can tell right away if they are even logical.<br>You have 3 doors, behind one is the prize. You pick one. I open on of the other doors that has nothing. I offer you the opportunity to change to the other door. What do you do?<br>You should switch, but why? and should you really? Is it 50\% or different?</p><p>Point is, people will not always get it and that will turn them off. It will go against what they "know." They will have to change, and they just don't want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love pissing people of with this one .
I can tell right away if they are even logical.You have 3 doors , behind one is the prize .
You pick one .
I open on of the other doors that has nothing .
I offer you the opportunity to change to the other door .
What do you do ? You should switch , but why ?
and should you really ?
Is it 50 \ % or different ? Point is , people will not always get it and that will turn them off .
It will go against what they " know .
" They will have to change , and they just do n't want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love pissing people of with this one.
I can tell right away if they are even logical.You have 3 doors, behind one is the prize.
You pick one.
I open on of the other doors that has nothing.
I offer you the opportunity to change to the other door.
What do you do?You should switch, but why?
and should you really?
Is it 50\% or different?Point is, people will not always get it and that will turn them off.
It will go against what they "know.
" They will have to change, and they just don't want to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713568</id>
	<title>How was statitics the solution to anything?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263120180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how statistics helped find out the DB2 was the problem.</p><p>Wouldn't the same conclusion be found without calculating the standard deviation of anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how statistics helped find out the DB2 was the problem.Would n't the same conclusion be found without calculating the standard deviation of anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how statistics helped find out the DB2 was the problem.Wouldn't the same conclusion be found without calculating the standard deviation of anything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714802</id>
	<title>Arithmetic Mean --</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263142920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remind them that the average American has one breast and one testicle (within one significant digit), then tell them a story illustrating the current problem with real world objects.  Parables, fables, hypothetical examples, and other tales will help them get their mind around the concept.  Or turning it backwards.  A  99\% success rate sounds great until you realize you have 10,000 events and a 1\% failure rate means 100 aircraft will fall from the sky.<br>And always let them know it is more complicated than it appears on the surface, and anti-intuitive, so it has confused the best minds for quite some time.  Find a way to let them feel smart while being wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remind them that the average American has one breast and one testicle ( within one significant digit ) , then tell them a story illustrating the current problem with real world objects .
Parables , fables , hypothetical examples , and other tales will help them get their mind around the concept .
Or turning it backwards .
A 99 \ % success rate sounds great until you realize you have 10,000 events and a 1 \ % failure rate means 100 aircraft will fall from the sky.And always let them know it is more complicated than it appears on the surface , and anti-intuitive , so it has confused the best minds for quite some time .
Find a way to let them feel smart while being wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remind them that the average American has one breast and one testicle (within one significant digit), then tell them a story illustrating the current problem with real world objects.
Parables, fables, hypothetical examples, and other tales will help them get their mind around the concept.
Or turning it backwards.
A  99\% success rate sounds great until you realize you have 10,000 events and a 1\% failure rate means 100 aircraft will fall from the sky.And always let them know it is more complicated than it appears on the surface, and anti-intuitive, so it has confused the best minds for quite some time.
Find a way to let them feel smart while being wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710854</id>
	<title>Who is Zed Shaw?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What has Zed Shaw done for humanity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What has Zed Shaw done for humanity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has Zed Shaw done for humanity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713372</id>
	<title>F you, i haven't finished with "THE ART OF PR...."</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>F you, i haven't finished with "THE ART OF PROGRAMING"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>F you , i have n't finished with " THE ART OF PROGRAMING "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>F you, i haven't finished with "THE ART OF PROGRAMING"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711090</id>
	<title>Re:Title fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263044700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the song goes, if you love somebody you set them free(), free() as a beer. Also, he should remember that once one demalloc()s, it might not be so easy to remalloc() unless one is channelling the big J. Hallelujah! The salvation from garbage is at hand!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the song goes , if you love somebody you set them free ( ) , free ( ) as a beer .
Also , he should remember that once one demalloc ( ) s , it might not be so easy to remalloc ( ) unless one is channelling the big J. Hallelujah ! The salvation from garbage is at hand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the song goes, if you love somebody you set them free(), free() as a beer.
Also, he should remember that once one demalloc()s, it might not be so easy to remalloc() unless one is channelling the big J. Hallelujah! The salvation from garbage is at hand!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711632</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263048960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, the replies indicate just how correct what I wrote was:<br><br>1. It is not about formulas, or Calculus xxx, it is about really understanding what you are doing, and how all the formulas were derived, and some of that is really heavy Pure Mathematics in particular Algebra and Analysis, so that, if necessary, you can work out the probability theory in new situations.<br><br>2. In addition to the Math, there is Logic, Philosophy and Science in Experimental Design.<br><br>The big problem is that people who just know the formulae miss apply them to wrong experimental situations.<br><br>The most topical current example is the AGW controvesy where some Climatologists, HAD-CRU, eliminated (perceived outlier) data not realising that would mean that confidence estimators on their data were thereby faulty, so all that work must be re-done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , the replies indicate just how correct what I wrote was : 1 .
It is not about formulas , or Calculus xxx , it is about really understanding what you are doing , and how all the formulas were derived , and some of that is really heavy Pure Mathematics in particular Algebra and Analysis , so that , if necessary , you can work out the probability theory in new situations.2 .
In addition to the Math , there is Logic , Philosophy and Science in Experimental Design.The big problem is that people who just know the formulae miss apply them to wrong experimental situations.The most topical current example is the AGW controvesy where some Climatologists , HAD-CRU , eliminated ( perceived outlier ) data not realising that would mean that confidence estimators on their data were thereby faulty , so all that work must be re-done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, the replies indicate just how correct what I wrote was:1.
It is not about formulas, or Calculus xxx, it is about really understanding what you are doing, and how all the formulas were derived, and some of that is really heavy Pure Mathematics in particular Algebra and Analysis, so that, if necessary, you can work out the probability theory in new situations.2.
In addition to the Math, there is Logic, Philosophy and Science in Experimental Design.The big problem is that people who just know the formulae miss apply them to wrong experimental situations.The most topical current example is the AGW controvesy where some Climatologists, HAD-CRU, eliminated (perceived outlier) data not realising that would mean that confidence estimators on their data were thereby faulty, so all that work must be re-done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713714</id>
	<title>Zed is full of crap</title>
	<author>RzUpAnmsCwrds</author>
	<datestamp>1263123900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zed is full of crap. At least in my CS undergraduate program, we were required to take a "performance analysis" class that answered basically all of Zed's questions, plus a whole lot more. Effectively, it covered basic statistics as applied to performance analysis, simulations, measurement techniques, and some basic queuing theory.</p><p>There are published CS papers that lack statistical validity - that's inexcusable. Anyone publishing a paper that deals with performance should either know enough statistics to publish a valid paper or have their paper reviewed by someone that does.</p><p>Expecting all programmers to understand statistics well is not reasonable. "Programmer" can include everything from someone who hacks PHP pages together for a living to someone who does research into new ML techniques or designs complex software systems. For the person hacking PHP pages together, statistical validity isn't a huge issue since the primary goals are getting a system that works and doing so quickly and with minimal cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed is full of crap .
At least in my CS undergraduate program , we were required to take a " performance analysis " class that answered basically all of Zed 's questions , plus a whole lot more .
Effectively , it covered basic statistics as applied to performance analysis , simulations , measurement techniques , and some basic queuing theory.There are published CS papers that lack statistical validity - that 's inexcusable .
Anyone publishing a paper that deals with performance should either know enough statistics to publish a valid paper or have their paper reviewed by someone that does.Expecting all programmers to understand statistics well is not reasonable .
" Programmer " can include everything from someone who hacks PHP pages together for a living to someone who does research into new ML techniques or designs complex software systems .
For the person hacking PHP pages together , statistical validity is n't a huge issue since the primary goals are getting a system that works and doing so quickly and with minimal cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zed is full of crap.
At least in my CS undergraduate program, we were required to take a "performance analysis" class that answered basically all of Zed's questions, plus a whole lot more.
Effectively, it covered basic statistics as applied to performance analysis, simulations, measurement techniques, and some basic queuing theory.There are published CS papers that lack statistical validity - that's inexcusable.
Anyone publishing a paper that deals with performance should either know enough statistics to publish a valid paper or have their paper reviewed by someone that does.Expecting all programmers to understand statistics well is not reasonable.
"Programmer" can include everything from someone who hacks PHP pages together for a living to someone who does research into new ML techniques or designs complex software systems.
For the person hacking PHP pages together, statistical validity isn't a huge issue since the primary goals are getting a system that works and doing so quickly and with minimal cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712832</id>
	<title>Is it dumbed down enough for management?</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1263062940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear you,  I do performance engineering of web based systems.  The developers, the managers, the testers, the architects all have no clue.  You are correct here.</p><p>However if you can not present your "theory" of how to do something in a dumbed down enough format then who cares.  Because the pretty graph is pointless.  It will be mis-interpreted, mis-understood, and mis-used.</p><p>All the stats theory on the planet will not get you passed the dumb manager or developer.  don't loose sleep of this.  There is no point.  Simply find metrics in your analysis procedure that do mean something to these people.  They may not be the total picture but they are something.  Build a reputation for being correct by starting with simple things.  You are always going to but heads with a know it all developer / architect / manager.  Fine let them go off and waste money and time.  They will be found out as morons in time.  You do your thing and simply become the guy to ask about performance and how to do this.</p><p>Being understated and consistently showing above average results for your work is how you will rise up.  Being and A-hole about it is not going to help anyone.  As a matter of fact I would can your butt for being a D#ck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear you , I do performance engineering of web based systems .
The developers , the managers , the testers , the architects all have no clue .
You are correct here.However if you can not present your " theory " of how to do something in a dumbed down enough format then who cares .
Because the pretty graph is pointless .
It will be mis-interpreted , mis-understood , and mis-used.All the stats theory on the planet will not get you passed the dumb manager or developer .
do n't loose sleep of this .
There is no point .
Simply find metrics in your analysis procedure that do mean something to these people .
They may not be the total picture but they are something .
Build a reputation for being correct by starting with simple things .
You are always going to but heads with a know it all developer / architect / manager .
Fine let them go off and waste money and time .
They will be found out as morons in time .
You do your thing and simply become the guy to ask about performance and how to do this.Being understated and consistently showing above average results for your work is how you will rise up .
Being and A-hole about it is not going to help anyone .
As a matter of fact I would can your butt for being a D # ck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear you,  I do performance engineering of web based systems.
The developers, the managers, the testers, the architects all have no clue.
You are correct here.However if you can not present your "theory" of how to do something in a dumbed down enough format then who cares.
Because the pretty graph is pointless.
It will be mis-interpreted, mis-understood, and mis-used.All the stats theory on the planet will not get you passed the dumb manager or developer.
don't loose sleep of this.
There is no point.
Simply find metrics in your analysis procedure that do mean something to these people.
They may not be the total picture but they are something.
Build a reputation for being correct by starting with simple things.
You are always going to but heads with a know it all developer / architect / manager.
Fine let them go off and waste money and time.
They will be found out as morons in time.
You do your thing and simply become the guy to ask about performance and how to do this.Being understated and consistently showing above average results for your work is how you will rise up.
Being and A-hole about it is not going to help anyone.
As a matter of fact I would can your butt for being a D#ck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30715098</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263145680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fucking specialist? Where do I sign up?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking specialist ?
Where do I sign up ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking specialist?
Where do I sign up?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713288</id>
	<title>Statistics</title>
	<author>emmenjay</author>
	<datestamp>1263114300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who found that article hilarious?</p><p>A 6'2" "Good Looking" graduate who's extensive research in programmers has discovered that all males are inumerate neanderthals and only women really understand him.</p><p>Sigh.  He's so sensitive.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>If only there was some other profession where people were trained in test coverage and such.  We could call them "testers".  Maybe I'll patent that idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who found that article hilarious ? A 6'2 " " Good Looking " graduate who 's extensive research in programmers has discovered that all males are inumerate neanderthals and only women really understand him.Sigh .
He 's so sensitive .
: - ) If only there was some other profession where people were trained in test coverage and such .
We could call them " testers " .
Maybe I 'll patent that idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who found that article hilarious?A 6'2" "Good Looking" graduate who's extensive research in programmers has discovered that all males are inumerate neanderthals and only women really understand him.Sigh.
He's so sensitive.
:-)If only there was some other profession where people were trained in test coverage and such.
We could call them "testers".
Maybe I'll patent that idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710954</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Statistics is HARD, for two reasons:</i></p><p>I'd argue that probability theory isn't as hard as people make it seem, but statisticians are wankers.  Most of what we think of statistics was developed by people who were intimately engaged with empirical research, but modern statisticians are mathematicians, many of whom have never actually performed an experiment.  They think the statistics are real, whereas experimental scientists know the truth:  God made the Probability Distribution Functions.  All else is the work of man.</p><p>Furthermore, modern computing has made a lot of the conceptual apparatus of conventional statistics irrelevant, as it is designed to deal with the problem of reducing problems to something that can be computed by hand and finished off with a single table lookup.  Today its a rare case that we can't get at the PDFs directly, bypassing much of conventional statistics.  But due to how badly the stats are taught, and how poorly probability theory is understood, we are still living in a world where p-values are the exception, not the norm, and when they are quoted they are frequently unrealistic because they are based on statistical assumptions that are not warranted given the non-idealities of the data.</p><p>So I'd argue that statistics is basically a dead field populated by zombies who are dedicated to infecting as many students as possible.  If we taught thermodynamics or mechanics with equally outmoded concepts they would be really hard too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Statistics is HARD , for two reasons : I 'd argue that probability theory is n't as hard as people make it seem , but statisticians are wankers .
Most of what we think of statistics was developed by people who were intimately engaged with empirical research , but modern statisticians are mathematicians , many of whom have never actually performed an experiment .
They think the statistics are real , whereas experimental scientists know the truth : God made the Probability Distribution Functions .
All else is the work of man.Furthermore , modern computing has made a lot of the conceptual apparatus of conventional statistics irrelevant , as it is designed to deal with the problem of reducing problems to something that can be computed by hand and finished off with a single table lookup .
Today its a rare case that we ca n't get at the PDFs directly , bypassing much of conventional statistics .
But due to how badly the stats are taught , and how poorly probability theory is understood , we are still living in a world where p-values are the exception , not the norm , and when they are quoted they are frequently unrealistic because they are based on statistical assumptions that are not warranted given the non-idealities of the data.So I 'd argue that statistics is basically a dead field populated by zombies who are dedicated to infecting as many students as possible .
If we taught thermodynamics or mechanics with equally outmoded concepts they would be really hard too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statistics is HARD, for two reasons:I'd argue that probability theory isn't as hard as people make it seem, but statisticians are wankers.
Most of what we think of statistics was developed by people who were intimately engaged with empirical research, but modern statisticians are mathematicians, many of whom have never actually performed an experiment.
They think the statistics are real, whereas experimental scientists know the truth:  God made the Probability Distribution Functions.
All else is the work of man.Furthermore, modern computing has made a lot of the conceptual apparatus of conventional statistics irrelevant, as it is designed to deal with the problem of reducing problems to something that can be computed by hand and finished off with a single table lookup.
Today its a rare case that we can't get at the PDFs directly, bypassing much of conventional statistics.
But due to how badly the stats are taught, and how poorly probability theory is understood, we are still living in a world where p-values are the exception, not the norm, and when they are quoted they are frequently unrealistic because they are based on statistical assumptions that are not warranted given the non-idealities of the data.So I'd argue that statistics is basically a dead field populated by zombies who are dedicated to infecting as many students as possible.
If we taught thermodynamics or mechanics with equally outmoded concepts they would be really hard too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713202</id>
	<title>Re:Understanding statistics is hard...</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1263155580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your correct in your statement "convincing business people or even practicing scientists with it is futile".  It is if you try and show them everything.</p><p>You sorta have to pull out metrics and measures that have a practical analogy in the "business" at hand.  Something so well defined that it is hard to mis-interpret and abuse.  This is power point slide you show them.  You can have the hairy scary slide if you wish.  But no one will look at it.  As a matter of fact the meeting is over once you do show the statistical meat slide.  It's like an off switch in peoples heads.  They see that and they will respond to nothing other than phone calls and the meeting end time buzzer.</p><p>K.I.S.S.  == Keep It Simple Stupid.   Must always be applied to any stats presentation or explanation to ANYONE ELSE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your correct in your statement " convincing business people or even practicing scientists with it is futile " .
It is if you try and show them everything.You sorta have to pull out metrics and measures that have a practical analogy in the " business " at hand .
Something so well defined that it is hard to mis-interpret and abuse .
This is power point slide you show them .
You can have the hairy scary slide if you wish .
But no one will look at it .
As a matter of fact the meeting is over once you do show the statistical meat slide .
It 's like an off switch in peoples heads .
They see that and they will respond to nothing other than phone calls and the meeting end time buzzer.K.I.S.S .
= = Keep It Simple Stupid .
Must always be applied to any stats presentation or explanation to ANYONE ELSE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your correct in your statement "convincing business people or even practicing scientists with it is futile".
It is if you try and show them everything.You sorta have to pull out metrics and measures that have a practical analogy in the "business" at hand.
Something so well defined that it is hard to mis-interpret and abuse.
This is power point slide you show them.
You can have the hairy scary slide if you wish.
But no one will look at it.
As a matter of fact the meeting is over once you do show the statistical meat slide.
It's like an off switch in peoples heads.
They see that and they will respond to nothing other than phone calls and the meeting end time buzzer.K.I.S.S.
== Keep It Simple Stupid.
