Prototypal inheritance is far more powerful and flexable than classical inheritance.
Well, your link said it's as powerful as C++ multiple inheritance. Which no one uses. Because the complications that arise are not worth it. In the same way, the power from prototypical inheritance is not worth the complexity. I've seen some crazy stuff Some of my friends work on... well, it's a famous JS engine in a popular browser. The things they have to be able to allow make the JIT compiler far more complex, and therefore error-prone, then it needs to be. And the inheritance model is a huge source of security holes.
What information??? I'm still trying to figure out what information he revealed (admittedly, I haven't followed enough of it). But I should fall right into his wheelhouse. I care a lot about privacy. I'm educated. But, I'm also busy. His first revelation was that the government was tracking all the metadata for my calls... which was already a public secret. Since then, I pay attention from time to time to try to get more details about things that would startle me. Tor being compromised or RSA would have been... not shocking (they are smart) but new info.
It's quite possible I missed something, so this is a real request for an answer.
But if all he talked about was telephone metadata... well, it would be like a whistleblower saying Israel or Taiwan have nukes. I mean, duh. But we all agreed not to talk about it.
So, there's two questions intertwined. Could it be evidence of conspiracy and could it be considered obstruction like in this case.
I'd imagine that, as long as they were consistently followed, procedures demanding routine deletion of files would indemnify you against an additional obstruction charge.
I would imagine the existence of a policy far outside the norms for an industry could be cited as evidence of you knowing the records would be incriminating, in a circumstantial/up to the jury way. But that could be countered by having a good reason. It is really a "reasonable person could do this for legit reasons" standard. Nightly shredding of receipts (after the register has been reconciled) is considered a normal practice at some fast food places. (Why waste the space storing them?) Things like wage information being shredded monthly would be suspicious because W-2's, taxes, etc.
IANAL. The only advice I have is to seek a qualified attorney if you want legal advice.
It being part of your SOP shows that it wasn't to hide a crime, specifically. That's why Arthur Anderson sent copies of it's corporate retention policies with big underlined "Thou shalt delete emails after 90 days" to it's Houston office as the Enron was coming undone. I think that didn't work because it may have been written, but had not been followed.
Sure, technically its not "not speech" it's "not protected speech". But I believe that point is often to fine to make when communicated over the internet.
Congress(or the government) totally can preemptively muzzle people... I find it bizarre that anyone would believe that it's okay to punish a criminal, but not prevent the crime. It's just that it has to be worthy of stopping ahead of time, to justify the greater risk of injustice, etc. Usually state secrets, etc.
Your correctly found the origin of the phrase, but totally missed the point. The point is not what is forbidden (your all-caps "FALSELY") but that it's not merely speech. It's a call to action. Just as your last example demonstrates. No one assumed Abbie was literally yelling about a fire. Context is important.
There are totally laws against certain communication. As a first, and obvious thing, we want laws against bomb threats, whether hoaxes or not. We allow laws against untrue communications, especially as people enter into contracts. We allow laws against communications used to further illegal activities, such as to coordinate a heist.
Fundamentally, not all communications are speech, because some communications have explicit direct non-speech results. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't speech. It's not designed to participate in a marketplace of the ideas and win. It's a communication designed to shut down rational conversation and begin emergency evacuations.
Now, these are fuzzy lines Planning a heist movie script is perfectly protected. So the government has to prove that it was an actual heist planning.
The lack of intent to do something is an excuse; intending to do something not realizing it is a crime is not. Therefore, posting something that you intend to be quotes of Eminem is different from the same words when you intend them as a threat.
"Mass market appeal" - he's already achieved that with the Model S. It may be too expensive for most but they sure as hell want it.
By that logic yachts have mass market appeal. Hell, uncut sheets of US currency are sold by the US Mint for more than their face value. But everyone wants US currency. So uncut sheets of US currency have mass market appeal... in spite of the fact that I've never heard of anyone other than bill collectors getting them.
TL;DR Mass market appeal needs to take into account cost. Everyone wants free stuff.
Yes, I know Harvard and other big name universities in the US give grants to a few poor kids, but mostly they're looking at rich kid's ability to pay the fees.
Well, not to shit on your parade, but most elite schools in the US (Ivy, MIT, CalTech) agreed to use need-blind admissions. They then offer need-based scholarships. These have ranged from stupid (MIT told a friend of mine she didn't qualify because her parents could sell their house) to generous (Brown).