Must always be applied to any stats presentation or explanation to ANYONE ELSE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711146</id>
	<title>oh please.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1263045120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>this guy's an idiot. he admits to not knowing the subject matter well but still wants to chastise programmers for not being experts?!! that's his first epic fail, his 2nd is that programmers aren't meant to be experts in every area, only at programming. people that have double degree's and years of experience in a field are the only ones who should be, and they will be in lead roles.p
his 3rd fail is how he makes his arguement, it reminds me of a child throwing itself on it's back and kicking it's legs till it gets it's own way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this guy 's an idiot .
he admits to not knowing the subject matter well but still wants to chastise programmers for not being experts ? ! !
that 's his first epic fail , his 2nd is that programmers are n't meant to be experts in every area , only at programming .
people that have double degree 's and years of experience in a field are the only ones who should be , and they will be in lead roles.p his 3rd fail is how he makes his arguement , it reminds me of a child throwing itself on it 's back and kicking it 's legs till it gets it 's own way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this guy's an idiot.
he admits to not knowing the subject matter well but still wants to chastise programmers for not being experts?!!
that's his first epic fail, his 2nd is that programmers aren't meant to be experts in every area, only at programming.
people that have double degree's and years of experience in a field are the only ones who should be, and they will be in lead roles.p
his 3rd fail is how he makes his arguement, it reminds me of a child throwing itself on it's back and kicking it's legs till it gets it's own way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054</id>
	<title>Summarized for people who don't want to read Zed</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1263044460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, since so many people don't seem to want to actually read Zed's stuff -- and I honestly don't blame you -- I'll try to summarize:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Eventually, every major science adopted an empiricist view of the world. Except Computer Science of course.</p></div><p>He tends to bitch a lot about computer scientists. I'm just starting a CS degree, and there is a Statistics class in the curriculum. Is he working with people with good degrees, people from a technical college with a "programming" degree, people from a diploma mill, or high school students with no degree at all?</p><p>Of course, he seems to be implying it's everyone, and doing so in a typically Zed-like way.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"All you need to do is run that test [insert power-of-ten] times and then do an average." Usually the power-of-ten is 1000...</p></div><p>I don't know that I've ever heard that particular statement. But it's a good point:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you know that 1000 is the correct number of iterations to improve the power of the experiment?</p></div><p>Generally because it was probably closer to a million, so I'm erring on the side of taking more, rather than fewer, measurements. But without careful consideration, I could be way off.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How are you performing the samplings?</p></div><p>I think this is vastly less important than how you are dealing with the data, but it is also a good point. For example, his complaint is that an average isn't enough; with detailed enough logging, he could easily go back into my data and figure out min, max, standard deviation, histograms...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you know that 1000 is enough to get the process into a steady state after the ramp-up period?</p></div><p>Not a huge deal -- the "steady state" will almost certainly be faster than the "ramp-up" period. Worst case, I'm over-optimizing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What will you do if the 1000 tests takes 10 hours?</p></div><p>Either ctrl+c, or try it 10 times.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How does 1000 sequential requests help you determine the performance under load?</p></div><p>Very good point here. It's still a useful statistic, but you still need to measure things like 1000 simultaneous requests, not just 1000 all in sequence.</p><p>On the other hand, if your performance is acceptable with them all in sequence, you could just run it through something like Event Machine, so it's all sequential on production, too.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The most troubling problem with these single number &ldquo;averages&rdquo; is that there&rsquo;s two common averages and that without some form of range or variance error they are useless. If you take a look at the previous graphs you can see visually why this is a problem. Two averages can be the same, but hide massive differences in behavior...</p></div><p>So yes, <i>always</i> make sure you can record enough statistics so that someone else can come along and use your data to give you something meaningful.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The moral of the story is that if you give an average without standard deviations then you&rsquo;re totally missing the entire point of even trying to measure something. A major goal of measurement is to develop a succinct and accurate picture of what&rsquo;s going on...</p></div><p>It doesn't have to be statistically accurate. It just has to be close enough.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Ah, confounding. The most difficult thing to explain to a programmer, yet the most elementary part of all scientific experimentation. It&rsquo;s pretty simple: If you want to measure something, then don&rsquo;t measure other shit.</p></div><p>This is both a very good and a very bad idea. It ties into the peeve he had before -- ramp-up time. For example:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If we want to take one single line of code and test it then we can. If we want to only verify one single query on a database then what&rsquo;s stopping us?</p></div><p>What's stopping us is that our applications don't actually work like that.</p><p>For example: You could measure exactly how long it takes to perform a single query a thousand times, or however long you've determined you need for appropriate "power". And then you push it to production and you realize that the results of every query aren't always already in the disk cache, and your interpreted language is actually running that query much slower due to GC overhead (which isn't evident until you're actually using some more RAM), it could well be that you're dealing with times so fast that your instrumentation (measuring) is actually <i>more</i> overhead than the tight loop it might be in within an actual application, etc, etc.</p><p>Sometimes you <i>want</i> to pull out a single element of your system to test. You can do things like compare how fast one query is versus another, probably with more accuracy than you'd get from running the whole system.</p><p>But that's going to introduce even more confounding -- by not measuring the system as a whole, you could be measuring the wrong things -- take that disk cache example. For that matter, one seemingly-slower query could actually turn out to be the right one, because it corresponds more closely to your access patterns, thus resulting in higher cache coherency.</p><p>So yes, removing confounding is an appropriate goal. But there are reasons other than stupidity why we might choose to measure more than a single line of code at a time.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the one thing you need to know for performance measurements: <b>How much data can go down this fucking pipe in a second?</b></p> </div><p>Sorry, but no, that is not the only thing you need to know. That is bandwidth. You also need to know the maximum latency. It's all well and good if you can handle a billion requests per second, but worthless if you're a web app and you're taking 30 seconds for each one. Sure, you still get 30 billion requests done simultaneously, but that doesn't help your user.</p><p>So, Zed is right that we should focus more on statistics, that we should respect it as a discipline, and that we should listen to people who understand it.</p><p>But he's wrong about how to go about this, and he's nearly as much of an egotistical prick as he always was. (That's a compliment -- he's improving.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , since so many people do n't seem to want to actually read Zed 's stuff -- and I honestly do n't blame you -- I 'll try to summarize : Eventually , every major science adopted an empiricist view of the world .
Except Computer Science of course.He tends to bitch a lot about computer scientists .
I 'm just starting a CS degree , and there is a Statistics class in the curriculum .
Is he working with people with good degrees , people from a technical college with a " programming " degree , people from a diploma mill , or high school students with no degree at all ? Of course , he seems to be implying it 's everyone , and doing so in a typically Zed-like way .
" All you need to do is run that test [ insert power-of-ten ] times and then do an average .
" Usually the power-of-ten is 1000...I do n't know that I 've ever heard that particular statement .
But it 's a good point : How do you know that 1000 is the correct number of iterations to improve the power of the experiment ? Generally because it was probably closer to a million , so I 'm erring on the side of taking more , rather than fewer , measurements .
But without careful consideration , I could be way off.How are you performing the samplings ? I think this is vastly less important than how you are dealing with the data , but it is also a good point .
For example , his complaint is that an average is n't enough ; with detailed enough logging , he could easily go back into my data and figure out min , max , standard deviation , histograms...How do you know that 1000 is enough to get the process into a steady state after the ramp-up period ? Not a huge deal -- the " steady state " will almost certainly be faster than the " ramp-up " period .
Worst case , I 'm over-optimizing.What will you do if the 1000 tests takes 10 hours ? Either ctrl + c , or try it 10 times.How does 1000 sequential requests help you determine the performance under load ? Very good point here .
It 's still a useful statistic , but you still need to measure things like 1000 simultaneous requests , not just 1000 all in sequence.On the other hand , if your performance is acceptable with them all in sequence , you could just run it through something like Event Machine , so it 's all sequential on production , too.The most troubling problem with these single number    averages    is that there    s two common averages and that without some form of range or variance error they are useless .
If you take a look at the previous graphs you can see visually why this is a problem .
Two averages can be the same , but hide massive differences in behavior...So yes , always make sure you can record enough statistics so that someone else can come along and use your data to give you something meaningful.The moral of the story is that if you give an average without standard deviations then you    re totally missing the entire point of even trying to measure something .
A major goal of measurement is to develop a succinct and accurate picture of what    s going on...It does n't have to be statistically accurate .
It just has to be close enough.Ah , confounding .
The most difficult thing to explain to a programmer , yet the most elementary part of all scientific experimentation .
It    s pretty simple : If you want to measure something , then don    t measure other shit.This is both a very good and a very bad idea .
It ties into the peeve he had before -- ramp-up time .
For example : If we want to take one single line of code and test it then we can .
If we want to only verify one single query on a database then what    s stopping us ? What 's stopping us is that our applications do n't actually work like that.For example : You could measure exactly how long it takes to perform a single query a thousand times , or however long you 've determined you need for appropriate " power " .
And then you push it to production and you realize that the results of every query are n't always already in the disk cache , and your interpreted language is actually running that query much slower due to GC overhead ( which is n't evident until you 're actually using some more RAM ) , it could well be that you 're dealing with times so fast that your instrumentation ( measuring ) is actually more overhead than the tight loop it might be in within an actual application , etc , etc.Sometimes you want to pull out a single element of your system to test .
You can do things like compare how fast one query is versus another , probably with more accuracy than you 'd get from running the whole system.But that 's going to introduce even more confounding -- by not measuring the system as a whole , you could be measuring the wrong things -- take that disk cache example .
For that matter , one seemingly-slower query could actually turn out to be the right one , because it corresponds more closely to your access patterns , thus resulting in higher cache coherency.So yes , removing confounding is an appropriate goal .
But there are reasons other than stupidity why we might choose to measure more than a single line of code at a time.the one thing you need to know for performance measurements : How much data can go down this fucking pipe in a second ?
Sorry , but no , that is not the only thing you need to know .
That is bandwidth .
You also need to know the maximum latency .
It 's all well and good if you can handle a billion requests per second , but worthless if you 're a web app and you 're taking 30 seconds for each one .
Sure , you still get 30 billion requests done simultaneously , but that does n't help your user.So , Zed is right that we should focus more on statistics , that we should respect it as a discipline , and that we should listen to people who understand it.But he 's wrong about how to go about this , and he 's nearly as much of an egotistical prick as he always was .
( That 's a compliment -- he 's improving .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, since so many people don't seem to want to actually read Zed's stuff -- and I honestly don't blame you -- I'll try to summarize:Eventually, every major science adopted an empiricist view of the world.
Except Computer Science of course.He tends to bitch a lot about computer scientists.
I'm just starting a CS degree, and there is a Statistics class in the curriculum.
Is he working with people with good degrees, people from a technical college with a "programming" degree, people from a diploma mill, or high school students with no degree at all?Of course, he seems to be implying it's everyone, and doing so in a typically Zed-like way.
"All you need to do is run that test [insert power-of-ten] times and then do an average.
" Usually the power-of-ten is 1000...I don't know that I've ever heard that particular statement.
But it's a good point:How do you know that 1000 is the correct number of iterations to improve the power of the experiment?Generally because it was probably closer to a million, so I'm erring on the side of taking more, rather than fewer, measurements.
But without careful consideration, I could be way off.How are you performing the samplings?I think this is vastly less important than how you are dealing with the data, but it is also a good point.
For example, his complaint is that an average isn't enough; with detailed enough logging, he could easily go back into my data and figure out min, max, standard deviation, histograms...How do you know that 1000 is enough to get the process into a steady state after the ramp-up period?Not a huge deal -- the "steady state" will almost certainly be faster than the "ramp-up" period.
Worst case, I'm over-optimizing.What will you do if the 1000 tests takes 10 hours?Either ctrl+c, or try it 10 times.How does 1000 sequential requests help you determine the performance under load?Very good point here.
It's still a useful statistic, but you still need to measure things like 1000 simultaneous requests, not just 1000 all in sequence.On the other hand, if your performance is acceptable with them all in sequence, you could just run it through something like Event Machine, so it's all sequential on production, too.The most troubling problem with these single number “averages” is that there’s two common averages and that without some form of range or variance error they are useless.
If you take a look at the previous graphs you can see visually why this is a problem.
Two averages can be the same, but hide massive differences in behavior...So yes, always make sure you can record enough statistics so that someone else can come along and use your data to give you something meaningful.The moral of the story is that if you give an average without standard deviations then you’re totally missing the entire point of even trying to measure something.
A major goal of measurement is to develop a succinct and accurate picture of what’s going on...It doesn't have to be statistically accurate.
It just has to be close enough.Ah, confounding.
The most difficult thing to explain to a programmer, yet the most elementary part of all scientific experimentation.
It’s pretty simple: If you want to measure something, then don’t measure other shit.This is both a very good and a very bad idea.
It ties into the peeve he had before -- ramp-up time.
For example:If we want to take one single line of code and test it then we can.
If we want to only verify one single query on a database then what’s stopping us?What's stopping us is that our applications don't actually work like that.For example: You could measure exactly how long it takes to perform a single query a thousand times, or however long you've determined you need for appropriate "power".
And then you push it to production and you realize that the results of every query aren't always already in the disk cache, and your interpreted language is actually running that query much slower due to GC overhead (which isn't evident until you're actually using some more RAM), it could well be that you're dealing with times so fast that your instrumentation (measuring) is actually more overhead than the tight loop it might be in within an actual application, etc, etc.Sometimes you want to pull out a single element of your system to test.
You can do things like compare how fast one query is versus another, probably with more accuracy than you'd get from running the whole system.But that's going to introduce even more confounding -- by not measuring the system as a whole, you could be measuring the wrong things -- take that disk cache example.
For that matter, one seemingly-slower query could actually turn out to be the right one, because it corresponds more closely to your access patterns, thus resulting in higher cache coherency.So yes, removing confounding is an appropriate goal.
But there are reasons other than stupidity why we might choose to measure more than a single line of code at a time.the one thing you need to know for performance measurements: How much data can go down this fucking pipe in a second?
Sorry, but no, that is not the only thing you need to know.
That is bandwidth.
You also need to know the maximum latency.
It's all well and good if you can handle a billion requests per second, but worthless if you're a web app and you're taking 30 seconds for each one.
Sure, you still get 30 billion requests done simultaneously, but that doesn't help your user.So, Zed is right that we should focus more on statistics, that we should respect it as a discipline, and that we should listen to people who understand it.But he's wrong about how to go about this, and he's nearly as much of an egotistical prick as he always was.
(That's a compliment -- he's improving.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710940</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>MoeDrippins</author>
	<datestamp>1263043500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....Zed wants everyone to be just like him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....Zed wants everyone to be just like him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....Zed wants everyone to be just like him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710664</id>
	<title>My advice: take a statistics class as an undergrad</title>
	<author>j1m+5n0w</author>
	<datestamp>1263041340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never took a statistics class as an undergrad.  In retrospect, I think it would have been very useful, probably more so than the calculus I took (which I think is also a very good thing to know, but stats tend to be used more often).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never took a statistics class as an undergrad .
In retrospect , I think it would have been very useful , probably more so than the calculus I took ( which I think is also a very good thing to know , but stats tend to be used more often ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never took a statistics class as an undergrad.
In retrospect, I think it would have been very useful, probably more so than the calculus I took (which I think is also a very good thing to know, but stats tend to be used more often).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711132</id>
	<title>It's the approach, stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263045060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like anyone is going to take career advice from a ranting asshat who admits he doesn't know what he's talking about, right after threatening to kill people. I hope this jerk gets cancer, aids and no cotten candy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like anyone is going to take career advice from a ranting asshat who admits he does n't know what he 's talking about , right after threatening to kill people .
I hope this jerk gets cancer , aids and no cotten candy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like anyone is going to take career advice from a ranting asshat who admits he doesn't know what he's talking about, right after threatening to kill people.
I hope this jerk gets cancer, aids and no cotten candy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710978</id>
	<title>Re:Reply from a programmer that knows no statistic</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1263043920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bridges that fail, fail predictably. It is usually just a question of collecting some data.</p></div><p>Good luck demonstaring that an aircraft instrument landing system is fit for purpose, then. Semiconductors might fail predictably when they're being observed under an electron microscope, but it's a bit harder in a hut by the side of an airfield.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bridges that fail , fail predictably .
It is usually just a question of collecting some data.Good luck demonstaring that an aircraft instrument landing system is fit for purpose , then .
Semiconductors might fail predictably when they 're being observed under an electron microscope , but it 's a bit harder in a hut by the side of an airfield .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bridges that fail, fail predictably.
It is usually just a question of collecting some data.Good luck demonstaring that an aircraft instrument landing system is fit for purpose, then.
Semiconductors might fail predictably when they're being observed under an electron microscope, but it's a bit harder in a hut by the side of an airfield.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618</id>
	<title>Or, how about...</title>
	<author>halivar</author>
	<datestamp>1263040980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Statisticians need to learn programming or I will kill them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Statisticians need to learn programming or I will kill them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statisticians need to learn programming or I will kill them all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710964</id>
	<title>Superior?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I really can't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation."

Both are superior to statistics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I really ca n't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation .
" Both are superior to statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I really can't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation.
"

Both are superior to statistics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30720434</id>
	<title>Re:Summarized for people who don't want to read Ze</title>
	<author>Asian Freud</author>
	<datestamp>1263152460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I am an genius and lazy and don't need to study much in order to get an A.</p><p>Until the third year when I almost failed a math course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I am an genius and lazy and do n't need to study much in order to get an A.Until the third year when I almost failed a math course ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I am an genius and lazy and don't need to study much in order to get an A.Until the third year when I almost failed a math course ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712696</id>
	<title>Re:93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>tconnors</author>
	<datestamp>1263060960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Lies, damn lies and statistics" is all you need to know about statistics.</p></div><p>If you get fooled by politicians who lie by abusing statistics, then that's a pretty good sign you don't undestand statistics and need to learn more about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lies , damn lies and statistics " is all you need to know about statistics.If you get fooled by politicians who lie by abusing statistics , then that 's a pretty good sign you do n't undestand statistics and need to learn more about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lies, damn lies and statistics" is all you need to know about statistics.If you get fooled by politicians who lie by abusing statistics, then that's a pretty good sign you don't undestand statistics and need to learn more about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713236</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1263156240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have sat in business meetings <b>hundreds</b> of times where I've seen decisions made on completely meaningless and irrelevant data, because the people involved don't understand statistics.  The same holds true in your personal life; decisions with purchasing products, investing money...</p></div><p>Investing money... isn't that why I'm paying $400 a month into the lottery?  I mean, I'm going to win it eventually, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have sat in business meetings hundreds of times where I 've seen decisions made on completely meaningless and irrelevant data , because the people involved do n't understand statistics .
The same holds true in your personal life ; decisions with purchasing products , investing money...Investing money... is n't that why I 'm paying $ 400 a month into the lottery ?
I mean , I 'm going to win it eventually , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have sat in business meetings hundreds of times where I've seen decisions made on completely meaningless and irrelevant data, because the people involved don't understand statistics.
The same holds true in your personal life; decisions with purchasing products, investing money...Investing money... isn't that why I'm paying $400 a month into the lottery?
I mean, I'm going to win it eventually, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711490</id>
	<title>Statistics may or may not = math</title>
	<author>Binder</author>
	<datestamp>1263047880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Statistics in it's purest sense is simply math.  Very few people know very much about this.</p><p>Statistics in the wild is generally bullshit!  You should not be able to get two equally qualified people the same data set and receive two different answers!</p><p>As for statistics for performance measurement?  If you are doing something important than analyze worst case performance.  Statistics doesn't come into play in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Statistics in it 's purest sense is simply math .
Very few people know very much about this.Statistics in the wild is generally bullshit !
You should not be able to get two equally qualified people the same data set and receive two different answers ! As for statistics for performance measurement ?
If you are doing something important than analyze worst case performance .
Statistics does n't come into play in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statistics in it's purest sense is simply math.
Very few people know very much about this.Statistics in the wild is generally bullshit!
You should not be able to get two equally qualified people the same data set and receive two different answers!As for statistics for performance measurement?
If you are doing something important than analyze worst case performance.
Statistics doesn't come into play in this case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712524</id>
	<title>Re:93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>jellyfrog</author>
	<datestamp>1263058200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>0.</p><p>If only one of them is heads, the one that isn't heads is... not heads.</p><p>Unless of course you meant "the first one is heads" in which case the second one has a 50\% chance of being heads.</p><p>Or if you meant "At least one is heads" the answer is 1/3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>0.If only one of them is heads , the one that is n't heads is... not heads.Unless of course you meant " the first one is heads " in which case the second one has a 50 \ % chance of being heads.Or if you meant " At least one is heads " the answer is 1/3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0.If only one of them is heads, the one that isn't heads is... not heads.Unless of course you meant "the first one is heads" in which case the second one has a 50\% chance of being heads.Or if you meant "At least one is heads" the answer is 1/3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710718</id>
	<title>It's not just statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found that more than just about any other degree Computer Science and to a less extent Medical Degrees imbue the recipient with an unnatural ego when it comes to subjects with which they are unfamiliar.  I propose we remove the word Science from CS degrees and call it what it is "Computer Programming and Troubleshooting". There are far too many CS graduates who think they are actually scientists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found that more than just about any other degree Computer Science and to a less extent Medical Degrees imbue the recipient with an unnatural ego when it comes to subjects with which they are unfamiliar .
I propose we remove the word Science from CS degrees and call it what it is " Computer Programming and Troubleshooting " .
There are far too many CS graduates who think they are actually scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found that more than just about any other degree Computer Science and to a less extent Medical Degrees imbue the recipient with an unnatural ego when it comes to subjects with which they are unfamiliar.
I propose we remove the word Science from CS degrees and call it what it is "Computer Programming and Troubleshooting".
There are far too many CS graduates who think they are actually scientists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713368</id>
	<title>Why Programmers Need To Learn Statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263116160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Statistics show that statistics work!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Statistics show that statistics work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statistics show that statistics work!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712860</id>
	<title>and you should</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263063240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just because they are geeks, that is reason enough</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just because they are geeks , that is reason enough</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just because they are geeks, that is reason enough</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710984</id>
	<title>Re:Or, how about...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about you just kill them all?<br>
Right after all the lawyers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about you just kill them all ?
Right after all the lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about you just kill them all?
Right after all the lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711538</id>
	<title>Understanding statistics is hard...</title>
	<author>mario\_grgic</author>
	<datestamp>1263048180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as someone with postgraduate degree in pure math, I'll be the first to admit that the subject is very hard to really understand well. Statistics is founded on probability theory, which in turn is based on measure theory, which is based on generalized integral theory and mathematical analysis. It takes 4 - 6 years of continuous hard study to cover this material and really know it all. And only people who devote their professional life to it can do that.</p><p>At most one could hope that one develops as sense for high level statistics, but that also takes several years of exposure to concrete examples, since intuition often fails miserably when it comes to even discrete probability theory.</p><p>Statistics is really useful as a scientific/theoretic method of reasoning, but convincing business people or even practicing scientists with it is futile in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as someone with postgraduate degree in pure math , I 'll be the first to admit that the subject is very hard to really understand well .
Statistics is founded on probability theory , which in turn is based on measure theory , which is based on generalized integral theory and mathematical analysis .
It takes 4 - 6 years of continuous hard study to cover this material and really know it all .
And only people who devote their professional life to it can do that.At most one could hope that one develops as sense for high level statistics , but that also takes several years of exposure to concrete examples , since intuition often fails miserably when it comes to even discrete probability theory.Statistics is really useful as a scientific/theoretic method of reasoning , but convincing business people or even practicing scientists with it is futile in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as someone with postgraduate degree in pure math, I'll be the first to admit that the subject is very hard to really understand well.
Statistics is founded on probability theory, which in turn is based on measure theory, which is based on generalized integral theory and mathematical analysis.
It takes 4 - 6 years of continuous hard study to cover this material and really know it all.
And only people who devote their professional life to it can do that.At most one could hope that one develops as sense for high level statistics, but that also takes several years of exposure to concrete examples, since intuition often fails miserably when it comes to even discrete probability theory.Statistics is really useful as a scientific/theoretic method of reasoning, but convincing business people or even practicing scientists with it is futile in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30719368</id>
	<title>Convert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263138360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with statistics is the people who teach usually say "that is the way it is" and make you feel miserable. The basis of statistics is "ratio" analysis which is subject to error. So any activity has risk and using the ratio analysis one can start asking, where is the risk? How do I detect the risk? How to I measure the risk? How do I control the risk? If you think about your daily activities it is controlled by statistics- why use deodorant  after shower? When you are the best driver why do you need autoinsurance? When you are healthy, why should you get H1N1 shot? You are God fearing(?) yet why do you put money on a plate in church/temple/mosque? Why should companies have multiple products? Why do you need a spell checker and grammar checker when you a native speaker of English?...<br>Every one these events have some associated risk and that is what statistics tell us. It is very sad that we learn just to pass the exam, but do not think and apply statistics in life. Almost all unemployed people forgot that unless they access their risk with their qualification<br>and skill sets and upgrade them they will be unemployed. It is not "if", but when. Programmers and every one else needs to carefully think about statistics. Zed Shaw may sound arrogant, but statistics is not some bogus area. Demming is the guru of six sigma and companies who follow this, are kings now. Look at Toyota which used statistics, yet forgot to use it continuously and lost a lot. GM, FORD etc., use statistics to make sure that their components fail exactly after 36 months( end of warranty period) and look at them now.<br>It is takes effort and interest to learn a second, third subject, but unless one is having multiple background, the future ror them is bleak. Good luck for those who under estimate the power of  statistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with statistics is the people who teach usually say " that is the way it is " and make you feel miserable .
The basis of statistics is " ratio " analysis which is subject to error .
So any activity has risk and using the ratio analysis one can start asking , where is the risk ?
How do I detect the risk ?
How to I measure the risk ?
How do I control the risk ?
If you think about your daily activities it is controlled by statistics- why use deodorant after shower ?
When you are the best driver why do you need autoinsurance ?
When you are healthy , why should you get H1N1 shot ?
You are God fearing ( ?
) yet why do you put money on a plate in church/temple/mosque ?
Why should companies have multiple products ?
Why do you need a spell checker and grammar checker when you a native speaker of English ? ...Every one these events have some associated risk and that is what statistics tell us .
It is very sad that we learn just to pass the exam , but do not think and apply statistics in life .
Almost all unemployed people forgot that unless they access their risk with their qualificationand skill sets and upgrade them they will be unemployed .
It is not " if " , but when .
Programmers and every one else needs to carefully think about statistics .
Zed Shaw may sound arrogant , but statistics is not some bogus area .
Demming is the guru of six sigma and companies who follow this , are kings now .
Look at Toyota which used statistics , yet forgot to use it continuously and lost a lot .
GM , FORD etc. , use statistics to make sure that their components fail exactly after 36 months ( end of warranty period ) and look at them now.It is takes effort and interest to learn a second , third subject , but unless one is having multiple background , the future ror them is bleak .
Good luck for those who under estimate the power of statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with statistics is the people who teach usually say "that is the way it is" and make you feel miserable.
The basis of statistics is "ratio" analysis which is subject to error.
So any activity has risk and using the ratio analysis one can start asking, where is the risk?
How do I detect the risk?
How to I measure the risk?
How do I control the risk?
If you think about your daily activities it is controlled by statistics- why use deodorant  after shower?
When you are the best driver why do you need autoinsurance?
When you are healthy, why should you get H1N1 shot?
You are God fearing(?
) yet why do you put money on a plate in church/temple/mosque?
Why should companies have multiple products?
Why do you need a spell checker and grammar checker when you a native speaker of English?...Every one these events have some associated risk and that is what statistics tell us.
It is very sad that we learn just to pass the exam, but do not think and apply statistics in life.
Almost all unemployed people forgot that unless they access their risk with their qualificationand skill sets and upgrade them they will be unemployed.
It is not "if", but when.
Programmers and every one else needs to carefully think about statistics.
Zed Shaw may sound arrogant, but statistics is not some bogus area.
Demming is the guru of six sigma and companies who follow this, are kings now.
Look at Toyota which used statistics, yet forgot to use it continuously and lost a lot.
GM, FORD etc., use statistics to make sure that their components fail exactly after 36 months( end of warranty period) and look at them now.It is takes effort and interest to learn a second, third subject, but unless one is having multiple background, the future ror them is bleak.
Good luck for those who under estimate the power of  statistics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714450</id>
	<title>In 1976...</title>
	<author>alispguru</author>
	<datestamp>1263138480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... I ran into a professor of statistics who said that computers were going to be a passing fad in his field.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I ran into a professor of statistics who said that computers were going to be a passing fad in his field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I ran into a professor of statistics who said that computers were going to be a passing fad in his field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710622</id>
	<title>93\% of everyone else thinks you're full of it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damm geek.  Take your fancy math and get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damm geek .
Take your fancy math and get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damm geek.
Take your fancy math and get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712568</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1263058800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no doubt that we each have our area of expertise.  That is not the, IMHO, the question.  The question is what does a programmer, working in a contemporary setting, need to know.  There are many things most of us do not need to know.  We do not need to know how to write an efficient search or sort routine.  We do not need to know how to manage memory.  We don't even need to know how to manually debug a program.
<p>
Since so much is done for us by the languages and IDE we use, I think it is reasonable to ask us to know something about the process we program.  Programming is deterministic, and this is why many of us do know much about statistics.  OTOH, much of what we are asked to program has a statistical nature.  Searches do not always call for exact matches.  In word processing a texting predictive typing does not return exact results.  In finance, we want stochastic predictors concerning where the market probably will be tomorrow.  Exactness is so 2000's.
</p><p>
And then there is the issue that software developers should be able to, on some level, research, understand, analyze, and create a policy based solution to a problem.  Ignore the fact, as stated in the previous paragraph, that not all these problems are going to have exact, or trivially reproducible solution, and we are still left with understanding the problem.  The involves some knowledge of statistics and it's vagaries.  Lack of knowledge can lead to massively incorrect understanding.  For instance, late last year a paper was published comparing <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1180606" title="sciencemag.org">subjective and objective measures of happiness</a> [sciencemag.org].  in this paper is was shown that if, on average, a state in the US express subjective happiness, there was a good chance that state would be happy using objective data.  Even my understanding of this is not great, and the explanation is oversimplified, but the basic idea is there.  In fact, I look at the data and say that the correlation is not all that great, but I will admit the variables do show at least some limited correlation.  The problem is that the popular media takes this graph, which is comparing two technique of measuring a variable, and does not order that variable or imply the variable has any inherent meaning, and uses the data to say that some <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091217/sc\_livescience/happieststatesrevealedbynewresearch" title="yahoo.com">states are "happy" and some states are "not happy"</a> [yahoo.com].  Clearly we don't expect journalist to have a sufficient graph of math or science to understand why they did was unethical, but we should have expectation that anyone above the level of code monkey would have such an understanding.  Otherwise we are going to have programs that will claim to give us valid or otherwise reliable results, when in fact what we have is simply someone's faith that it is a good result, without any well know and well regarded method to back it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no doubt that we each have our area of expertise .
That is not the , IMHO , the question .
The question is what does a programmer , working in a contemporary setting , need to know .
There are many things most of us do not need to know .
We do not need to know how to write an efficient search or sort routine .
We do not need to know how to manage memory .
We do n't even need to know how to manually debug a program .
Since so much is done for us by the languages and IDE we use , I think it is reasonable to ask us to know something about the process we program .
Programming is deterministic , and this is why many of us do know much about statistics .
OTOH , much of what we are asked to program has a statistical nature .
Searches do not always call for exact matches .
In word processing a texting predictive typing does not return exact results .
In finance , we want stochastic predictors concerning where the market probably will be tomorrow .
Exactness is so 2000 's .
And then there is the issue that software developers should be able to , on some level , research , understand , analyze , and create a policy based solution to a problem .
Ignore the fact , as stated in the previous paragraph , that not all these problems are going to have exact , or trivially reproducible solution , and we are still left with understanding the problem .
The involves some knowledge of statistics and it 's vagaries .
Lack of knowledge can lead to massively incorrect understanding .
For instance , late last year a paper was published comparing subjective and objective measures of happiness [ sciencemag.org ] .
in this paper is was shown that if , on average , a state in the US express subjective happiness , there was a good chance that state would be happy using objective data .
Even my understanding of this is not great , and the explanation is oversimplified , but the basic idea is there .
In fact , I look at the data and say that the correlation is not all that great , but I will admit the variables do show at least some limited correlation .
The problem is that the popular media takes this graph , which is comparing two technique of measuring a variable , and does not order that variable or imply the variable has any inherent meaning , and uses the data to say that some states are " happy " and some states are " not happy " [ yahoo.com ] .
Clearly we do n't expect journalist to have a sufficient graph of math or science to understand why they did was unethical , but we should have expectation that anyone above the level of code monkey would have such an understanding .
Otherwise we are going to have programs that will claim to give us valid or otherwise reliable results , when in fact what we have is simply someone 's faith that it is a good result , without any well know and well regarded method to back it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no doubt that we each have our area of expertise.
That is not the, IMHO, the question.
The question is what does a programmer, working in a contemporary setting, need to know.
There are many things most of us do not need to know.
We do not need to know how to write an efficient search or sort routine.
We do not need to know how to manage memory.
We don't even need to know how to manually debug a program.
Since so much is done for us by the languages and IDE we use, I think it is reasonable to ask us to know something about the process we program.
Programming is deterministic, and this is why many of us do know much about statistics.
OTOH, much of what we are asked to program has a statistical nature.
Searches do not always call for exact matches.
In word processing a texting predictive typing does not return exact results.
In finance, we want stochastic predictors concerning where the market probably will be tomorrow.
Exactness is so 2000's.
And then there is the issue that software developers should be able to, on some level, research, understand, analyze, and create a policy based solution to a problem.
Ignore the fact, as stated in the previous paragraph, that not all these problems are going to have exact, or trivially reproducible solution, and we are still left with understanding the problem.
The involves some knowledge of statistics and it's vagaries.
Lack of knowledge can lead to massively incorrect understanding.
For instance, late last year a paper was published comparing subjective and objective measures of happiness [sciencemag.org].
in this paper is was shown that if, on average, a state in the US express subjective happiness, there was a good chance that state would be happy using objective data.
Even my understanding of this is not great, and the explanation is oversimplified, but the basic idea is there.
In fact, I look at the data and say that the correlation is not all that great, but I will admit the variables do show at least some limited correlation.
The problem is that the popular media takes this graph, which is comparing two technique of measuring a variable, and does not order that variable or imply the variable has any inherent meaning, and uses the data to say that some states are "happy" and some states are "not happy" [yahoo.com].
Clearly we don't expect journalist to have a sufficient graph of math or science to understand why they did was unethical, but we should have expectation that anyone above the level of code monkey would have such an understanding.
Otherwise we are going to have programs that will claim to give us valid or otherwise reliable results, when in fact what we have is simply someone's faith that it is a good result, without any well know and well regarded method to back it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710844</id>
	<title>Logic and reason superior?</title>
	<author>TranceThrust</author>
	<datestamp>1263042780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those two things is what statistics is based in the first place as well. Evidence etcetera comes second. If you can't blow logical counterarguments away you're probably wrong and you're indeed lacking in understanding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those two things is what statistics is based in the first place as well .
Evidence etcetera comes second .
If you ca n't blow logical counterarguments away you 're probably wrong and you 're indeed lacking in understanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those two things is what statistics is based in the first place as well.
Evidence etcetera comes second.
If you can't blow logical counterarguments away you're probably wrong and you're indeed lacking in understanding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714898</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>philosiphus</author>
	<datestamp>1263143640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zed does not distinguish between probability and statistical inference.  He describes measurements that have been taken -- making inferences from data.  He only mentions statistics in the context of inferring what happened rather than model the probability of an event happening in the future.  That is only part of the problem in programming where, ideally, you should have 100\% certainty, in the absence of exceptional situations (machine loses power, runs out of memory), that given the same inputs your program will produce the same outputs.</p><p>I agree with an implicit part of his rant: too many people (men and women) tend to rationalize intellectual laziness.  Based on my own experience with people holding doctoral degrees in physics and mathematics, I have to say Zed sounds like he is in an "enterprise" situation where people can be lazy.  Perhaps he would be happier in another workplace.  Some of those mathematicians have been sloppy programmers and would even take offense if you (as a programmer) try to show them how to correct their program so it does not destroy your system.  That does not mean all mathematicans are bad programmers and I have met many who wrote programs I would be proud of.</p><p>Which brings me to his comment on women.  If some women in the population of people around Zed listen to him it does not mean all women will.  In fact, the population of a single workplace (Zed's) does not provide enough data to support Zed's proposition that most women would listen to him.  I have met (and enjoyed working with) many men who conscientiously try to do the best job they can and are more interested in mastering the intellectual problems at hand than proving that they are the best or most knowledgeable.   So fuck you, Zed, you sexist bastard.  Thanks for giving the feminists and leftists one more argument to rationalize their sexual discrimination and force men to be contractors, expendable and generally unemployed, while all the women get to keep the full-time employment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed does not distinguish between probability and statistical inference .
He describes measurements that have been taken -- making inferences from data .
He only mentions statistics in the context of inferring what happened rather than model the probability of an event happening in the future .
That is only part of the problem in programming where , ideally , you should have 100 \ % certainty , in the absence of exceptional situations ( machine loses power , runs out of memory ) , that given the same inputs your program will produce the same outputs.I agree with an implicit part of his rant : too many people ( men and women ) tend to rationalize intellectual laziness .
Based on my own experience with people holding doctoral degrees in physics and mathematics , I have to say Zed sounds like he is in an " enterprise " situation where people can be lazy .
Perhaps he would be happier in another workplace .
Some of those mathematicians have been sloppy programmers and would even take offense if you ( as a programmer ) try to show them how to correct their program so it does not destroy your system .
That does not mean all mathematicans are bad programmers and I have met many who wrote programs I would be proud of.Which brings me to his comment on women .
If some women in the population of people around Zed listen to him it does not mean all women will .
In fact , the population of a single workplace ( Zed 's ) does not provide enough data to support Zed 's proposition that most women would listen to him .
I have met ( and enjoyed working with ) many men who conscientiously try to do the best job they can and are more interested in mastering the intellectual problems at hand than proving that they are the best or most knowledgeable .
So fuck you , Zed , you sexist bastard .
Thanks for giving the feminists and leftists one more argument to rationalize their sexual discrimination and force men to be contractors , expendable and generally unemployed , while all the women get to keep the full-time employment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zed does not distinguish between probability and statistical inference.
He describes measurements that have been taken -- making inferences from data.
He only mentions statistics in the context of inferring what happened rather than model the probability of an event happening in the future.
That is only part of the problem in programming where, ideally, you should have 100\% certainty, in the absence of exceptional situations (machine loses power, runs out of memory), that given the same inputs your program will produce the same outputs.I agree with an implicit part of his rant: too many people (men and women) tend to rationalize intellectual laziness.
Based on my own experience with people holding doctoral degrees in physics and mathematics, I have to say Zed sounds like he is in an "enterprise" situation where people can be lazy.
Perhaps he would be happier in another workplace.
Some of those mathematicians have been sloppy programmers and would even take offense if you (as a programmer) try to show them how to correct their program so it does not destroy your system.
That does not mean all mathematicans are bad programmers and I have met many who wrote programs I would be proud of.Which brings me to his comment on women.
If some women in the population of people around Zed listen to him it does not mean all women will.
In fact, the population of a single workplace (Zed's) does not provide enough data to support Zed's proposition that most women would listen to him.
I have met (and enjoyed working with) many men who conscientiously try to do the best job they can and are more interested in mastering the intellectual problems at hand than proving that they are the best or most knowledgeable.
So fuck you, Zed, you sexist bastard.
Thanks for giving the feminists and leftists one more argument to rationalize their sexual discrimination and force men to be contractors, expendable and generally unemployed, while all the women get to keep the full-time employment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711036</id>
	<title>Re:93\% of Programmers Think You're Wrong</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1263044280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Lies, damn lies and statistics" is all you need to know about statistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lies , damn lies and statistics " is all you need to know about statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lies, damn lies and statistics" is all you need to know about statistics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710936</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Fucking specialists forget all the things they don't know and only look at the world through one lens.</i> </p><p>Meanwhile, people like you can't even tell the difference between the words "then" and "than."</p><p>But don't let that stop you!  A poor grasp of basic English shouldn't slow you down any more than a poor grasp of statistics!  It's ok<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you can just explain it all away with some hand-waving and a post to Slashdot!  You're a genius!  Here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... have a lollipop!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking specialists forget all the things they do n't know and only look at the world through one lens .
Meanwhile , people like you ca n't even tell the difference between the words " then " and " than .
" But do n't let that stop you !
A poor grasp of basic English should n't slow you down any more than a poor grasp of statistics !
It 's ok ... you can just explain it all away with some hand-waving and a post to Slashdot !
You 're a genius !
Here ... have a lollipop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking specialists forget all the things they don't know and only look at the world through one lens.
Meanwhile, people like you can't even tell the difference between the words "then" and "than.
"But don't let that stop you!
A poor grasp of basic English shouldn't slow you down any more than a poor grasp of statistics!
It's ok ... you can just explain it all away with some hand-waving and a post to Slashdot!
You're a genius!
Here ... have a lollipop!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711362</id>
	<title>Re:Reply from a programmer that knows no statistic</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1263046920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In practice, statistics is an attempt to quantify messy, uncertain events into a figure. We can even measure the extent to which this works, roughly speaking. Your hard drive has a rough time-to-failure, based on analyses of the things that tend to go wrong in that system. Sure, any time it fails, it's not statistics that broke it; it's one of the kinds of problems captured in the statistical analysis. And sure, you could break it down further for disks and note that the controller has a different failure rate than some other component, just as a bridge has a number of possible failures. Problem is, for any of those, you could break it down further and get failure rates for subcomponents, regions, etc. So what? It's still useful to have statistical measures - the real world is complex, and statistics helps us capture things we otherwise couldn't.</p><p>Programmers (particularly but not only young programmers) might not like to acknowledge any field but their own has any depth ("Everything is simple! Just do it my way", hence Ron Paul/Ayn Rand fanboyism and all sorts of other stupidities) - I don't know if there's a lot we can do but hope they grow out of it (It took me awhile to do it, as did a number of people I knew when I was younger, but I made it out).</p><p>Basically, if your worldview doesn't wed empiricism and a reasonably flexible practical philosophy, your worldview is (if you err on the pro-logic end) too inflexible and you're going to miss out on standing on the shoulders of giants. Neither the logician nor the mystic understands the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In practice , statistics is an attempt to quantify messy , uncertain events into a figure .