And the majority of kids at Ivy League schools are on some amount of assistance. And even if they weren't, tuition only covers like 1/3 of the cost... the rest is borne by alumni/endowments.
By that argument then, you're also saying that the current "universal access fee" on telecom is 1000 times the actual cost of providing that service.
Nope. I didn't (as politicians don't) really segregate "set aside income streams" from the general treasury. I factored in, not the cost of him paying for his own broadband, but him not needing government assistance, and paying taxes.
As you recall, the FCC also just redefined the word "broadband" to mean service which costs $85-$105 per month.
Well, it defined broadband as a specific speed. That speed costs different amounts at different locations. And based on the number of connections purchased. Some major cities you can get it for $20. It costs $9.25 by the article.
You think it's a good deal if you spend $1 million per year to encourage one guy to do online classes.
Well, leaving aside the 10x factor, yeah, I do. I mean, 100k to get someone off public assistance (food/shelter/health/etc) for their working years is a good return on the money.
Note that doesn't actually pay for the classes
Tons of free classes out there.
Did it occur to you that it would be cheaper to pay full tuition for TEN people who actually worked hard at school, proving that they want to be educated and they'll do the work in college?
I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Not everyone is close enough to a community college to be able to commute there and live at home. And I think second chances for people who fucked around in high school are supremely important. With a HS diploma, you can do something. Without one, you're living off tax dollars til you get a GED... at least
Certainly it didn't occur to you that the million bucks you want to spend is coming from my family
Maybe a nickle of it.- You want those who succeeded to pay a higher share, fine. I think it's a good idea to ask people who make billions to pay a little more in taxes.
I AM struggling to pay for my own college while supporting the family, while my wife waits for her turn to go to school when we can afford it.
You're not in a great spot, and I empathize. I think it shouldn't be so hard for you. But, I certainly don't think it's inherently noble for you to have to work so hard to succeed. Society shouldn't force you to. We should make it easier.
Damn you guys are bad at math and logic
You seem to think I have computational errors, or that I have logical errors. You didn't really point any out. But I will point out that you had factual errors, since I think that this statement opens that area of discussion.
assume a perfectly reasonable per month/subscriber cost of $25
$9.25, as per the article
a program that spends $[9,250]/month
Diverts the already being spent monies from being spent on a landline to a broadband connection
for two years... an associate's degree
Well, by classes I intended more professional or at your own speed... so I didn't think it would take two years, But associates degrees take 18 months if you go straight through.
So, by your logic, that's 9.25 * 18 * 1000 = 166500. But, over a 20 year career ( short) if that person makes back 700/mo (not unreasonable, with $300 for foodstamps, $350 for section 8, $50 for medicaid) it pays for itself.
Seems good to me. I mean, not perfect, but self-substaining.
Is this legit or is it an end-run around constitutional protections that everybody in the legal system has just collectively agreed on?
It's not an end-run. Crimes have a range of punishments. The punishment is to serve as a deterrent to both the offender in the future and society at large, to serve as rehabilitation for the offender, to isolate the offender from society, to hurt the offender to the degree to which the offender hurt society The last one have no relation previous offenses, but the first three do. If the criminal was convicted beforehand, it's pretty obvious that a minimum correction was ineffective at modifying behavior beforehand, so harsher punishment is called for. If the criminal was not convicted, but guilty, it indicates he is more a danger to society because he will do more damage before getting caught.
Okay, I think that the last part is pretty dubious. I have no issue with using previous convictions in the sentencing... I would probably have no issue with a trial resulting in a "probably" verdict that was not sufficient to punish at the time, but could be brought up at further sentencings. But accusations??
I don't know if that was supposed to be a retort. My point was that that 1/1000 will pay for the entirety of the 999. And that's just the lack of Section 8 hoursing, foodstamps, etc. Add in his taxes, and it's a positive. And the next 1000 will do the same.
It's a benefit to society if government handouts are the best way to distribute a good. See justice, fire protection and military defense for undisputed options.
In addition, we recognize that universal access is important for some goods, even if we allow private alternates or supplements. Such as primary education.
There's no reason to suspect it ever will run out. And if broadband allows one in a thousand to take online classes and go from unemployed and on assistance to being a productive member of society?