We can even measure the extent to which this works , roughly speaking .
Your hard drive has a rough time-to-failure , based on analyses of the things that tend to go wrong in that system .
Sure , any time it fails , it 's not statistics that broke it ; it 's one of the kinds of problems captured in the statistical analysis .
And sure , you could break it down further for disks and note that the controller has a different failure rate than some other component , just as a bridge has a number of possible failures .
Problem is , for any of those , you could break it down further and get failure rates for subcomponents , regions , etc .
So what ?
It 's still useful to have statistical measures - the real world is complex , and statistics helps us capture things we otherwise could n't.Programmers ( particularly but not only young programmers ) might not like to acknowledge any field but their own has any depth ( " Everything is simple !
Just do it my way " , hence Ron Paul/Ayn Rand fanboyism and all sorts of other stupidities ) - I do n't know if there 's a lot we can do but hope they grow out of it ( It took me awhile to do it , as did a number of people I knew when I was younger , but I made it out ) .Basically , if your worldview does n't wed empiricism and a reasonably flexible practical philosophy , your worldview is ( if you err on the pro-logic end ) too inflexible and you 're going to miss out on standing on the shoulders of giants .
Neither the logician nor the mystic understands the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In practice, statistics is an attempt to quantify messy, uncertain events into a figure.
We can even measure the extent to which this works, roughly speaking.
Your hard drive has a rough time-to-failure, based on analyses of the things that tend to go wrong in that system.
Sure, any time it fails, it's not statistics that broke it; it's one of the kinds of problems captured in the statistical analysis.
And sure, you could break it down further for disks and note that the controller has a different failure rate than some other component, just as a bridge has a number of possible failures.
Problem is, for any of those, you could break it down further and get failure rates for subcomponents, regions, etc.
So what?
It's still useful to have statistical measures - the real world is complex, and statistics helps us capture things we otherwise couldn't.Programmers (particularly but not only young programmers) might not like to acknowledge any field but their own has any depth ("Everything is simple!
Just do it my way", hence Ron Paul/Ayn Rand fanboyism and all sorts of other stupidities) - I don't know if there's a lot we can do but hope they grow out of it (It took me awhile to do it, as did a number of people I knew when I was younger, but I made it out).Basically, if your worldview doesn't wed empiricism and a reasonably flexible practical philosophy, your worldview is (if you err on the pro-logic end) too inflexible and you're going to miss out on standing on the shoulders of giants.
Neither the logician nor the mystic understands the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710830</id>
	<title>... or know when to defer to an expert</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1263042660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I certainly suffer from a feeling of being an expert in all fields. Deep down I guess I know I'm not, but I'd probably rather just muddle my way through it assuming I know everything there is to know. The trick is knowing when something is sufficiently out of your field that you need to defer to someone who is an expert in that field. Statistics is just one example. Certainly a little bit of knowledge in a lot of fields is a good thing, but when you have to choose between 4 years of study vs consulting someone who's already done 4 years of study, the choice should be obvious... (assuming you aren't going to spend the rest of your programming life doing heavily statistics related programming<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>For me the frustration is taking the word of an expert without understanding why and how they have arrived at that answer. I guess statistics is one field where the answer that 'feels right' is often not the answer that is right. The number of people who buy lottery tickets is a good example of that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly suffer from a feeling of being an expert in all fields .
Deep down I guess I know I 'm not , but I 'd probably rather just muddle my way through it assuming I know everything there is to know .
The trick is knowing when something is sufficiently out of your field that you need to defer to someone who is an expert in that field .
Statistics is just one example .
Certainly a little bit of knowledge in a lot of fields is a good thing , but when you have to choose between 4 years of study vs consulting someone who 's already done 4 years of study , the choice should be obvious... ( assuming you are n't going to spend the rest of your programming life doing heavily statistics related programming : ) For me the frustration is taking the word of an expert without understanding why and how they have arrived at that answer .
I guess statistics is one field where the answer that 'feels right ' is often not the answer that is right .
The number of people who buy lottery tickets is a good example of that : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly suffer from a feeling of being an expert in all fields.
Deep down I guess I know I'm not, but I'd probably rather just muddle my way through it assuming I know everything there is to know.
The trick is knowing when something is sufficiently out of your field that you need to defer to someone who is an expert in that field.
Statistics is just one example.
Certainly a little bit of knowledge in a lot of fields is a good thing, but when you have to choose between 4 years of study vs consulting someone who's already done 4 years of study, the choice should be obvious... (assuming you aren't going to spend the rest of your programming life doing heavily statistics related programming :)For me the frustration is taking the word of an expert without understanding why and how they have arrived at that answer.
I guess statistics is one field where the answer that 'feels right' is often not the answer that is right.
The number of people who buy lottery tickets is a good example of that :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713016</id>
	<title>Statistics in computing in practice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263065940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work as a programmer. I have qualifications in both Computer Science and Statistics, and an enthusiasm for statistics. I have looked for opportunities to put Statistics to work and found few.</p><p>A lot of statistics is for when experiments are expensive and you must have the right answer - e.g. they take a year and the results need to be of publishable scientific paper quality.</p><p>On Friday I ran very informal experiments to find a memory leak. Each test took five minutes and I knew when I had the right answer because, after staring pretty hard at a small section of code and looking back at the small print of the specification of the routine I was calling, I realised what the problem was.</p><p>The best strategy in this sort of situation is not one of those described in the excellent "Statistics for Experimenters". I made use of the ideas of designing an experiment to answer a question (putting a loop round segments of code to test them, and running the dodgy code once before the loop so that if correct the loop should lead to no net memory consumption at all) and of looking at relative measurements to increase precision (looking at memory size before and after the loop and subtracting the two). I think these ideas came to me from statistics, but that's about all I used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work as a programmer .
I have qualifications in both Computer Science and Statistics , and an enthusiasm for statistics .
I have looked for opportunities to put Statistics to work and found few.A lot of statistics is for when experiments are expensive and you must have the right answer - e.g .
they take a year and the results need to be of publishable scientific paper quality.On Friday I ran very informal experiments to find a memory leak .
Each test took five minutes and I knew when I had the right answer because , after staring pretty hard at a small section of code and looking back at the small print of the specification of the routine I was calling , I realised what the problem was.The best strategy in this sort of situation is not one of those described in the excellent " Statistics for Experimenters " .
I made use of the ideas of designing an experiment to answer a question ( putting a loop round segments of code to test them , and running the dodgy code once before the loop so that if correct the loop should lead to no net memory consumption at all ) and of looking at relative measurements to increase precision ( looking at memory size before and after the loop and subtracting the two ) .
I think these ideas came to me from statistics , but that 's about all I used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work as a programmer.
I have qualifications in both Computer Science and Statistics, and an enthusiasm for statistics.
I have looked for opportunities to put Statistics to work and found few.A lot of statistics is for when experiments are expensive and you must have the right answer - e.g.
they take a year and the results need to be of publishable scientific paper quality.On Friday I ran very informal experiments to find a memory leak.
Each test took five minutes and I knew when I had the right answer because, after staring pretty hard at a small section of code and looking back at the small print of the specification of the routine I was calling, I realised what the problem was.The best strategy in this sort of situation is not one of those described in the excellent "Statistics for Experimenters".
I made use of the ideas of designing an experiment to answer a question (putting a loop round segments of code to test them, and running the dodgy code once before the loop so that if correct the loop should lead to no net memory consumption at all) and of looking at relative measurements to increase precision (looking at memory size before and after the loop and subtracting the two).
I think these ideas came to me from statistics, but that's about all I used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711022</id>
	<title>too many "stat for dummies" books</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263044160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I've noticed about probability and statistics is that there is an astounding number of dumbed-down, "psst dude... here's all you need to know" type books on the subject(s), written in all different styles.  Every year the bookstores get a few more, evidently at the expense of some of the older ones, and this has been going on for decades.  I assume that this is matched by a similar number of web site tutorials, though I haven't looked.</p><p>I don't think this helps the average professional any more than the profusion of diet plans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 've noticed about probability and statistics is that there is an astounding number of dumbed-down , " psst dude... here 's all you need to know " type books on the subject ( s ) , written in all different styles .
Every year the bookstores get a few more , evidently at the expense of some of the older ones , and this has been going on for decades .
I assume that this is matched by a similar number of web site tutorials , though I have n't looked.I do n't think this helps the average professional any more than the profusion of diet plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I've noticed about probability and statistics is that there is an astounding number of dumbed-down, "psst dude... here's all you need to know" type books on the subject(s), written in all different styles.
Every year the bookstores get a few more, evidently at the expense of some of the older ones, and this has been going on for decades.
I assume that this is matched by a similar number of web site tutorials, though I haven't looked.I don't think this helps the average professional any more than the profusion of diet plans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712658</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263060300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I'd say that if someone has not completed calculus then any statistics in their reach is simply memorize and regurgitate.</i></p><p><i>Put things in the correct order. Finish calculus then study stats.</i></p><p>Horseehit.  You can use a distribution without having to integrate it in a great many scenarios that would benefit many people.  Also, for discrete statistics - which is probably of more immediate use to most people - you can replace that nasty integral with addition.</p><p>You don't have to know everything about a field to use parts of it.  As parent said, I think many, many people would benefit from common-sense concepts combining statistics and logic, just so you can make good decisions about purchases and such.  Read a book called "Innumeracy" to see the level of stupid I'm talking about - calculus is so far beyond that kind of dumb it's sad.  I would settle for people being able to intuitively understand the implications of Bayes' rule.  Understanding why prior probabilities are important would be a big start, and there's no calculus in that.</p><p>For reference, I have had calc and stats as part of my math minor.  In my job, I use statistics daily.  I use things I learned in calculus alone a lot more seldom.</p><p> <i>The business majors understanding of statistics is the most dangerous.</i></p><p>Oh yeah.  Are you a six sigma black belt?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say that if someone has not completed calculus then any statistics in their reach is simply memorize and regurgitate.Put things in the correct order .
Finish calculus then study stats.Horseehit .
You can use a distribution without having to integrate it in a great many scenarios that would benefit many people .
Also , for discrete statistics - which is probably of more immediate use to most people - you can replace that nasty integral with addition.You do n't have to know everything about a field to use parts of it .
As parent said , I think many , many people would benefit from common-sense concepts combining statistics and logic , just so you can make good decisions about purchases and such .
Read a book called " Innumeracy " to see the level of stupid I 'm talking about - calculus is so far beyond that kind of dumb it 's sad .
I would settle for people being able to intuitively understand the implications of Bayes ' rule .
Understanding why prior probabilities are important would be a big start , and there 's no calculus in that.For reference , I have had calc and stats as part of my math minor .
In my job , I use statistics daily .
I use things I learned in calculus alone a lot more seldom .
The business majors understanding of statistics is the most dangerous.Oh yeah .
Are you a six sigma black belt ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'd say that if someone has not completed calculus then any statistics in their reach is simply memorize and regurgitate.Put things in the correct order.
Finish calculus then study stats.Horseehit.
You can use a distribution without having to integrate it in a great many scenarios that would benefit many people.
Also, for discrete statistics - which is probably of more immediate use to most people - you can replace that nasty integral with addition.You don't have to know everything about a field to use parts of it.
As parent said, I think many, many people would benefit from common-sense concepts combining statistics and logic, just so you can make good decisions about purchases and such.
Read a book called "Innumeracy" to see the level of stupid I'm talking about - calculus is so far beyond that kind of dumb it's sad.
I would settle for people being able to intuitively understand the implications of Bayes' rule.
Understanding why prior probabilities are important would be a big start, and there's no calculus in that.For reference, I have had calc and stats as part of my math minor.
In my job, I use statistics daily.
I use things I learned in calculus alone a lot more seldom.
The business majors understanding of statistics is the most dangerous.Oh yeah.
Are you a six sigma black belt?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710632</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zed Shaw says: "I've been studying it for years and years and still don't think I know anything"</p><p>Don't you think this might be telling you something, like... perhaps statistics are too hard for you? Leave the real work to the people who do know what they are doing and do know something about the field: programmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed Shaw says : " I 've been studying it for years and years and still do n't think I know anything " Do n't you think this might be telling you something , like... perhaps statistics are too hard for you ?
Leave the real work to the people who do know what they are doing and do know something about the field : programmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zed Shaw says: "I've been studying it for years and years and still don't think I know anything"Don't you think this might be telling you something, like... perhaps statistics are too hard for you?
Leave the real work to the people who do know what they are doing and do know something about the field: programmers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712926</id>
	<title>Logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263064680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logic and reasoning are superior to evidence and observation. That's very basic epistemology.</p><p>Are people in statistics actually told differently?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logic and reasoning are superior to evidence and observation .
That 's very basic epistemology.Are people in statistics actually told differently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logic and reasoning are superior to evidence and observation.
That's very basic epistemology.Are people in statistics actually told differently?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714242</id>
	<title>it's not just programmers...</title>
	<author>FrozenGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263135060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check out your local weather forecast.  "The normal high for today is..."  But what's the standard deviation?  If they tell you that the normal, or the average, is 15C and today's high is 25C - wow - that's way above normal.  Must be global warming.  Quick, send money to AlGore.  But what if they also told you that the standard deviation for today is 12 degrees?  Oh.  Hmm.  25C ain't that significant.  Cancel the cheque to Al.<br> <br>Statistics are worse than meaningless if you don't understand how to use them correctly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out your local weather forecast .
" The normal high for today is... " But what 's the standard deviation ?
If they tell you that the normal , or the average , is 15C and today 's high is 25C - wow - that 's way above normal .
Must be global warming .
Quick , send money to AlGore .
But what if they also told you that the standard deviation for today is 12 degrees ?
Oh. Hmm .
25C ai n't that significant .
Cancel the cheque to Al .
Statistics are worse than meaningless if you do n't understand how to use them correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out your local weather forecast.
"The normal high for today is..."  But what's the standard deviation?
If they tell you that the normal, or the average, is 15C and today's high is 25C - wow - that's way above normal.
Must be global warming.
Quick, send money to AlGore.
But what if they also told you that the standard deviation for today is 12 degrees?
Oh.  Hmm.
25C ain't that significant.
Cancel the cheque to Al.
Statistics are worse than meaningless if you don't understand how to use them correctly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713968</id>
	<title>Uninteresting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263130020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically what he is saying:<br>1) think about the factors that influence what you are measuring<br>2) look at the whole picture (i.e. draw a graph and not only from values, but also sequential output in case something changes in time)<br>And...well, that's mostly everything.</p><p>You don't need to know any statistics to understand these 2 points.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically what he is saying : 1 ) think about the factors that influence what you are measuring2 ) look at the whole picture ( i.e .
draw a graph and not only from values , but also sequential output in case something changes in time ) And...well , that 's mostly everything.You do n't need to know any statistics to understand these 2 points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically what he is saying:1) think about the factors that influence what you are measuring2) look at the whole picture (i.e.
draw a graph and not only from values, but also sequential output in case something changes in time)And...well, that's mostly everything.You don't need to know any statistics to understand these 2 points.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713026</id>
	<title>Re:Summarized for people who don't want to read Ze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263066120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He tends to bitch a lot about computer scientists. I'm just starting a CS degree, and there is a Statistics class in the curriculum. Is he working with people with good degrees, people from a technical college with a "programming" degree, people from a diploma mill, or high school students with no degree at all?</p></div></blockquote><p>I think you are vastly overestimating:<br>1) the quality of your future coworkers<br>2) the quality of commonly held CS degrees<br>3) how much of their education you or anyone else remembers five to ten years after leaving college</p><p>Zed is an asshole but he is correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He tends to bitch a lot about computer scientists .
I 'm just starting a CS degree , and there is a Statistics class in the curriculum .
Is he working with people with good degrees , people from a technical college with a " programming " degree , people from a diploma mill , or high school students with no degree at all ? I think you are vastly overestimating : 1 ) the quality of your future coworkers2 ) the quality of commonly held CS degrees3 ) how much of their education you or anyone else remembers five to ten years after leaving collegeZed is an asshole but he is correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He tends to bitch a lot about computer scientists.
I'm just starting a CS degree, and there is a Statistics class in the curriculum.
Is he working with people with good degrees, people from a technical college with a "programming" degree, people from a diploma mill, or high school students with no degree at all?I think you are vastly overestimating:1) the quality of your future coworkers2) the quality of commonly held CS degrees3) how much of their education you or anyone else remembers five to ten years after leaving collegeZed is an asshole but he is correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710748</id>
	<title>StatisticsIsEmoApparently</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never thought I'd read lame crying on slashdot, but now i have. Man up and cut your own wrists.</p><p>Everyone knows smoking is the leading cause of statistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never thought I 'd read lame crying on slashdot , but now i have .
Man up and cut your own wrists.Everyone knows smoking is the leading cause of statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never thought I'd read lame crying on slashdot, but now i have.
Man up and cut your own wrists.Everyone knows smoking is the leading cause of statistics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713646</id>
	<title>How about teamwork ?</title>
	<author>golodh</author>
	<datestamp>1263121920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To a certain extent I agree with the article, even if it strikes a needlessly shrill tone. Programmers are Software Engineers at best, not Statisticians or Mathematicians, and they just shouldn't mess in areas they're not schooled for. And then lots of programmers aren't even Software Engineers, but just "Code Monkeys".
<p>
Each of the above 3 professionals have their own areas of expertise. And Statistics (such as needed in performance estimation or dimensioning of processing capacity) simply isn't part of the average software's engineer's background (let alone that of a code monkey). You wouldn't want a Statistician to code up a decent interpreter, right? I mean: just look at the R interpreter. How about letting a Mathematician design and code your GUI? No takers?
</p><p>
By the same token you wouldn't want a programmer to design a Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation. That's because programmers know nothing about Markov chains, the length of startup periods, periodicity of a chain, absorbing states, or invariant distributions. Worse yet, they have no way of knowing if their code spouts nonsense or the right answer with a lot of noise. It's not their area of expertise. You also don't want a mere programmer set up a numerical approximation. I mean: just look at the jackasses that coded up the Patriot timer and made the most elementary mistake in the book of numerical analysis by using a floating-point value as a loop counter and allowed it to accumulate roundoff error. That's a mistake first-year undergraduate engineering and maths students make before they are marked down for it.
</p><p>
So what does that mean? Well, one approach would be to shout: "HECK Programmers Don't Know Jack About Statistics And Need To Be Educated In A Hurry". That's the approach the author of the article takes. I don't believe that's a very fruitful approach though.
</p><p>
Another approach (the one I prefer) is to note that some engineering projects are of necessity TEAM efforts. Where you have a project lead who knows where the problem areas are, who is qualified to solve them, and how the team effort must be managed.
</p><p>
And yes, that means that sometimes programmers get to work under the direction (as in "are told what to do") of a specialist like a Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical, or Civil Engineer. Or a Statistician or a Mathematician for that matter.
</p><p>
On the other hand those specialists needn't be heard when it comes to things like database design, semaphores, inter-process communication, communication protocols, pre- and post-conditions, latency, cache filling, access control and the need for encryption and suchlike.
</p><p>
Om still other aspects you may expect specialists and programmers to work together and talk to each other.
</p><p>
So, while the problems mentioned in the article are recognizable (and indeed well known), they don't necessarily mean that programmers should get educated. They should be part of a team, and be professional enough to realize that they are members of the team, not in charge of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To a certain extent I agree with the article , even if it strikes a needlessly shrill tone .
Programmers are Software Engineers at best , not Statisticians or Mathematicians , and they just should n't mess in areas they 're not schooled for .
And then lots of programmers are n't even Software Engineers , but just " Code Monkeys " .
Each of the above 3 professionals have their own areas of expertise .
And Statistics ( such as needed in performance estimation or dimensioning of processing capacity ) simply is n't part of the average software 's engineer 's background ( let alone that of a code monkey ) .
You would n't want a Statistician to code up a decent interpreter , right ?
I mean : just look at the R interpreter .
How about letting a Mathematician design and code your GUI ?
No takers ?
By the same token you would n't want a programmer to design a Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation .
That 's because programmers know nothing about Markov chains , the length of startup periods , periodicity of a chain , absorbing states , or invariant distributions .
Worse yet , they have no way of knowing if their code spouts nonsense or the right answer with a lot of noise .
It 's not their area of expertise .
You also do n't want a mere programmer set up a numerical approximation .
I mean : just look at the jackasses that coded up the Patriot timer and made the most elementary mistake in the book of numerical analysis by using a floating-point value as a loop counter and allowed it to accumulate roundoff error .
That 's a mistake first-year undergraduate engineering and maths students make before they are marked down for it .
So what does that mean ?
Well , one approach would be to shout : " HECK Programmers Do n't Know Jack About Statistics And Need To Be Educated In A Hurry " .
That 's the approach the author of the article takes .
I do n't believe that 's a very fruitful approach though .
Another approach ( the one I prefer ) is to note that some engineering projects are of necessity TEAM efforts .
Where you have a project lead who knows where the problem areas are , who is qualified to solve them , and how the team effort must be managed .
And yes , that means that sometimes programmers get to work under the direction ( as in " are told what to do " ) of a specialist like a Mechanical , Electrical , Chemical , or Civil Engineer .
Or a Statistician or a Mathematician for that matter .
On the other hand those specialists need n't be heard when it comes to things like database design , semaphores , inter-process communication , communication protocols , pre- and post-conditions , latency , cache filling , access control and the need for encryption and suchlike .
Om still other aspects you may expect specialists and programmers to work together and talk to each other .
So , while the problems mentioned in the article are recognizable ( and indeed well known ) , they do n't necessarily mean that programmers should get educated .
They should be part of a team , and be professional enough to realize that they are members of the team , not in charge of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To a certain extent I agree with the article, even if it strikes a needlessly shrill tone.
Programmers are Software Engineers at best, not Statisticians or Mathematicians, and they just shouldn't mess in areas they're not schooled for.
And then lots of programmers aren't even Software Engineers, but just "Code Monkeys".
Each of the above 3 professionals have their own areas of expertise.
And Statistics (such as needed in performance estimation or dimensioning of processing capacity) simply isn't part of the average software's engineer's background (let alone that of a code monkey).
You wouldn't want a Statistician to code up a decent interpreter, right?
I mean: just look at the R interpreter.
How about letting a Mathematician design and code your GUI?
No takers?
By the same token you wouldn't want a programmer to design a Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation.
That's because programmers know nothing about Markov chains, the length of startup periods, periodicity of a chain, absorbing states, or invariant distributions.
Worse yet, they have no way of knowing if their code spouts nonsense or the right answer with a lot of noise.
It's not their area of expertise.
You also don't want a mere programmer set up a numerical approximation.
I mean: just look at the jackasses that coded up the Patriot timer and made the most elementary mistake in the book of numerical analysis by using a floating-point value as a loop counter and allowed it to accumulate roundoff error.
That's a mistake first-year undergraduate engineering and maths students make before they are marked down for it.
So what does that mean?
Well, one approach would be to shout: "HECK Programmers Don't Know Jack About Statistics And Need To Be Educated In A Hurry".
That's the approach the author of the article takes.
I don't believe that's a very fruitful approach though.
Another approach (the one I prefer) is to note that some engineering projects are of necessity TEAM efforts.
Where you have a project lead who knows where the problem areas are, who is qualified to solve them, and how the team effort must be managed.
And yes, that means that sometimes programmers get to work under the direction (as in "are told what to do") of a specialist like a Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical, or Civil Engineer.
Or a Statistician or a Mathematician for that matter.
On the other hand those specialists needn't be heard when it comes to things like database design, semaphores, inter-process communication, communication protocols, pre- and post-conditions, latency, cache filling, access control and the need for encryption and suchlike.
Om still other aspects you may expect specialists and programmers to work together and talk to each other.
So, while the problems mentioned in the article are recognizable (and indeed well known), they don't necessarily mean that programmers should get educated.
They should be part of a team, and be professional enough to realize that they are members of the team, not in charge of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710656</id>
	<title>Logic and Reason *ARE* superior to evidence and</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263041280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>observation in some circumstances.  In social sciences, where you generally can't classify phenomena by observable evidence, you have to rely on them by assuming others think as you do, so that you have "observations" (ie others' perceptions or classifications as related) to work with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>observation in some circumstances .
In social sciences , where you generally ca n't classify phenomena by observable evidence , you have to rely on them by assuming others think as you do , so that you have " observations " ( ie others ' perceptions or classifications as related ) to work with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>observation in some circumstances.
In social sciences, where you generally can't classify phenomena by observable evidence, you have to rely on them by assuming others think as you do, so that you have "observations" (ie others' perceptions or classifications as related) to work with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711194</id>
	<title>maybe you are the problem</title>
	<author>sams67</author>
	<datestamp>1263045480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given your expos&#233; of the facts on Slashdot, and the way you describe your colleagues and your own understanding of stats, I would say there is a 90\% chance you are wrong and they are right. Or maybe 95\%.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given your expos   of the facts on Slashdot , and the way you describe your colleagues and your own understanding of stats , I would say there is a 90 \ % chance you are wrong and they are right .
Or maybe 95 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given your exposé of the facts on Slashdot, and the way you describe your colleagues and your own understanding of stats, I would say there is a 90\% chance you are wrong and they are right.
Or maybe 95\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713540</id>
	<title>Re:Your argument is dead, Zed</title>
	<author>pwolk</author>
	<datestamp>1263119640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find the essence in Zed's: "I try to show them how<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...". <br>The problem is getting the message across, not the statistics. <br> Zed, try harder, and most of all, try other approaches. People are funny creatures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the essence in Zed 's : " I try to show them how ... " .
The problem is getting the message across , not the statistics .
Zed , try harder , and most of all , try other approaches .
People are funny creatures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the essence in Zed's: "I try to show them how ...".
The problem is getting the message across, not the statistics.
Zed, try harder, and most of all, try other approaches.
People are funny creatures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712086</id>
	<title>Both CS and Social Biologists who brag about R ...</title>
	<author>tyrione</author>
	<datestamp>1263052740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or their favorite skill in CS programming know jack s*** about Pure and Applied Mathematics, across several fields of Physics, Engineering and more. There is a reason most Engineers have taught themselves several programming languages. They have a ton of subject areas to cover that may or may not be better served in one language over another. Yet, with all the necessary Numerical Analysis, Heat Transfer, Fracture Mechanics, Creep, Stress/Strain across non-linear boundaries you still see the bulls*** coming from Biology majors who go on to Grad school, take a few more statistical classes and act as if they are one up on Engineers in Pure and Applied Mathematics. Drag their lame asses down to the labs to explain the Fluid Dynamics going on in an axial flow fan and they quickly realize they don't know jack about jack. CS major are the same way. They learn a damn programming language and walk around as if it's the answer to the Universe and not <strong>just a tool</strong> amongst thousands of tools to get work done.</p><p>Hell, most grad students in mathematics aren't running around bragging about their God knowledge of Statistics.</p><p>Just pick a field you love and live it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or their favorite skill in CS programming know jack s * * * about Pure and Applied Mathematics , across several fields of Physics , Engineering and more .
There is a reason most Engineers have taught themselves several programming languages .
They have a ton of subject areas to cover that may or may not be better served in one language over another .
Yet , with all the necessary Numerical Analysis , Heat Transfer , Fracture Mechanics , Creep , Stress/Strain across non-linear boundaries you still see the bulls * * * coming from Biology majors who go on to Grad school , take a few more statistical classes and act as if they are one up on Engineers in Pure and Applied Mathematics .
Drag their lame asses down to the labs to explain the Fluid Dynamics going on in an axial flow fan and they quickly realize they do n't know jack about jack .
CS major are the same way .
They learn a damn programming language and walk around as if it 's the answer to the Universe and not just a tool amongst thousands of tools to get work done.Hell , most grad students in mathematics are n't running around bragging about their God knowledge of Statistics.Just pick a field you love and live it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or their favorite skill in CS programming know jack s*** about Pure and Applied Mathematics, across several fields of Physics, Engineering and more.
There is a reason most Engineers have taught themselves several programming languages.
They have a ton of subject areas to cover that may or may not be better served in one language over another.
Yet, with all the necessary Numerical Analysis, Heat Transfer, Fracture Mechanics, Creep, Stress/Strain across non-linear boundaries you still see the bulls*** coming from Biology majors who go on to Grad school, take a few more statistical classes and act as if they are one up on Engineers in Pure and Applied Mathematics.
Drag their lame asses down to the labs to explain the Fluid Dynamics going on in an axial flow fan and they quickly realize they don't know jack about jack.
CS major are the same way.
They learn a damn programming language and walk around as if it's the answer to the Universe and not just a tool amongst thousands of tools to get work done.Hell, most grad students in mathematics aren't running around bragging about their God knowledge of Statistics.Just pick a field you love and live it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714746</id>
	<title>Re:Acknowledged Difficulty is a Good Sign</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263142260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it doesn&rsquo;t. If someone spends years and years on a topic, and still has the feeling he understands nothing at all, then clearly, he&rsquo;s just too dumb for it.</p><p>It&rsquo;s like high voltage without high current. The result is a <em>not very bright</em> and maybe even destroyed lamp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it doesn    t .
If someone spends years and years on a topic , and still has the feeling he understands nothing at all , then clearly , he    s just too dumb for it.It    s like high voltage without high current .
The result is a not very bright and maybe even destroyed lamp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it doesn’t.
If someone spends years and years on a topic, and still has the feeling he understands nothing at all, then clearly, he’s just too dumb for it.It’s like high voltage without high current.
The result is a not very bright and maybe even destroyed lamp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711736</id>
	<title>Troll</title>
	<author>jibjibjib</author>
	<datestamp>1263049860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I really can't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation."<p>

Maybe Slashdot should have editors, so crap like this doesn't end up on the front page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I really ca n't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation .
" Maybe Slashdot should have editors , so crap like this does n't end up on the front page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I really can't blame them since they were probably told in college that logic and reason are superior to evidence and observation.
"

Maybe Slashdot should have editors, so crap like this doesn't end up on the front page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710864</id>
	<title>Reply from a programmer that knows no statistics</title>
	<author>viking80</author>
	<datestamp>1263042900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And still has the "ignorance is bliss" and unwarranted "know it all" attitude.</p><p>Statistics is a phony science and should be thrown on the garbage heap altogether.</p><p>I will qualify this. There are a few exceptions, primarily quantum mechanics, where uncertainty is part of nature.</p><p>Except for that there is very few cases where one can apply statistics.</p><p>You probably still think I am a lunatic, but hear me out.</p><p>With human calculators it was  necessary to approximate all kinds of calculations because all you could do was 0.1 IPS (instruction per second) at best. Pretty much all science became statistics, from thermodynamics, to economics to geology and meteorology. As computers became faster, more and more could be modeled accurately, and we can actually model each individual human in most population models. The same with thermodynamics. For many systems, the solution can be solved numerically, and there is no uncertainty. Quantum dynamic properties carry over to macro systems sometimes, like Einstein condensates, superconductivity etc. but most often there is no "built-in" uncertainty, and statistics is just a way to excuse incompetence, laziness or worse.</p><p>
&nbsp; Real world example is the "medical advice" you will get before performing a procedure such as amniocentesis. The doctor will tell you there is a 0.1\% chance it will have catastrophic consequences. This might mean that the hospital has one problem every 50 years, and when you dig in the data you find out that the problem happened when the hospital caught fire during the procedure. That is a manageable risk, not a probability.</p><p>Failure modes is also modeled statistically. It should not; Bridges that fail, fail predictably. It is usually just a question of collecting some data. The same with foreclosures. Some properties in my neighborhood are in foreclosure, and in all the cases I looked into, it is not hard to see why. (Like: "I told my loan officer that I could not pay the mortgage after the low teaser rate ended. He just told me to refinance again, and get a new low teaser rate, so I signed up, and a year later he told me he could not refinance." Duh!)</p><p>So programmer, throw statistics away, and stop using that sliderule.</p><p>Have fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And still has the " ignorance is bliss " and unwarranted " know it all " attitude.Statistics is a phony science and should be thrown on the garbage heap altogether.I will qualify this .
There are a few exceptions , primarily quantum mechanics , where uncertainty is part of nature.Except for that there is very few cases where one can apply statistics.You probably still think I am a lunatic , but hear me out.With human calculators it was necessary to approximate all kinds of calculations because all you could do was 0.1 IPS ( instruction per second ) at best .
Pretty much all science became statistics , from thermodynamics , to economics to geology and meteorology .
As computers became faster , more and more could be modeled accurately , and we can actually model each individual human in most population models .
The same with thermodynamics .
For many systems , the solution can be solved numerically , and there is no uncertainty .
Quantum dynamic properties carry over to macro systems sometimes , like Einstein condensates , superconductivity etc .
but most often there is no " built-in " uncertainty , and statistics is just a way to excuse incompetence , laziness or worse .
  Real world example is the " medical advice " you will get before performing a procedure such as amniocentesis .
The doctor will tell you there is a 0.1 \ % chance it will have catastrophic consequences .
This might mean that the hospital has one problem every 50 years , and when you dig in the data you find out that the problem happened when the hospital caught fire during the procedure .
That is a manageable risk , not a probability.Failure modes is also modeled statistically .
It should not ; Bridges that fail , fail predictably .
It is usually just a question of collecting some data .
The same with foreclosures .
Some properties in my neighborhood are in foreclosure , and in all the cases I looked into , it is not hard to see why .
( Like : " I told my loan officer that I could not pay the mortgage after the low teaser rate ended .
He just told me to refinance again , and get a new low teaser rate , so I signed up , and a year later he told me he could not refinance .
" Duh !
) So programmer , throw statistics away , and stop using that sliderule.Have fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And still has the "ignorance is bliss" and unwarranted "know it all" attitude.Statistics is a phony science and should be thrown on the garbage heap altogether.I will qualify this.
There are a few exceptions, primarily quantum mechanics, where uncertainty is part of nature.Except for that there is very few cases where one can apply statistics.You probably still think I am a lunatic, but hear me out.With human calculators it was  necessary to approximate all kinds of calculations because all you could do was 0.1 IPS (instruction per second) at best.
Pretty much all science became statistics, from thermodynamics, to economics to geology and meteorology.
As computers became faster, more and more could be modeled accurately, and we can actually model each individual human in most population models.
The same with thermodynamics.
For many systems, the solution can be solved numerically, and there is no uncertainty.
Quantum dynamic properties carry over to macro systems sometimes, like Einstein condensates, superconductivity etc.
but most often there is no "built-in" uncertainty, and statistics is just a way to excuse incompetence, laziness or worse.
  Real world example is the "medical advice" you will get before performing a procedure such as amniocentesis.
The doctor will tell you there is a 0.1\% chance it will have catastrophic consequences.
This might mean that the hospital has one problem every 50 years, and when you dig in the data you find out that the problem happened when the hospital caught fire during the procedure.
That is a manageable risk, not a probability.Failure modes is also modeled statistically.
It should not; Bridges that fail, fail predictably.
It is usually just a question of collecting some data.
The same with foreclosures.
Some properties in my neighborhood are in foreclosure, and in all the cases I looked into, it is not hard to see why.
(Like: "I told my loan officer that I could not pay the mortgage after the low teaser rate ended.
He just told me to refinance again, and get a new low teaser rate, so I signed up, and a year later he told me he could not refinance.
" Duh!
)So programmer, throw statistics away, and stop using that sliderule.Have fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30718842</id>
	<title>Bullshit database stats in the article</title>
	<author>lordlod</author>
	<datestamp>1263131940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Almost all of the queries performed great, except one query that had sub-second response on average, but a 60 second standard deviation!</p></div><p>
Pause and reflect on this for a moment.  The average is poor and occasionally it stuffs up so severely that the stddev is pulled out by sixty seconds.
</p><p>
I managed to reproduce this (mean of 1.07s, stddev of 58.4).  3000 results of 1e-30s, one of 3200s (almost 1 hour).
</p><p>
If you need statistics to intepret the above results then you have bigger problems.
</p><p>
If you ACTUALLY get the above results you don't complain about the outlier and get them to rework it.  Thank $DEITY, time out at a nanosecond and re-request.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : Almost all of the queries performed great , except one query that had sub-second response on average , but a 60 second standard deviation !
Pause and reflect on this for a moment .
The average is poor and occasionally it stuffs up so severely that the stddev is pulled out by sixty seconds .
I managed to reproduce this ( mean of 1.07s , stddev of 58.4 ) .
3000 results of 1e-30s , one of 3200s ( almost 1 hour ) .
If you need statistics to intepret the above results then you have bigger problems .
If you ACTUALLY get the above results you do n't complain about the outlier and get them to rework it .
Thank $ DEITY , time out at a nanosecond and re-request .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> From TFA:Almost all of the queries performed great, except one query that had sub-second response on average, but a 60 second standard deviation!
Pause and reflect on this for a moment.
The average is poor and occasionally it stuffs up so severely that the stddev is pulled out by sixty seconds.
I managed to reproduce this (mean of 1.07s, stddev of 58.4).
3000 results of 1e-30s, one of 3200s (almost 1 hour).
If you need statistics to intepret the above results then you have bigger problems.
If you ACTUALLY get the above results you don't complain about the outlier and get them to rework it.
Thank $DEITY, time out at a nanosecond and re-request.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710850</id>
	<title>Re:Your argument is dead, Zed</title>
	<author>superdana</author>
	<datestamp>1263042840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Maybe the problem is in your presentation.</i> <br>
<br>
Meet Zed Shaw.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the problem is in your presentation .
Meet Zed Shaw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the problem is in your presentation.
Meet Zed Shaw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30716912</id>
	<title>Re:Title fail.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263117480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"demalloc"?</p><p>Don't you mean "free" them all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" demalloc " ? Do n't you mean " free " them all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"demalloc"?Don't you mean "free" them all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712390</id>
	<title>This guy is missing out.</title>
	<author>Metasquares</author>
	<datestamp>1263056340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Machine learning is the logical place to take a combined knowledge of programming and statistics. It's a much rarer skill and commands a much higher salary, plus you're doing the closest thing we currently have to predicting the future for a living - and you generally still get to code plenty.</p><p>In other words, statistical knowledge can be a significant career advantage in addition to enhancing development and debugging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Machine learning is the logical place to take a combined knowledge of programming and statistics .
It 's a much rarer skill and commands a much higher salary , plus you 're doing the closest thing we currently have to predicting the future for a living - and you generally still get to code plenty.In other words , statistical knowledge can be a significant career advantage in addition to enhancing development and debugging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Machine learning is the logical place to take a combined knowledge of programming and statistics.
It's a much rarer skill and commands a much higher salary, plus you're doing the closest thing we currently have to predicting the future for a living - and you generally still get to code plenty.In other words, statistical knowledge can be a significant career advantage in addition to enhancing development and debugging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713260</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1263156900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Honestly, I really enjoy stats - if I had to do it all over again I would probably have spent a LOT more time working with stats than I did as a programmer in my younger years - but I won't pretend that it's totally clear what tools to use when. The author of TFA should do well to realize that even fellow statisticians would probably slap the shit out of him over some of his beliefs about how to properly go about utilizing stats toolsets</p></div><p>If I had it to do over again, I'd probably actually go to my stats class, rather than not even show up for half of the semester, then study for 24-hours before learning it all, and then collapsing asleep after the test.</p><p>Funny thing was, I ended up with a B in the class, because I aced the final.  It's really the only test I ever studied for, and of course if you didn't know this, cramming for a test means that you won't remember any of it later... same with me, I'm at a complete lose for doing any of the stuff from my stats class.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I really enjoy stats - if I had to do it all over again I would probably have spent a LOT more time working with stats than I did as a programmer in my younger years - but I wo n't pretend that it 's totally clear what tools to use when .
The author of TFA should do well to realize that even fellow statisticians would probably slap the shit out of him over some of his beliefs about how to properly go about utilizing stats toolsetsIf I had it to do over again , I 'd probably actually go to my stats class , rather than not even show up for half of the semester , then study for 24-hours before learning it all , and then collapsing asleep after the test.Funny thing was , I ended up with a B in the class , because I aced the final .