Any accountant will tell you (and I am one) that there is no book value for assets like that unless they get sold
I'm confused. Coca-Cola bought it over time. And I thought you just told me book value was that paid for an asset. I know a giant loophole (at least in the 90's) was companies accounting for all their advertising (or international advertising maybe) as purchasing a depreciating asset (goodwill? brand? noteriety??) and then taking advantage of tax rebates that encouraged investment in assets. Then, writing off the cost over years.
Ah, thanks. You are correct. But, it's silly to say that Coca-Cola paid nothing for their brand... in fact, some (foreign?) advertising budgets get accounted for as assets and depreciation over time.
I'm not saying psychic powers exist. I'm saying the Randi challenge is dumb.
Also, your response is dumb.
You're assuming there are not stable populations that are psychic, possibly with taboos against breeding outside the group. (See, some rumors about gypsies)
You assumed that this hypothetical psychic ability is genetic.
You assume that this survival trait would lead to more children. In reality, it would lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies. Further, with the ability to avoid pregnancies lethal to the mother/child and the ability to avoid dangers, you would need far fewer children to ensure X reach adulthood.
You assume that a competitive advantage would not reach equilibrium. See how lefthandness conveys and advantage in a right-handed world, and yet remains consistent at 10%
You assume that people want to reproduce.
You assume that psychic ability doesn't channel ectoplasm through your genitals and sterilize you.
It's not suggestive at all.
That said, I don't think it exists. You know, because of how physics seems to work.
The lottery uses balls that flip around willy-nilly. Telekineses would be really helpful.
But all the Randi challenge proves is that some abilities with low alternate value don't exist. But I don't even know what those abilities would be. For instance, buying land with water rights in the desert, and then reselling it (or oil, if that's what you can dowse for), would be extraordinarily profitable. But if everyone knew, you would never be able to buy anything.
Book value is the amount the company could expect to sell its assets for, assuming odd things like "goodwill" being something you can auction off. Other subcategories of book value eliminate the non-transferable or intangible.
Q is based on how much it would cost to replace a company if you had to start from scratch.
These are different. In art, for instance, the cost a specific Picasso was determined at auction to be 180 million. That's its book value. I have no idea how it's replacement value is determined. Is it the few grand it would take to hire an accomplished painter to recreate it pretty well? The 55 grand it takes to use that machine reproduction thing some museums have experimented with? Or the cost of buying and holding a sufficient number of paintings such that in 75 years you had a seminal work of a major artist (minus the liquidation value of the rest of the works)?
Just like I've never met a psychic who won the lottery.
That's why Randi's contest always seemed like BS. I could make way more than a million dollars if I was psychic... but probably not if everyone knew I was. Maybe, if my descendants were non-psychic, I would admit it on my deathbed.
Always looking backwards, always telling us *why* something happened, never making future predictions.
That's just false. Stagflation in the 70's was predicted by some theories but not others. The theories that did not predict stagflation were scrapped or modified. The fact that it takes 10+ years of watching to decide between two competing models is annoying, but does not mean that predictions are not made. You just cannot show it in a classroom, like with fruit flies that breed once a day to show genetics/adverse selection.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, your link said it's as powerful as C++ multiple inheritance. Which no one uses. Because the complications that arise are not worth it. In the same way, the power from prototypical inheritance is not worth the complexity. I've seen some crazy stuff Some of my friends work on... well, it's a famous JS engine in a popular browser. The things they have to be able to allow make the JIT compiler far more complex, and therefore error-prone, then it needs to be. And the inheritance model is a huge source of security holes.
What information??? I'm still trying to figure out what information he revealed (admittedly, I haven't followed enough of it). But I should fall right into his wheelhouse. I care a lot about privacy. I'm educated. But, I'm also busy. His first revelation was that the government was tracking all the metadata for my calls... which was already a public secret. Since then, I pay attention from time to time to try to get more details about things that would startle me. Tor being compromised or RSA would have been... not shocking (they are smart) but new info.
It's quite possible I missed something, so this is a real request for an answer.
But if all he talked about was telephone metadata... well, it would be like a whistleblower saying Israel or Taiwan have nukes. I mean, duh. But we all agreed not to talk about it.
So, there's two questions intertwined. Could it be evidence of conspiracy and could it be considered obstruction like in this case.
I'd imagine that, as long as they were consistently followed, procedures demanding routine deletion of files would indemnify you against an additional obstruction charge.