It 's really the only test I ever studied for , and of course if you did n't know this , cramming for a test means that you wo n't remember any of it later... same with me , I 'm at a complete lose for doing any of the stuff from my stats class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I really enjoy stats - if I had to do it all over again I would probably have spent a LOT more time working with stats than I did as a programmer in my younger years - but I won't pretend that it's totally clear what tools to use when.
The author of TFA should do well to realize that even fellow statisticians would probably slap the shit out of him over some of his beliefs about how to properly go about utilizing stats toolsetsIf I had it to do over again, I'd probably actually go to my stats class, rather than not even show up for half of the semester, then study for 24-hours before learning it all, and then collapsing asleep after the test.Funny thing was, I ended up with a B in the class, because I aced the final.
It's really the only test I ever studied for, and of course if you didn't know this, cramming for a test means that you won't remember any of it later... same with me, I'm at a complete lose for doing any of the stuff from my stats class.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30726158</id>
	<title>Re:3 doors / Monty Hall</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1263239040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I'm the good Monty Hall:
</p><p>When the contestant has selected the donkey, I open another door and offer them the opportunity to switch. If they've picked the prize, I open that door.
</p><p>If I'm the evil Monty Hall:
</p><p>When the contestant has selected the Ferrari, I open another door and offer them the opportunity to switch. If they've picked the donkey, I open that door.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm the good Monty Hall : When the contestant has selected the donkey , I open another door and offer them the opportunity to switch .
If they 've picked the prize , I open that door .
If I 'm the evil Monty Hall : When the contestant has selected the Ferrari , I open another door and offer them the opportunity to switch .
If they 've picked the donkey , I open that door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm the good Monty Hall:
When the contestant has selected the donkey, I open another door and offer them the opportunity to switch.
If they've picked the prize, I open that door.
If I'm the evil Monty Hall:
When the contestant has selected the Ferrari, I open another door and offer them the opportunity to switch.
If they've picked the donkey, I open that door.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30715262</id>
	<title>He's in good company</title>
	<author>grizdog</author>
	<datestamp>1263147420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leaving the author's lack of social skills aside, the powers-that-be in computer science education agree with him, at least for now.  The <a href="http://www.csab.org/" title="csab.org">Computer Science Accreditation Board</a> [csab.org] lists a course in probability and statistics among its criteria (sorry, I couldn't find an online link to the latest criteria) and has for at least 20 years.  I don't know how influential those criteria are outside the US (though I'd be curious, if any slashdotters can help me out), but here they are pretty important, especially for the vast majority of programs that are not at the top schools, and need the credibility that accreditation can bring them.</p><p>Not everyone is happy, though.  At the 2005 OOPSLA there was a panel discussion where one thing they all could agree on was that the CS curriculum was way too mathematical.  They favored something more like a software apprenticeship where "projects" where replaced with "products".  That point of view does not appear to be in the ascendant in computer science yet, but it might catch on in the information science departments that are often found in business colleges.</p><p>Personally, I don't think the CS departments are likely to get less mathematical as long as there is strong demand for their graduates.  There are certainly a lot of students who don't major in computer science because it is too mathematical for them, and I'm sure some of them wind up as programmers through some other route, and others find some other career.  Moreover, I'd say that with one probability and statistics course that follows calculus, the students do get enough to "know what they don't know", which was what the author wanted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving the author 's lack of social skills aside , the powers-that-be in computer science education agree with him , at least for now .
The Computer Science Accreditation Board [ csab.org ] lists a course in probability and statistics among its criteria ( sorry , I could n't find an online link to the latest criteria ) and has for at least 20 years .
I do n't know how influential those criteria are outside the US ( though I 'd be curious , if any slashdotters can help me out ) , but here they are pretty important , especially for the vast majority of programs that are not at the top schools , and need the credibility that accreditation can bring them.Not everyone is happy , though .
At the 2005 OOPSLA there was a panel discussion where one thing they all could agree on was that the CS curriculum was way too mathematical .
They favored something more like a software apprenticeship where " projects " where replaced with " products " .
That point of view does not appear to be in the ascendant in computer science yet , but it might catch on in the information science departments that are often found in business colleges.Personally , I do n't think the CS departments are likely to get less mathematical as long as there is strong demand for their graduates .
There are certainly a lot of students who do n't major in computer science because it is too mathematical for them , and I 'm sure some of them wind up as programmers through some other route , and others find some other career .
Moreover , I 'd say that with one probability and statistics course that follows calculus , the students do get enough to " know what they do n't know " , which was what the author wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving the author's lack of social skills aside, the powers-that-be in computer science education agree with him, at least for now.
The Computer Science Accreditation Board [csab.org] lists a course in probability and statistics among its criteria (sorry, I couldn't find an online link to the latest criteria) and has for at least 20 years.
I don't know how influential those criteria are outside the US (though I'd be curious, if any slashdotters can help me out), but here they are pretty important, especially for the vast majority of programs that are not at the top schools, and need the credibility that accreditation can bring them.Not everyone is happy, though.
At the 2005 OOPSLA there was a panel discussion where one thing they all could agree on was that the CS curriculum was way too mathematical.
They favored something more like a software apprenticeship where "projects" where replaced with "products".
That point of view does not appear to be in the ascendant in computer science yet, but it might catch on in the information science departments that are often found in business colleges.Personally, I don't think the CS departments are likely to get less mathematical as long as there is strong demand for their graduates.
There are certainly a lot of students who don't major in computer science because it is too mathematical for them, and I'm sure some of them wind up as programmers through some other route, and others find some other career.
Moreover, I'd say that with one probability and statistics course that follows calculus, the students do get enough to "know what they don't know", which was what the author wanted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710888</id>
	<title>Not just programmers</title>
	<author>famebait</author>
	<datestamp>1263043140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Everyone</b> needs to learn statistics.

All of us who understand one iota of it are in a constant state of depression over how everyone keeps on making the most banal mistakes.

But just a general gripe is not very helpful. Getting everyone to take advanced degrees in statistics is simply not going to happen. Most engineering courses inclue some basics, but that only helps a bit.  What is needed is to teach it (to the "masses", i.e. the ones who really ought to know better) in terms of the pitfalls first, and what to understrand the workarounds. Those who have no iterest in pursuing it further might still gain some insight about where to be careful, and those with potential might more easily see the point in investing in some real knowledge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone needs to learn statistics .
All of us who understand one iota of it are in a constant state of depression over how everyone keeps on making the most banal mistakes .
But just a general gripe is not very helpful .
Getting everyone to take advanced degrees in statistics is simply not going to happen .
Most engineering courses inclue some basics , but that only helps a bit .
What is needed is to teach it ( to the " masses " , i.e .
the ones who really ought to know better ) in terms of the pitfalls first , and what to understrand the workarounds .
Those who have no iterest in pursuing it further might still gain some insight about where to be careful , and those with potential might more easily see the point in investing in some real knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone needs to learn statistics.
All of us who understand one iota of it are in a constant state of depression over how everyone keeps on making the most banal mistakes.
But just a general gripe is not very helpful.
Getting everyone to take advanced degrees in statistics is simply not going to happen.
Most engineering courses inclue some basics, but that only helps a bit.
What is needed is to teach it (to the "masses", i.e.
the ones who really ought to know better) in terms of the pitfalls first, and what to understrand the workarounds.
Those who have no iterest in pursuing it further might still gain some insight about where to be careful, and those with potential might more easily see the point in investing in some real knowledge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714900</id>
	<title>is this really necessary?</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1263143640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a physicist, I know plenty of statistics.  The kinds of statistics he's talking about are not hard.  If you can do algebra, you can do things like calculate the standard deviation and variance of a set of measurements.</p><p>Was this rant really necessary?  I run into people in physics who don't take care of these details.  I find that a simple "can you put a standard deviation on that number?" or "can you repeat the experiment?" generally gets the job done.  If you want to be more scientific, just start with those questions, and see where it takes you... you could even add "please" if you wanted to be nice.  I find threatening people with death and belittling their intellect while talking about trivial calculations doesn't generate useful data.</p><p>To be fair, it sounds like Zed has been working as staff at a university.  This has nothing to do with statistics, but it's probably the real reason he's in such a bad mood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a physicist , I know plenty of statistics .
The kinds of statistics he 's talking about are not hard .
If you can do algebra , you can do things like calculate the standard deviation and variance of a set of measurements.Was this rant really necessary ?
I run into people in physics who do n't take care of these details .
I find that a simple " can you put a standard deviation on that number ?
" or " can you repeat the experiment ?
" generally gets the job done .
If you want to be more scientific , just start with those questions , and see where it takes you... you could even add " please " if you wanted to be nice .
I find threatening people with death and belittling their intellect while talking about trivial calculations does n't generate useful data.To be fair , it sounds like Zed has been working as staff at a university .
This has nothing to do with statistics , but it 's probably the real reason he 's in such a bad mood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a physicist, I know plenty of statistics.
The kinds of statistics he's talking about are not hard.
If you can do algebra, you can do things like calculate the standard deviation and variance of a set of measurements.Was this rant really necessary?
I run into people in physics who don't take care of these details.
I find that a simple "can you put a standard deviation on that number?
" or "can you repeat the experiment?
" generally gets the job done.
If you want to be more scientific, just start with those questions, and see where it takes you... you could even add "please" if you wanted to be nice.
I find threatening people with death and belittling their intellect while talking about trivial calculations doesn't generate useful data.To be fair, it sounds like Zed has been working as staff at a university.
This has nothing to do with statistics, but it's probably the real reason he's in such a bad mood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712288</id>
	<title>I have talked with plenty of</title>
	<author>McNihil</author>
	<datestamp>1263055320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so called statisticians too that have no idea what they are doing... They barely know how to define a proper sigma field so that they can use statistics on their sample set correctly.</p><p>Very few people really grasp it... maybe as bad as one per major stats bureau.</p><p>So it's not just programmers.</p><p>Not saying here that I know all of it but it sure is simple to poke hole in a lot of stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so called statisticians too that have no idea what they are doing... They barely know how to define a proper sigma field so that they can use statistics on their sample set correctly.Very few people really grasp it... maybe as bad as one per major stats bureau.So it 's not just programmers.Not saying here that I know all of it but it sure is simple to poke hole in a lot of stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so called statisticians too that have no idea what they are doing... They barely know how to define a proper sigma field so that they can use statistics on their sample set correctly.Very few people really grasp it... maybe as bad as one per major stats bureau.So it's not just programmers.Not saying here that I know all of it but it sure is simple to poke hole in a lot of stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711258</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263046080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>basic physics like basic chemistry and basic differential equation is a requirement for any real Engineering degree,<br>
&nbsp; I don't care what your diploma is : (not (or physics chemistry differential)) -&gt; (not Engineer)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>basic physics like basic chemistry and basic differential equation is a requirement for any real Engineering degree ,   I do n't care what your diploma is : ( not ( or physics chemistry differential ) ) - &gt; ( not Engineer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>basic physics like basic chemistry and basic differential equation is a requirement for any real Engineering degree,
  I don't care what your diploma is : (not (or physics chemistry differential)) -&gt; (not Engineer)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712356</id>
	<title>Programmers don't know</title>
	<author>generalSocial</author>
	<datestamp>1263055920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Programmers don't know statistics.

Programmers don't know quantum mechanics....

Programmers don't know aerodynamics....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Programmers do n't know statistics .
Programmers do n't know quantum mechanics... . Programmers do n't know aerodynamics... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programmers don't know statistics.
Programmers don't know quantum mechanics....

Programmers don't know aerodynamics....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710950</id>
	<title>*Somebody* on the team might need to know stats</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1263043680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless they're actually programming statistical applications, most programmers probably <em>don't</em> need to know statistics. As long as somebody on the testing team does, all the programmer needs to understand is that function X sometimes fails to meet its timing spec (perhaps "often fails..." or "occasionally fails..." might add some value) or whatever. Then they know they need to do some optimisation. There's a natural human tendency to think that everybody should be doing what we're doing. In reality, they don't have to, because we're doing that; they need to be doing something else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they 're actually programming statistical applications , most programmers probably do n't need to know statistics .
As long as somebody on the testing team does , all the programmer needs to understand is that function X sometimes fails to meet its timing spec ( perhaps " often fails... " or " occasionally fails... " might add some value ) or whatever .
Then they know they need to do some optimisation .
There 's a natural human tendency to think that everybody should be doing what we 're doing .
In reality , they do n't have to , because we 're doing that ; they need to be doing something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they're actually programming statistical applications, most programmers probably don't need to know statistics.
As long as somebody on the testing team does, all the programmer needs to understand is that function X sometimes fails to meet its timing spec (perhaps "often fails..." or "occasionally fails..." might add some value) or whatever.
Then they know they need to do some optimisation.
There's a natural human tendency to think that everybody should be doing what we're doing.
In reality, they don't have to, because we're doing that; they need to be doing something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711008</id>
	<title>Re:Reply from a programmer that knows no statistic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263044100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a scientist working with computer models, I can only say that statistics is quite often king (and the goal of the calculation).</p><p>Histograms, histograms, histograms<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a scientist working with computer models , I can only say that statistics is quite often king ( and the goal of the calculation ) .Histograms , histograms , histograms : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a scientist working with computer models, I can only say that statistics is quite often king (and the goal of the calculation).Histograms, histograms, histograms :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711244</id>
	<title>90\% of the programming game</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1263046020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is one half mental.</p><p>of course that explains why 90\% of all programs written are CRUD.</p><p>-with apologies to Yogi Berra, Theodore Sturgeon, and a 20\% apology, as a matter of principle, to a guy called Pareto.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is one half mental.of course that explains why 90 \ % of all programs written are CRUD.-with apologies to Yogi Berra , Theodore Sturgeon , and a 20 \ % apology , as a matter of principle , to a guy called Pareto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is one half mental.of course that explains why 90\% of all programs written are CRUD.-with apologies to Yogi Berra, Theodore Sturgeon, and a 20\% apology, as a matter of principle, to a guy called Pareto.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712342</id>
	<title>In other news, Zed Shaw has been arrested...</title>
	<author>dasqua</author>
	<datestamp>1263055800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... Isn't threatening to kill someone a crime in itself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... Is n't threatening to kill someone a crime in itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... Isn't threatening to kill someone a crime in itself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711018</id>
	<title>Firearms for Programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263044160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The hard reality is that most programmers visiting the Web site at Slashdot have dealt with, at least, one brutal manager.  Exploiting his position of power, he takes your reasonable estimate of dates by which milestones will reached, and he then reduces the projected duration between milestones by 40\%.  As a result, you work 60 hours per week for 2 years.  You wreck your personal life.  Meanwhile, your manager receives a commendation for delivering a product that was under budget by the deadline.
<p>
Really, the only way to deal with this situation is to learn how to use a firearm.  Make sure that your manager understands that compassion leads to compassion and that brutality leads to lethal brutality.
</p><p>
Also, before you take the law into your own hands, consult with a lawyer.  Some states allow a plea of insanity during the murder trial.  Others do not.
</p><p>
Here's the bottom line.  Firearms are much more useful than mere statistics unless, of course, you intend to use the firearm to turn your boss into a "statistic".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hard reality is that most programmers visiting the Web site at Slashdot have dealt with , at least , one brutal manager .
Exploiting his position of power , he takes your reasonable estimate of dates by which milestones will reached , and he then reduces the projected duration between milestones by 40 \ % .
As a result , you work 60 hours per week for 2 years .
You wreck your personal life .
Meanwhile , your manager receives a commendation for delivering a product that was under budget by the deadline .
Really , the only way to deal with this situation is to learn how to use a firearm .
Make sure that your manager understands that compassion leads to compassion and that brutality leads to lethal brutality .
Also , before you take the law into your own hands , consult with a lawyer .
Some states allow a plea of insanity during the murder trial .
Others do not .
Here 's the bottom line .
Firearms are much more useful than mere statistics unless , of course , you intend to use the firearm to turn your boss into a " statistic " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hard reality is that most programmers visiting the Web site at Slashdot have dealt with, at least, one brutal manager.
Exploiting his position of power, he takes your reasonable estimate of dates by which milestones will reached, and he then reduces the projected duration between milestones by 40\%.
As a result, you work 60 hours per week for 2 years.
You wreck your personal life.
Meanwhile, your manager receives a commendation for delivering a product that was under budget by the deadline.
Really, the only way to deal with this situation is to learn how to use a firearm.
Make sure that your manager understands that compassion leads to compassion and that brutality leads to lethal brutality.
Also, before you take the law into your own hands, consult with a lawyer.
Some states allow a plea of insanity during the murder trial.
Others do not.
Here's the bottom line.
Firearms are much more useful than mere statistics unless, of course, you intend to use the firearm to turn your boss into a "statistic".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713834</id>
	<title>Re:It's not just statistics</title>
	<author>xiong.chiamiov</author>
	<datestamp>1263126720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though I do agree that "Computer Science" is a stupid name.  They already have Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, etc - why not just call it "Software Engineering"?</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.csc.calpoly.edu/programs/bs-se/" title="calpoly.edu" rel="nofollow">Some of us do.</a> [calpoly.edu]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though I do agree that " Computer Science " is a stupid name .
They already have Mechanical Engineering , Chemical Engineering , Electrical Engineering , etc - why not just call it " Software Engineering " ?
Some of us do .
[ calpoly.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though I do agree that "Computer Science" is a stupid name.
They already have Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, etc - why not just call it "Software Engineering"?
Some of us do.
[calpoly.edu]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711004</id>
	<title>Re:Or, how about...</title>
	<author>ruyon</author>
	<datestamp>1263044100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better yet, how about "Zed needs to learn manners or I will rip his mouth apart."
<br>
Please execuse my English.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet , how about " Zed needs to learn manners or I will rip his mouth apart .
" Please execuse my English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet, how about "Zed needs to learn manners or I will rip his mouth apart.
"

Please execuse my English.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710628</id>
	<title>Title fail.</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263041040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them All</p></div><p>Okay, two things: First, threatening programmers never work. Management's been trying that for years. Second -- don't you mean 'kill -9' them all, or maybe demalloc(), or cast them to void*, or one of a dozen other witty things you could do besides the mundane answer of threatening stabby bits on them because you have a case of intellectual snobbery?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them AllOkay , two things : First , threatening programmers never work .
Management 's been trying that for years .
Second -- do n't you mean 'kill -9 ' them all , or maybe demalloc ( ) , or cast them to void * , or one of a dozen other witty things you could do besides the mundane answer of threatening stabby bits on them because you have a case of intellectual snobbery ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programmers Need To Learn Statistics Or I Will Kill Them AllOkay, two things: First, threatening programmers never work.
Management's been trying that for years.