I would imagine the existence of a policy far outside the norms for an industry could be cited as evidence of you knowing the records would be incriminating, in a circumstantial/up to the jury way. But that could be countered by having a good reason. It is really a "reasonable person could do this for legit reasons" standard. Nightly shredding of receipts (after the register has been reconciled) is considered a normal practice at some fast food places. (Why waste the space storing them?) Things like wage information being shredded monthly would be suspicious because W-2's, taxes, etc.
IANAL. The only advice I have is to seek a qualified attorney if you want legal advice.
I hope you mean "immediately after verifying the new backup" and not what you actually wrote.
It being part of your SOP shows that it wasn't to hide a crime, specifically. That's why Arthur Anderson sent copies of it's corporate retention policies with big underlined "Thou shalt delete emails after 90 days" to it's Houston office as the Enron was coming undone. I think that didn't work because it may have been written, but had not been followed.
IANAL, yada yada.
See also, food whose only plus is that it's spicy.
Sure, technically its not "not speech" it's "not protected speech". But I believe that point is often to fine to make when communicated over the internet.
Congress(or the government) totally can preemptively muzzle people... I find it bizarre that anyone would believe that it's okay to punish a criminal, but not prevent the crime. It's just that it has to be worthy of stopping ahead of time, to justify the greater risk of injustice, etc. Usually state secrets, etc.
Your correctly found the origin of the phrase, but totally missed the point. The point is not what is forbidden (your all-caps "FALSELY") but that it's not merely speech. It's a call to action. Just as your last example demonstrates. No one assumed Abbie was literally yelling about a fire. Context is important.
There are totally laws against certain communication. As a first, and obvious thing, we want laws against bomb threats, whether hoaxes or not. We allow laws against untrue communications, especially as people enter into contracts. We allow laws against communications used to further illegal activities, such as to coordinate a heist.
Fundamentally, not all communications are speech, because some communications have explicit direct non-speech results. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't speech. It's not designed to participate in a marketplace of the ideas and win. It's a communication designed to shut down rational conversation and begin emergency evacuations.
Now, these are fuzzy lines Planning a heist movie script is perfectly protected. So the government has to prove that it was an actual heist planning.
The lack of intent to do something is an excuse; intending to do something not realizing it is a crime is not. Therefore, posting something that you intend to be quotes of Eminem is different from the same words when you intend them as a threat.
At least, as far as I can tell. IANAL.
By that logic yachts have mass market appeal. Hell, uncut sheets of US currency are sold by the US Mint for more than their face value. But everyone wants US currency. So uncut sheets of US currency have mass market appeal... in spite of the fact that I've never heard of anyone other than bill collectors getting them.
TL;DR Mass market appeal needs to take into account cost. Everyone wants free stuff.
Well, not to shit on your parade, but most elite schools in the US (Ivy, MIT, CalTech) agreed to use need-blind admissions. They then offer need-based scholarships. These have ranged from stupid (MIT told a friend of mine she didn't qualify because her parents could sell their house) to generous (Brown).
And the majority of kids at Ivy League schools are on some amount of assistance. And even if they weren't, tuition only covers like 1/3 of the cost... the rest is borne by alumni/endowments.
Nope. I didn't (as politicians don't) really segregate "set aside income streams" from the general treasury. I factored in, not the cost of him paying for his own broadband, but him not needing government assistance, and paying taxes.
Well, it defined broadband as a specific speed. That speed costs different amounts at different locations. And based on the number of connections purchased. Some major cities you can get it for $20. It costs $9.25 by the article.
Well, leaving aside the 10x factor, yeah, I do. I mean, 100k to get someone off public assistance (food/shelter/health/etc) for their working years is a good return on the money.
Tons of free classes out there.
I don't see them as mutually exclusive. Not everyone is close enough to a community college to be able to commute there and live at home. And I think second chances for people who fucked around in high school are supremely important. With a HS diploma, you can do something. Without one, you're living off tax dollars til you get a GED... at least
Maybe a nickle of it.- You want those who succeeded to pay a higher share, fine. I think it's a good idea to ask people who make billions to pay a little more in taxes.
You're not in a great spot, and I empathize. I think it shouldn't be so hard for you. But, I certainly don't think it's inherently noble for you to have to work so hard to succeed. Society shouldn't force you to. We should make it easier.