Second -- don't you mean 'kill -9' them all, or maybe demalloc(), or cast them to void*, or one of a dozen other witty things you could do besides the mundane answer of threatening stabby bits on them because you have a case of intellectual snobbery?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711074</id>
	<title>Very good (from someone who's taken BOTH)... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263044640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Statisticians need to learn programming or I will kill them all."</b> - by halivar (535827)  on Saturday January 09, @06:43PM (#30710618) Homepage</p></div><p>Well put, Halvar! Now, I'll add to it, as I have backgrounds in both areas he "bitches here" about.</p><p>First of all:</p><p>I'm in possession of degrees from both the business world (where I took STAT 1 &amp; STAT 2 &amp; "aced" both w/ A grades no less) &amp; also Comp. Sci. &amp; CIS concentration/minor (where you get exposure to a good deal of "higher mathematics" such as Calculus, &amp; Discrete Math to name only a couple possibles)...</p><p>LOL! Man... I "just loved" (not) his "logic &amp; reasoning is inferior to evidence &amp; observation"...</p><p><b>(Especially since I know 1 VERY important thing: That stat teaches you 1 extremely IMPORTANT concept: It's ALL BASED ON SAMPLE SETS...)</b></p><p>As to "sample sets"? Well, those are USUALLY either:</p><p>----</p><p><b>1.) EASILY SKEWED</b> (as in "4/5 dentists chew trident", oh "sure, sure", especially when they're on the corporate payroll (or paid off to say so by said corporation so their "evidence &amp; observation looks good")</p><p>and</p><p><b>2.) IS THE SAMPLE SET LARGE &amp; COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH?</b> (most?? Most are not, period)...</p><p>----</p><p><b>Simply because you cannot:</b></p><p><b>A.) Sample EVERYONE</b></p><p><b>B.) Nor can you judge the veracity &amp; accuracy of who you are sampling!</b></p><p>----</p><p>E.G. #1 - Let's say I had a poll question of "Are Democrats better than Republicans?" &amp; I sampled from a PRIMARILY REPUBLICAN AREA - So, that all "said &amp; aside"??</p><p>What kind of answers do you think I'd get???</p><p>Would THAT be a "good/fair &amp; representative sample set"????</p><p>Answer = Hell no!</p><p>Math people sometimes make me laugh... especially when they *THINK* they "know it all".</p><p>Lief's a BALANCE people, &amp; there are very few "absolutes", because people are not "binary". Human beings have a LOT of "shades of grey" (or, is it "gray"?? Inquiring minds, want to know, lol!)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Personally - I feel that life's REAL answers &amp; REAL problems, in my estimation &amp; opinion, aren't going to even be answered by "hard sciences" alone...</p><p>I actually tend to think that the REAL ANSWERS (for the REAL problems) will come from philosophers really!</p><p>(E.G. #2 - The serious questions to answer, like "why is man unjust to man" for example).</p><p>Yes, THAT coming from me may sound weird, especially coming from someone with fairly extensive classical education in the business sciences &amp; computer sciences here in myself, but I do hold to that (and, all the math that comes with them like STATS, CALC, DISCRETE MATH, etc. et al, from the 'hard sciences'? They're JUST TOOLS that others should definitely use, but not "base all" on them, either, because they too can be misused, as in the examples above I note from stats itself))... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Statisticians need to learn programming or I will kill them all .
" - by halivar ( 535827 ) on Saturday January 09 , @ 06 : 43PM ( # 30710618 ) HomepageWell put , Halvar !
Now , I 'll add to it , as I have backgrounds in both areas he " bitches here " about.First of all : I 'm in possession of degrees from both the business world ( where I took STAT 1 &amp; STAT 2 &amp; " aced " both w/ A grades no less ) &amp; also Comp .
Sci. &amp; CIS concentration/minor ( where you get exposure to a good deal of " higher mathematics " such as Calculus , &amp; Discrete Math to name only a couple possibles ) ...LOL !
Man... I " just loved " ( not ) his " logic &amp; reasoning is inferior to evidence &amp; observation " ... ( Especially since I know 1 VERY important thing : That stat teaches you 1 extremely IMPORTANT concept : It 's ALL BASED ON SAMPLE SETS... ) As to " sample sets " ?
Well , those are USUALLY either : ----1 .
) EASILY SKEWED ( as in " 4/5 dentists chew trident " , oh " sure , sure " , especially when they 're on the corporate payroll ( or paid off to say so by said corporation so their " evidence &amp; observation looks good " ) and2 .
) IS THE SAMPLE SET LARGE &amp; COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH ?
( most ? ? Most are not , period ) ...----Simply because you can not : A .
) Sample EVERYONEB .
) Nor can you judge the veracity &amp; accuracy of who you are sampling ! ----E.G .
# 1 - Let 's say I had a poll question of " Are Democrats better than Republicans ?
" &amp; I sampled from a PRIMARILY REPUBLICAN AREA - So , that all " said &amp; aside " ?
? What kind of answers do you think I 'd get ? ?
? Would THAT be a " good/fair &amp; representative sample set " ? ? ?
? Answer = Hell no ! Math people sometimes make me laugh... especially when they * THINK * they " know it all " .Lief 's a BALANCE people , &amp; there are very few " absolutes " , because people are not " binary " .
Human beings have a LOT of " shades of grey " ( or , is it " gray " ? ?
Inquiring minds , want to know , lol !
) APKP.S. = &gt; Personally - I feel that life 's REAL answers &amp; REAL problems , in my estimation &amp; opinion , are n't going to even be answered by " hard sciences " alone...I actually tend to think that the REAL ANSWERS ( for the REAL problems ) will come from philosophers really ! ( E.G .
# 2 - The serious questions to answer , like " why is man unjust to man " for example ) .Yes , THAT coming from me may sound weird , especially coming from someone with fairly extensive classical education in the business sciences &amp; computer sciences here in myself , but I do hold to that ( and , all the math that comes with them like STATS , CALC , DISCRETE MATH , etc .
et al , from the 'hard sciences ' ?
They 're JUST TOOLS that others should definitely use , but not " base all " on them , either , because they too can be misused , as in the examples above I note from stats itself ) ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Statisticians need to learn programming or I will kill them all.
" - by halivar (535827)  on Saturday January 09, @06:43PM (#30710618) HomepageWell put, Halvar!
Now, I'll add to it, as I have backgrounds in both areas he "bitches here" about.First of all:I'm in possession of degrees from both the business world (where I took STAT 1 &amp; STAT 2 &amp; "aced" both w/ A grades no less) &amp; also Comp.
Sci. &amp; CIS concentration/minor (where you get exposure to a good deal of "higher mathematics" such as Calculus, &amp; Discrete Math to name only a couple possibles)...LOL!
Man... I "just loved" (not) his "logic &amp; reasoning is inferior to evidence &amp; observation"...(Especially since I know 1 VERY important thing: That stat teaches you 1 extremely IMPORTANT concept: It's ALL BASED ON SAMPLE SETS...)As to "sample sets"?
Well, those are USUALLY either:----1.
) EASILY SKEWED (as in "4/5 dentists chew trident", oh "sure, sure", especially when they're on the corporate payroll (or paid off to say so by said corporation so their "evidence &amp; observation looks good")and2.
) IS THE SAMPLE SET LARGE &amp; COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH?
(most?? Most are not, period)...----Simply because you cannot:A.
) Sample EVERYONEB.
) Nor can you judge the veracity &amp; accuracy of who you are sampling!----E.G.
#1 - Let's say I had a poll question of "Are Democrats better than Republicans?
" &amp; I sampled from a PRIMARILY REPUBLICAN AREA - So, that all "said &amp; aside"?
?What kind of answers do you think I'd get??
?Would THAT be a "good/fair &amp; representative sample set"???
?Answer = Hell no!Math people sometimes make me laugh... especially when they *THINK* they "know it all".Lief's a BALANCE people, &amp; there are very few "absolutes", because people are not "binary".
Human beings have a LOT of "shades of grey" (or, is it "gray"??
Inquiring minds, want to know, lol!
)APKP.S.=&gt; Personally - I feel that life's REAL answers &amp; REAL problems, in my estimation &amp; opinion, aren't going to even be answered by "hard sciences" alone...I actually tend to think that the REAL ANSWERS (for the REAL problems) will come from philosophers really!(E.G.
#2 - The serious questions to answer, like "why is man unjust to man" for example).Yes, THAT coming from me may sound weird, especially coming from someone with fairly extensive classical education in the business sciences &amp; computer sciences here in myself, but I do hold to that (and, all the math that comes with them like STATS, CALC, DISCRETE MATH, etc.
et al, from the 'hard sciences'?
They're JUST TOOLS that others should definitely use, but not "base all" on them, either, because they too can be misused, as in the examples above I note from stats itself))... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712366</id>
	<title>Re:Summarized for people who don't want to read Ze</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263055980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just going to address what I remember from my stat class, and the class I'm TAing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>"All you need to do is run that test [insert power-of-ten] times and then do an average." Usually the power-of-ten is 1000...</p></div><p>I don't know that I've ever heard that particular statement. But it's a good point:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you know that 1000 is the correct number of iterations to improve the power of the experiment?</p></div><p>Generally because it was probably closer to a million, so I'm erring on the side of taking more, rather than fewer, measurements. But without careful consideration, I could be way off.</p></div><p>You would be amazed how FEW samples you need with good sampling to get a good estimate, why do you think when you look at polls there are usually only a few hundred samples and a smallish error?</p><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>How are you performing the samplings?</p></div><p>I think this is vastly less important than how you are dealing with the data, but it is also a good point. For example, his complaint is that an average isn't enough; with detailed enough logging, he could easily go back into my data and figure out min, max, standard deviation, histograms...</p></div><p>Sampling and results is a classic garbage in garbage out scenario. If you don't sample right your results are at best meaningless at worst they give you a completely wrong impression.<br>If you wanted to know the average income of a household in the US you wouldn't just sample from people in Silicon valley just before the bust, if you did that it wouldn't matter what kind of tricks you did to your data your results would be bad.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just going to address what I remember from my stat class , and the class I 'm TAing .
" All you need to do is run that test [ insert power-of-ten ] times and then do an average .
" Usually the power-of-ten is 1000...I do n't know that I 've ever heard that particular statement .
But it 's a good point : How do you know that 1000 is the correct number of iterations to improve the power of the experiment ? Generally because it was probably closer to a million , so I 'm erring on the side of taking more , rather than fewer , measurements .
But without careful consideration , I could be way off.You would be amazed how FEW samples you need with good sampling to get a good estimate , why do you think when you look at polls there are usually only a few hundred samples and a smallish error ? How are you performing the samplings ? I think this is vastly less important than how you are dealing with the data , but it is also a good point .
For example , his complaint is that an average is n't enough ; with detailed enough logging , he could easily go back into my data and figure out min , max , standard deviation , histograms...Sampling and results is a classic garbage in garbage out scenario .
If you do n't sample right your results are at best meaningless at worst they give you a completely wrong impression.If you wanted to know the average income of a household in the US you would n't just sample from people in Silicon valley just before the bust , if you did that it would n't matter what kind of tricks you did to your data your results would be bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just going to address what I remember from my stat class, and the class I'm TAing.
"All you need to do is run that test [insert power-of-ten] times and then do an average.
" Usually the power-of-ten is 1000...I don't know that I've ever heard that particular statement.
But it's a good point:How do you know that 1000 is the correct number of iterations to improve the power of the experiment?Generally because it was probably closer to a million, so I'm erring on the side of taking more, rather than fewer, measurements.
But without careful consideration, I could be way off.You would be amazed how FEW samples you need with good sampling to get a good estimate, why do you think when you look at polls there are usually only a few hundred samples and a smallish error?How are you performing the samplings?I think this is vastly less important than how you are dealing with the data, but it is also a good point.
For example, his complaint is that an average isn't enough; with detailed enough logging, he could easily go back into my data and figure out min, max, standard deviation, histograms...Sampling and results is a classic garbage in garbage out scenario.
If you don't sample right your results are at best meaningless at worst they give you a completely wrong impression.If you wanted to know the average income of a household in the US you wouldn't just sample from people in Silicon valley just before the bust, if you did that it wouldn't matter what kind of tricks you did to your data your results would be bad.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713684</id>
	<title>Re:Your argument is dead, Zed</title>
	<author>jbatista</author>
	<datestamp>1263123120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're bound to make enemies at some point, simply because not everyone has that high-standard work ethics. All it takes is one day when someone is feeling like s*** (because everyone else has a girlfriend, because he didn't get the raise, whatver) and you come up to him and point out how he should do his work better, and you've created a grudging enemy.

The "be productive, work hard, listen to others" advice is good because it tends to create allies, not because it tends to avoid creating enemies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're bound to make enemies at some point , simply because not everyone has that high-standard work ethics .
All it takes is one day when someone is feeling like s * * * ( because everyone else has a girlfriend , because he did n't get the raise , whatver ) and you come up to him and point out how he should do his work better , and you 've created a grudging enemy .
The " be productive , work hard , listen to others " advice is good because it tends to create allies , not because it tends to avoid creating enemies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're bound to make enemies at some point, simply because not everyone has that high-standard work ethics.
All it takes is one day when someone is feeling like s*** (because everyone else has a girlfriend, because he didn't get the raise, whatver) and you come up to him and point out how he should do his work better, and you've created a grudging enemy.
The "be productive, work hard, listen to others" advice is good because it tends to create allies, not because it tends to avoid creating enemies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714750</id>
	<title>Troll</title>
	<author>redalien</author>
	<datestamp>1263142260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Zed Shaw trolling?  What a complete *fucking* surprise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zed Shaw trolling ?
What a complete * fucking * surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zed Shaw trolling?
What a complete *fucking* surprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710836</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't agree with that.</p><p>Basic statistics as taught in a beginning stats class is counter-intuitive because they don't teach the calculus behind it. But it's actually quite simple to use, however. The tough part is figuring out what statistic to apply to a given problem. It's not difficult. There's a reason that it satisfies the "basic math requirements" for a business major and physical therapy major.</p><p>The mathematics behind statistics is Calculus 2 which is hardly obscure.  The Statistics with Calculus class in fact only requires a Calc 1 understanding; i.e., knowledge of limits, differentiation and integration.  What the statistics course teaches is how to apply those tools and not the reasoning behind how they work.</p><p>And yes, statistics is often badly taught, but I can say that about almost every undergrad math course that I ever took.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't agree with that.Basic statistics as taught in a beginning stats class is counter-intuitive because they do n't teach the calculus behind it .
But it 's actually quite simple to use , however .
The tough part is figuring out what statistic to apply to a given problem .
It 's not difficult .
There 's a reason that it satisfies the " basic math requirements " for a business major and physical therapy major.The mathematics behind statistics is Calculus 2 which is hardly obscure .
The Statistics with Calculus class in fact only requires a Calc 1 understanding ; i.e. , knowledge of limits , differentiation and integration .
What the statistics course teaches is how to apply those tools and not the reasoning behind how they work.And yes , statistics is often badly taught , but I can say that about almost every undergrad math course that I ever took .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't agree with that.Basic statistics as taught in a beginning stats class is counter-intuitive because they don't teach the calculus behind it.
But it's actually quite simple to use, however.
The tough part is figuring out what statistic to apply to a given problem.
It's not difficult.
There's a reason that it satisfies the "basic math requirements" for a business major and physical therapy major.The mathematics behind statistics is Calculus 2 which is hardly obscure.
The Statistics with Calculus class in fact only requires a Calc 1 understanding; i.e., knowledge of limits, differentiation and integration.
What the statistics course teaches is how to apply those tools and not the reasoning behind how they work.And yes, statistics is often badly taught, but I can say that about almost every undergrad math course that I ever took.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711368</id>
	<title>Re:Or, how about...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263046920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make peace with your inner statistician using fuzzy logic. Everybody will be happy then by a probability of 95\%, sharpened towards the 100\% making the statement completely true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make peace with your inner statistician using fuzzy logic .
Everybody will be happy then by a probability of 95 \ % , sharpened towards the 100 \ % making the statement completely true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make peace with your inner statistician using fuzzy logic.
Everybody will be happy then by a probability of 95\%, sharpened towards the 100\% making the statement completely true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714532</id>
	<title>probability</title>
	<author>zugedneb</author>
	<datestamp>1263139560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>theory is what is needed, otherwise statistics does not mean much to anyone...<br>With probability theory one models, while statistics is used to estimate the parameters of a model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>theory is what is needed , otherwise statistics does not mean much to anyone...With probability theory one models , while statistics is used to estimate the parameters of a model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theory is what is needed, otherwise statistics does not mean much to anyone...With probability theory one models, while statistics is used to estimate the parameters of a model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712466</id>
	<title>Re:The funny thing is he's doing exactly the same</title>
	<author>Mr0bvious</author>
	<datestamp>1263057300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh look, we'll have to agree to disagree, regardless of how wrong you are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh look , we 'll have to agree to disagree , regardless of how wrong you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh look, we'll have to agree to disagree, regardless of how wrong you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711458</id>
	<title>Probability = shit in programming.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263047640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your server app may be missing 1 out of 10 billion orders every month. or risk marking 1 out of 1 million emails mistakenly as spam.</p><p>1 out of that percentage may chance up on a big potential client's order/email, and your corporation may miss millions and you may even never know it.</p><p>or, 1 out of 10 billion some jerk may be able to hack your secure app and get millions of customer data.</p><p>see, it doesnt mean shit. some statistician coming up and saying 'its unlikely' or something doesnt mean shit. there is no statistics in this. it just should not happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your server app may be missing 1 out of 10 billion orders every month .
or risk marking 1 out of 1 million emails mistakenly as spam.1 out of that percentage may chance up on a big potential client 's order/email , and your corporation may miss millions and you may even never know it.or , 1 out of 10 billion some jerk may be able to hack your secure app and get millions of customer data.see , it doesnt mean shit .
some statistician coming up and saying 'its unlikely ' or something doesnt mean shit .
there is no statistics in this .
it just should not happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your server app may be missing 1 out of 10 billion orders every month.
or risk marking 1 out of 1 million emails mistakenly as spam.1 out of that percentage may chance up on a big potential client's order/email, and your corporation may miss millions and you may even never know it.or, 1 out of 10 billion some jerk may be able to hack your secure app and get millions of customer data.see, it doesnt mean shit.
some statistician coming up and saying 'its unlikely' or something doesnt mean shit.
there is no statistics in this.
it just should not happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711454</id>
	<title>I actually started to RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263047640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>t I saw the author's name. Sorry Zed, I'm happy to learn some new math, but not from such a self-important asshole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>t I saw the author 's name .
Sorry Zed , I 'm happy to learn some new math , but not from such a self-important asshole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>t I saw the author's name.
Sorry Zed, I'm happy to learn some new math, but not from such a self-important asshole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30728280</id>
	<title>Smooth moves</title>
	<author>flabordec</author>
	<datestamp>1263202920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I never have this problem with female programmers. Maybe it&rsquo;s because I&rsquo;m tall (6&rsquo;2&rdquo;), or nicer to them, but they always speak rationally and are really keen to learn. If they disagree, they do so rationally and back up what they say. I think women are better programmers because they have less ego and are typically more interested in the gear rather than the pissing contest.</p></div><p> <i>I'm also good looking and know a lot of statistics ladies, I really respect you and I think highly of you. If you would like some private statistics lessons call me at (123) 456-7890.</i> </p><p>Smooth move, Zed Shaw, smooth move.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : I never have this problem with female programmers .
Maybe it    s because I    m tall ( 6    2    ) , or nicer to them , but they always speak rationally and are really keen to learn .
If they disagree , they do so rationally and back up what they say .
I think women are better programmers because they have less ego and are typically more interested in the gear rather than the pissing contest .
I 'm also good looking and know a lot of statistics ladies , I really respect you and I think highly of you .
If you would like some private statistics lessons call me at ( 123 ) 456-7890 .
Smooth move , Zed Shaw , smooth move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:I never have this problem with female programmers.
Maybe it’s because I’m tall (6’2”), or nicer to them, but they always speak rationally and are really keen to learn.
If they disagree, they do so rationally and back up what they say.
I think women are better programmers because they have less ego and are typically more interested in the gear rather than the pissing contest.
I'm also good looking and know a lot of statistics ladies, I really respect you and I think highly of you.
If you would like some private statistics lessons call me at (123) 456-7890.
Smooth move, Zed Shaw, smooth move.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710980</id>
	<title>In my humble opinion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263043920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only 37\% of programmers need to learn statistics. Remaining 95\% either know it already or don't need it at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 37 \ % of programmers need to learn statistics .
Remaining 95 \ % either know it already or do n't need it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 37\% of programmers need to learn statistics.
Remaining 95\% either know it already or don't need it at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30728068</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263202140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Statistics is an excuse for PMs and BAs to feel as if they actual know something that a programmer or developer doesn't. I have yet to see anyone mention methodologies that statistics uses and is used for, including dashboards, reporting and things like Six Sigma or the like. Statistics is based on math and trends and it isn't complicated to understand or learn. Most programmars/developers lack the focus on trends and new methodologies and the duediligance that is required to capture, mine, scrub and present the data. That is where the BA/PMs and who ever else comes into play. But that is what we have Cognos, Crystal Reports and the ETL teams.</p><p>If a programmer/developer wanted to develop those skills, then you sir, are putting your own job at risk.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//I wasn't an english major, excuse the grammar and spelling.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Statistics is an excuse for PMs and BAs to feel as if they actual know something that a programmer or developer does n't .