You seem to think I have computational errors, or that I have logical errors. You didn't really point any out. But I will point out that you had factual errors, since I think that this statement opens that area of discussion.
$9.25, as per the article
Diverts the already being spent monies from being spent on a landline to a broadband connection
Well, by classes I intended more professional or at your own speed... so I didn't think it would take two years, But associates degrees take 18 months if you go straight through.
So, by your logic, that's 9.25 * 18 * 1000 = 166500. But, over a 20 year career ( short) if that person makes back 700/mo (not unreasonable, with $300 for foodstamps, $350 for section 8, $50 for medicaid) it pays for itself.
Seems good to me. I mean, not perfect, but self-substaining.
It's not an end-run. Crimes have a range of punishments. The punishment is to serve as a deterrent to both the offender in the future and society at large, to serve as rehabilitation for the offender, to isolate the offender from society, to hurt the offender to the degree to which the offender hurt society The last one have no relation previous offenses, but the first three do. If the criminal was convicted beforehand, it's pretty obvious that a minimum correction was ineffective at modifying behavior beforehand, so harsher punishment is called for. If the criminal was not convicted, but guilty, it indicates he is more a danger to society because he will do more damage before getting caught.
Okay, I think that the last part is pretty dubious. I have no issue with using previous convictions in the sentencing... I would probably have no issue with a trial resulting in a "probably" verdict that was not sufficient to punish at the time, but could be brought up at further sentencings. But accusations??
It's a tough issue
I don't know if that was supposed to be a retort. My point was that that 1/1000 will pay for the entirety of the 999. And that's just the lack of Section 8 hoursing, foodstamps, etc. Add in his taxes, and it's a positive. And the next 1000 will do the same.
It's a benefit to society if government handouts are the best way to distribute a good. See justice, fire protection and military defense for undisputed options.
In addition, we recognize that universal access is important for some goods, even if we allow private alternates or supplements. Such as primary education.
There's no reason to suspect it ever will run out. And if broadband allows one in a thousand to take online classes and go from unemployed and on assistance to being a productive member of society?
I'm confused. Coca-Cola bought it over time. And I thought you just told me book value was that paid for an asset. I know a giant loophole (at least in the 90's) was companies accounting for all their advertising (or international advertising maybe) as purchasing a depreciating asset (goodwill? brand? noteriety??) and then taking advantage of tax rebates that encouraged investment in assets. Then, writing off the cost over years.
Ah, thanks. You are correct. But, it's silly to say that Coca-Cola paid nothing for their brand... in fact, some (foreign?) advertising budgets get accounted for as assets and depreciation over time.
I'm not saying psychic powers exist. I'm saying the Randi challenge is dumb.
Also, your response is dumb.
It's not suggestive at all.
That said, I don't think it exists. You know, because of how physics seems to work.
The lottery uses balls that flip around willy-nilly. Telekineses would be really helpful.
But all the Randi challenge proves is that some abilities with low alternate value don't exist. But I don't even know what those abilities would be. For instance, buying land with water rights in the desert, and then reselling it (or oil, if that's what you can dowse for), would be extraordinarily profitable. But if everyone knew, you would never be able to buy anything.
Book value is the amount the company could expect to sell its assets for, assuming odd things like "goodwill" being something you can auction off. Other subcategories of book value eliminate the non-transferable or intangible.
Q is based on how much it would cost to replace a company if you had to start from scratch.
These are different. In art, for instance, the cost a specific Picasso was determined at auction to be 180 million. That's its book value. I have no idea how it's replacement value is determined. Is it the few grand it would take to hire an accomplished painter to recreate it pretty well? The 55 grand it takes to use that machine reproduction thing some museums have experimented with? Or the cost of buying and holding a sufficient number of paintings such that in 75 years you had a seminal work of a major artist (minus the liquidation value of the rest of the works)?
That's why Randi's contest always seemed like BS. I could make way more than a million dollars if I was psychic... but probably not if everyone knew I was. Maybe, if my descendants were non-psychic, I would admit it on my deathbed.
That's just false. Stagflation in the 70's was predicted by some theories but not others. The theories that did not predict stagflation were scrapped or modified. The fact that it takes 10+ years of watching to decide between two competing models is annoying, but does not mean that predictions are not made. You just cannot show it in a classroom, like with fruit flies that breed once a day to show genetics/adverse selection.