I have yet to see anyone mention methodologies that statistics uses and is used for , including dashboards , reporting and things like Six Sigma or the like .
Statistics is based on math and trends and it is n't complicated to understand or learn .
Most programmars/developers lack the focus on trends and new methodologies and the duediligance that is required to capture , mine , scrub and present the data .
That is where the BA/PMs and who ever else comes into play .
But that is what we have Cognos , Crystal Reports and the ETL teams.If a programmer/developer wanted to develop those skills , then you sir , are putting your own job at risk .
//I was n't an english major , excuse the grammar and spelling .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Statistics is an excuse for PMs and BAs to feel as if they actual know something that a programmer or developer doesn't.
I have yet to see anyone mention methodologies that statistics uses and is used for, including dashboards, reporting and things like Six Sigma or the like.
Statistics is based on math and trends and it isn't complicated to understand or learn.
Most programmars/developers lack the focus on trends and new methodologies and the duediligance that is required to capture, mine, scrub and present the data.
That is where the BA/PMs and who ever else comes into play.
But that is what we have Cognos, Crystal Reports and the ETL teams.If a programmer/developer wanted to develop those skills, then you sir, are putting your own job at risk.
//I wasn't an english major, excuse the grammar and spelling.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711286</id>
	<title>This reads like the 'edu sysadmin' article</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1263046320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reads a bit like the thread on the college sysadmins running the shop. Think: along the lines of over-education and not enough experience coloring one's view of the situation. See also: when you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.</p><p>I'd say odds are that, with someone (anyone) who's  highly educated in a specific field, they tend to try to apply that discipline to everything in their lives. The welder who has metal tables and chairs, the woodworker with an oak-everything house, and the mechanic with a V8 lawn mower/snow blower are all good examples of this. Managers who think something is a "morale problem" (and not a management one) or programmers/geeks who see a social problem as one that can be fixed with computing are also examples of this.</p><p>This doesn't necessarily mean these specialized-discipline people are necessarily <i>wrong</i>, but it does mean they're contentious and self-righteous assholes. Statistics might help. A wireless computer in your fridge might help. So might a V8 lawn mower (that'd be fucking cool!). But chances are such things are impractical, expensive, and/or coming from an over-extension of assumption.</p><p>And sometimes, a gut feeling is as good as (or better than) a well-reasoned and thoroughly informed opinion.</p><p>Life's a crap shoot. Sometimes you can't reduce everything to numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reads a bit like the thread on the college sysadmins running the shop .
Think : along the lines of over-education and not enough experience coloring one 's view of the situation .
See also : when you 've got a hammer , everything looks like a nail.I 'd say odds are that , with someone ( anyone ) who 's highly educated in a specific field , they tend to try to apply that discipline to everything in their lives .
The welder who has metal tables and chairs , the woodworker with an oak-everything house , and the mechanic with a V8 lawn mower/snow blower are all good examples of this .
Managers who think something is a " morale problem " ( and not a management one ) or programmers/geeks who see a social problem as one that can be fixed with computing are also examples of this.This does n't necessarily mean these specialized-discipline people are necessarily wrong , but it does mean they 're contentious and self-righteous assholes .
Statistics might help .
A wireless computer in your fridge might help .
So might a V8 lawn mower ( that 'd be fucking cool ! ) .
But chances are such things are impractical , expensive , and/or coming from an over-extension of assumption.And sometimes , a gut feeling is as good as ( or better than ) a well-reasoned and thoroughly informed opinion.Life 's a crap shoot .
Sometimes you ca n't reduce everything to numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reads a bit like the thread on the college sysadmins running the shop.
Think: along the lines of over-education and not enough experience coloring one's view of the situation.
See also: when you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail.I'd say odds are that, with someone (anyone) who's  highly educated in a specific field, they tend to try to apply that discipline to everything in their lives.
The welder who has metal tables and chairs, the woodworker with an oak-everything house, and the mechanic with a V8 lawn mower/snow blower are all good examples of this.
Managers who think something is a "morale problem" (and not a management one) or programmers/geeks who see a social problem as one that can be fixed with computing are also examples of this.This doesn't necessarily mean these specialized-discipline people are necessarily wrong, but it does mean they're contentious and self-righteous assholes.
Statistics might help.
A wireless computer in your fridge might help.
So might a V8 lawn mower (that'd be fucking cool!).
But chances are such things are impractical, expensive, and/or coming from an over-extension of assumption.And sometimes, a gut feeling is as good as (or better than) a well-reasoned and thoroughly informed opinion.Life's a crap shoot.
Sometimes you can't reduce everything to numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714552</id>
	<title>Re:Statistical analysis of the summary</title>
	<author>chunkyq</author>
	<datestamp>1263139800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bravo, sir.  If I had mod points, they would be used to mod you insightful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo , sir .
If I had mod points , they would be used to mod you insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo, sir.
If I had mod points, they would be used to mod you insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714004</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics is HARD</title>
	<author>shic</author>
	<datestamp>1263130920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5) If you know the basics, you know just enough to be dangerous and really piss off people who know what they're doing. Being able to run an anova or determine correlation makes some people think they actually know what's going on because, hey, it's math. But a lot of people who just do the basic stuff think their results are more meaningful than they actually are - falling prey to the whole "it's statistically significant therefore it must be IMPORTANT" fallacy (when you can certainly have things that are "statistically significant" but actually have virtually no impact on the outcome.</p></div><p>Here, I think, you've mentioned a critical issue with statistics.  The field of statistics is treated as if it were an omniscient black box by the majority of the population, and the more complex the calculation and the less people understand about the process, the more weight the statistic tends to have on decision making.  One idea that interests me is that this might be valid for some 'real life' situations... especially where the people are utterly bamboozled by the statistics but use them to guide their behaviours in the absence of credible alternatives... essentially turning arbitrary choices into self-fulfilling prophecies.  I am intrigued as to whether or not such subtlety would allow one to devise statistics that have subversive systemic effects.</p><p>I would love to receive a recommendation for a solid statistics reference book.  All the books I can find infuriate me - they talk down to the reader and appear to be written for someone who is innumerate... labouring the trivial and obvious - while skimming the non-obvious dismissively.  Another thing that frustrates me about statistics texts is that they frequently focus on 'case' studies - encouraging the reader to assume that they can re-apply techniques when they encounter similar-looking situations in real life.  This is utterly bonkers - since, without a full understanding of the mechanics of the calculations, it is impossible to determine if the similarity between two situations is an irrelevant detail or crucial to the technique.  I'm not interested in 'learning by example' - so I can copy a bunch of people whose views I distrust... I'd like a reference that allows me to use a typical approach in my statistical reasoning rather than re-inventing the wheel myself.  I'd like it to be comprehensive and compact - I don't want it to aim to indoctrinate me to think in a particular way in my analyses.</p><p>(Can anyone recommend such a book?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 ) If you know the basics , you know just enough to be dangerous and really piss off people who know what they 're doing .
Being able to run an anova or determine correlation makes some people think they actually know what 's going on because , hey , it 's math .
But a lot of people who just do the basic stuff think their results are more meaningful than they actually are - falling prey to the whole " it 's statistically significant therefore it must be IMPORTANT " fallacy ( when you can certainly have things that are " statistically significant " but actually have virtually no impact on the outcome.Here , I think , you 've mentioned a critical issue with statistics .
The field of statistics is treated as if it were an omniscient black box by the majority of the population , and the more complex the calculation and the less people understand about the process , the more weight the statistic tends to have on decision making .
One idea that interests me is that this might be valid for some 'real life ' situations... especially where the people are utterly bamboozled by the statistics but use them to guide their behaviours in the absence of credible alternatives... essentially turning arbitrary choices into self-fulfilling prophecies .
I am intrigued as to whether or not such subtlety would allow one to devise statistics that have subversive systemic effects.I would love to receive a recommendation for a solid statistics reference book .
All the books I can find infuriate me - they talk down to the reader and appear to be written for someone who is innumerate... labouring the trivial and obvious - while skimming the non-obvious dismissively .
Another thing that frustrates me about statistics texts is that they frequently focus on 'case ' studies - encouraging the reader to assume that they can re-apply techniques when they encounter similar-looking situations in real life .
This is utterly bonkers - since , without a full understanding of the mechanics of the calculations , it is impossible to determine if the similarity between two situations is an irrelevant detail or crucial to the technique .
I 'm not interested in 'learning by example ' - so I can copy a bunch of people whose views I distrust... I 'd like a reference that allows me to use a typical approach in my statistical reasoning rather than re-inventing the wheel myself .
I 'd like it to be comprehensive and compact - I do n't want it to aim to indoctrinate me to think in a particular way in my analyses .
( Can anyone recommend such a book ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5) If you know the basics, you know just enough to be dangerous and really piss off people who know what they're doing.
Being able to run an anova or determine correlation makes some people think they actually know what's going on because, hey, it's math.
But a lot of people who just do the basic stuff think their results are more meaningful than they actually are - falling prey to the whole "it's statistically significant therefore it must be IMPORTANT" fallacy (when you can certainly have things that are "statistically significant" but actually have virtually no impact on the outcome.Here, I think, you've mentioned a critical issue with statistics.
The field of statistics is treated as if it were an omniscient black box by the majority of the population, and the more complex the calculation and the less people understand about the process, the more weight the statistic tends to have on decision making.
One idea that interests me is that this might be valid for some 'real life' situations... especially where the people are utterly bamboozled by the statistics but use them to guide their behaviours in the absence of credible alternatives... essentially turning arbitrary choices into self-fulfilling prophecies.
I am intrigued as to whether or not such subtlety would allow one to devise statistics that have subversive systemic effects.I would love to receive a recommendation for a solid statistics reference book.
All the books I can find infuriate me - they talk down to the reader and appear to be written for someone who is innumerate... labouring the trivial and obvious - while skimming the non-obvious dismissively.
Another thing that frustrates me about statistics texts is that they frequently focus on 'case' studies - encouraging the reader to assume that they can re-apply techniques when they encounter similar-looking situations in real life.
This is utterly bonkers - since, without a full understanding of the mechanics of the calculations, it is impossible to determine if the similarity between two situations is an irrelevant detail or crucial to the technique.
I'm not interested in 'learning by example' - so I can copy a bunch of people whose views I distrust... I'd like a reference that allows me to use a typical approach in my statistical reasoning rather than re-inventing the wheel myself.
I'd like it to be comprehensive and compact - I don't want it to aim to indoctrinate me to think in a particular way in my analyses.
(Can anyone recommend such a book?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712370</id>
	<title>Re:Show them you're the Boss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263056040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is easy to solve if you first consider "a many-door" problem. For instance, consider the ten door problem:</p><p>You are in a game show where there are ten closed doors. You are told that there is a prize behind one of the doors, while the other nine are empty.</p><p>You pick one door. Once you have made your pick, the host of the game opens eight of the other doors. You are now looking at two closed doors: the one you picked and one other. The host asks you if you would like to keep your original choice of door, or if you would like to pick the other closed door.</p><p>What do you choose?</p><p>If you think that the ten-door problem is too hard, try the hundred-door problem, or the million-door problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is easy to solve if you first consider " a many-door " problem .
For instance , consider the ten door problem : You are in a game show where there are ten closed doors .
You are told that there is a prize behind one of the doors , while the other nine are empty.You pick one door .
Once you have made your pick , the host of the game opens eight of the other doors .
You are now looking at two closed doors : the one you picked and one other .
The host asks you if you would like to keep your original choice of door , or if you would like to pick the other closed door.What do you choose ? If you think that the ten-door problem is too hard , try the hundred-door problem , or the million-door problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is easy to solve if you first consider "a many-door" problem.
For instance, consider the ten door problem:You are in a game show where there are ten closed doors.
You are told that there is a prize behind one of the doors, while the other nine are empty.You pick one door.
Once you have made your pick, the host of the game opens eight of the other doors.
You are now looking at two closed doors: the one you picked and one other.
The host asks you if you would like to keep your original choice of door, or if you would like to pick the other closed door.What do you choose?If you think that the ten-door problem is too hard, try the hundred-door problem, or the million-door problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711620</id>
	<title>Wikipedia on Zed Shaw</title>
	<author>Selfbain</author>
	<datestamp>1263048900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like how the first part of his Wikipedia article says "Zed A. Shaw is a troll" with four citations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how the first part of his Wikipedia article says " Zed A. Shaw is a troll " with four citations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how the first part of his Wikipedia article says "Zed A. Shaw is a troll" with four citations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710840</id>
	<title>ah....</title>
	<author>KZigurs</author>
	<datestamp>1263042780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>95\% confidence in understanding statistics when applied to business setting is often just as good as 95\% confidence in actual measurements. Yes, the last 5\% are the trickiest bit, but be sure if there will be slightest indication that a proper application is required I won't be afraid to ask someone who knows more. It's just that it is quite rare.</p><p>In example: Performance testing systems. You care way more about the degradation mode than statistical model of sustainable load.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>95 \ % confidence in understanding statistics when applied to business setting is often just as good as 95 \ % confidence in actual measurements .
Yes , the last 5 \ % are the trickiest bit , but be sure if there will be slightest indication that a proper application is required I wo n't be afraid to ask someone who knows more .
It 's just that it is quite rare.In example : Performance testing systems .
You care way more about the degradation mode than statistical model of sustainable load .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>95\% confidence in understanding statistics when applied to business setting is often just as good as 95\% confidence in actual measurements.
Yes, the last 5\% are the trickiest bit, but be sure if there will be slightest indication that a proper application is required I won't be afraid to ask someone who knows more.
It's just that it is quite rare.In example: Performance testing systems.
You care way more about the degradation mode than statistical model of sustainable load.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30716822</id>
	<title>He's the one making generalisations...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1263117000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>He claims that programmers need to understand statistics more. The people he is talking about are therefore not wrong - they are ignorant.</i></p><p>And this applies to all programmers?</p><p>He's the one making generalisations based on anecdotal experiences, which is itself a poor practice in terms of statistics.</p><p>It's a perfectly fair point to say that many <i>people</i> need to understand statistics better (and it can be done without sounding like a snob), but there is no reason for him to target his rant at programmers. My degree was in mathematics, and I now work as a programmer in which I use mathematics - where do I fit into his box?</p><p>A programmer could just as easily write a pompous rant about "How statisticians need to understand computers better", based on a handful of anecdotes and generalisations.</p><p>I don't know why we're giving time to someone who's level of argument is <b>"they dont know shit"</b>, and resorts to childish ad hominems of <i>"their confidence in their lacking knowledge is only surpassed by their lack of confidence in their personal appearance"</i>.</p><p>Statisticians need to learn about logical fallacies or I will kill them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He claims that programmers need to understand statistics more .
The people he is talking about are therefore not wrong - they are ignorant.And this applies to all programmers ? He 's the one making generalisations based on anecdotal experiences , which is itself a poor practice in terms of statistics.It 's a perfectly fair point to say that many people need to understand statistics better ( and it can be done without sounding like a snob ) , but there is no reason for him to target his rant at programmers .
My degree was in mathematics , and I now work as a programmer in which I use mathematics - where do I fit into his box ? A programmer could just as easily write a pompous rant about " How statisticians need to understand computers better " , based on a handful of anecdotes and generalisations.I do n't know why we 're giving time to someone who 's level of argument is " they dont know shit " , and resorts to childish ad hominems of " their confidence in their lacking knowledge is only surpassed by their lack of confidence in their personal appearance " .Statisticians need to learn about logical fallacies or I will kill them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He claims that programmers need to understand statistics more.
The people he is talking about are therefore not wrong - they are ignorant.And this applies to all programmers?He's the one making generalisations based on anecdotal experiences, which is itself a poor practice in terms of statistics.It's a perfectly fair point to say that many people need to understand statistics better (and it can be done without sounding like a snob), but there is no reason for him to target his rant at programmers.
My degree was in mathematics, and I now work as a programmer in which I use mathematics - where do I fit into his box?A programmer could just as easily write a pompous rant about "How statisticians need to understand computers better", based on a handful of anecdotes and generalisations.I don't know why we're giving time to someone who's level of argument is "they dont know shit", and resorts to childish ad hominems of "their confidence in their lacking knowledge is only surpassed by their lack of confidence in their personal appearance".Statisticians need to learn about logical fallacies or I will kill them!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710956</id>
	<title>Maybe as important as any math for programmers</title>
	<author>mpsmps</author>
	<datestamp>1263043680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1499856&amp;cid=30673056" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1499856&amp;cid=30673056</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1499856&amp;cid = 30673056 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1499856&amp;cid=30673056 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712348</id>
	<title>Re:Mathematicians just need to shutup.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263055860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just insulted all mathematicians, you insensitive clod; statitician != mathematician</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just insulted all mathematicians , you insensitive clod ; statitician ! = mathematician</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just insulted all mathematicians, you insensitive clod; statitician != mathematician</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711042</id>
	<title>So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263044340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you and your colleagues are clueless when it comes to what you went to grad school for and you're trying to tell programmers how to be more... efficient and knowledgeable about what they have been doing for the majority of their lives.</p><p>You also mention how you NEVER seem to have a problem with females as they are more rational when it comes to programming.  I think it might be a little deeper then that.  Maybe females are more kind in the sense that they put up with your statistical dribble since you give off that "I love to hear myself talk till I annoy the person next to me" vibe.  Or maybe its because you try talking to them instead of shoving numbers down their throats that don't seem to make any sense to even you yourself.</p><p>I'm honestly surprised a female programmer hasn't just smiled and nodded at you for the sake of being polite just so you would shut up and sod off and go bug the person in the next area.</p><p>I guess what I was trying to convey was if you really have that much programmer envy that you have to rant to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. about how much you hate programmers, then you clearly have chosen the wrong profession.</p><p>Good luck trying to figure out statistics, but I'm guessing if you haven't figured it out by now it will not ever happen.</p><p>-AC</p><p>PS:  It sounds like you need a hug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you and your colleagues are clueless when it comes to what you went to grad school for and you 're trying to tell programmers how to be more... efficient and knowledgeable about what they have been doing for the majority of their lives.You also mention how you NEVER seem to have a problem with females as they are more rational when it comes to programming .
I think it might be a little deeper then that .
Maybe females are more kind in the sense that they put up with your statistical dribble since you give off that " I love to hear myself talk till I annoy the person next to me " vibe .
Or maybe its because you try talking to them instead of shoving numbers down their throats that do n't seem to make any sense to even you yourself.I 'm honestly surprised a female programmer has n't just smiled and nodded at you for the sake of being polite just so you would shut up and sod off and go bug the person in the next area.I guess what I was trying to convey was if you really have that much programmer envy that you have to rant to / .
about how much you hate programmers , then you clearly have chosen the wrong profession.Good luck trying to figure out statistics , but I 'm guessing if you have n't figured it out by now it will not ever happen.-ACPS : It sounds like you need a hug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you and your colleagues are clueless when it comes to what you went to grad school for and you're trying to tell programmers how to be more... efficient and knowledgeable about what they have been doing for the majority of their lives.You also mention how you NEVER seem to have a problem with females as they are more rational when it comes to programming.
I think it might be a little deeper then that.
Maybe females are more kind in the sense that they put up with your statistical dribble since you give off that "I love to hear myself talk till I annoy the person next to me" vibe.
Or maybe its because you try talking to them instead of shoving numbers down their throats that don't seem to make any sense to even you yourself.I'm honestly surprised a female programmer hasn't just smiled and nodded at you for the sake of being polite just so you would shut up and sod off and go bug the person in the next area.I guess what I was trying to convey was if you really have that much programmer envy that you have to rant to /.
about how much you hate programmers, then you clearly have chosen the wrong profession.Good luck trying to figure out statistics, but I'm guessing if you haven't figured it out by now it will not ever happen.-ACPS:  It sounds like you need a hug.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30720434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30716912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30716860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30723822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30716822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30715136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30761776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30726158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30715098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30717002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_2154224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30717002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30715098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711034
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30716822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30716860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30723822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30720434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711146
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711402
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711700
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30716912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30713792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30715136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30726158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710664
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_2154224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30710984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30714450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30711460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30712166
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_2154224.30761776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
