Physics has a several hundred year head start on Economics. In some ways, we're about where Newton was . . .
And we have older folks who haven't progressed what was taught when they were in grad school (e.g., Krugman). Samuelson observed that the field progresses "one funeral at a time."
And testing hypotheses in economics tends to take longer, and we aren't allowed to tinker with economies to take measurements, for some reason:) [Congress hating competition?]
About two thirds of things are within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% within two, and 99% in three.
This applies to all bell-shaped data, which is nearly (but not quite) all of it. Slightly broader rules (Chebyshev) apply to all data, regardless of distribution)
There is no similar statement for average deviation.
And *you* seem to be under the impression that economists are "social scientists," or act similarly.
I have a B.S. in Physics, and my Ph.D. is jointly in Economics and Statistics--including classes taken in Pearson Hall (yes, the same Pearson--statistics as a field comes largely from the Iowa State Statistics Lab).
Again, with a Ph.D. in economics, I still don't understand what the so-called "social sciences" are--they seem to be primarily an claim to an exemption from the scientific method (which has a lot to do with economists not getting along with social scientists).
Mainstream modern economists are indeed scientists, although there are definite problems with gathering data.
Many years ago, long before 9/11 and the TSA, I was flying with my mac powerbook 180. I had difficulty with a security official whose instructions were to make every computer show a c: prompt . . .
>>The reality is that around 80% of people use >>non-Apple phones, which means that for any 5 >>random phones seen on TV, only one should be >>an iPhone, yet we all know that it isn't the case.
No. 80% may use non-apple, but programs try to be about *interesting* people, who are more inclined to iPhones . . .:)
hawk, who doesn't always get stiffed on royalties when fictitious characters are based on him--but when they are, they sell crappy beer . . .
I recall the 2d West Coast Computer Faire, at which I was impressed by the unit. It connected to a parallel port. They had it announcing, "My name is Vo-trax. I can say eneeeething."
Announcing that it isn't property doesn't change seven hundred years of Common Law, anymore than the mantra that "perjury isn't impeachable" changed the law in the 90s (in fact, 7 of the 10 impeachable offenses that Blackstone listed were forms of perjury, and 3 or 4 federal judges were impeached for various perjury in the 80s).
The computer is tangible personal property, and withholding/controlling the password exercises dominion and control ofter that chattel.
This has long been recognized. For example, "trespass vi et armis" is an civil (might also be criminal; I haven't worried about it in decades) doctrine governing trespass without physically being on the land, the classic example being the percussion from an explosion on the next land causing damage.
It is certainly *easier* to prosecute under newer specific laws, but claiming that the current laws *cannot* be used is just plain wrong.
Nah, it was the writers' math teachers that were foiled . . . mixing "for the most point, they don't respond" with "nearly a third" not answered . . . so for the most part they *do* respond.
As an attorney, I could easily see prosecuting these under traditional property crimes, as well: a password is a type of property, and taking it could be larceny, for example.
Such laws certainly make the prosecution easier (to the dismay of my criminal law partner)
To have this tax collected for them, instead of trying and failing to collect a "use tax" as they do now, they would have to agree to this simplified system which is not burdensome on the small business collecting it.
Either the entities sharing the zip code agree, or they watch the revenue pile up on trust.
Search works Dan Ashman on article life. That particular one may be apocryphal (given how AL is designed, it probably is, as most are run in artificial environments, and not on the machine themselves).
Anyway, it's well known that the experiments *do* evolve to take advantage of flaws in the environment. I had a sign error in an economic model, and it found an equilibrium at a negative price.
Dan had a bad random number generator, and the things evolved to take advantage of its sequence! (I assume he's written about this at length, as much as he talked about it . ..).
In another case where someone in that same group was evolving programs, they instituted a random choice after a certain number of program steps as a penalty for taking too long. Turns out that the critters evolved to use that as a synchronization device . . .
Either of these could be the source of your tale after being relayed a couple of times.
A second system would be unlikely for most of these--even on a 486, complex experiments were done on single computers.
There isn't a court in the country with jurisdiction to prosecute "he sped somewhere in some jurisdiction." A court needs to convict for a specified violation within it's own jurisdiction. An acknowledgment that means a crime was committed *somewhere* that *might* have been in that jurisdiction isn't sufficient to convict.
>Collecting sales tax on behalf of the states has >been proposed, but some states don't collect sales >tax and again, it probably would be struck down as >unconstitutional based on state's rights to collect >the tax.
Speaking as a lawyer . . .
you're just plain wrong on this.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that while states cannot force out of state entities to collect sales tax for them, it is for Congress to find a solution. It is not that states *cannot* tax the purchases, but that they cannot tax *out of state* entities. Congress indisputably has the power to handle the issue.
The solution has been obvious for more than a decade.
Each zipcode gets a tax rate. If it crosses jurisdictional lines, either the jurisdictions resolve the split between themselves, or it stays in trust until a court resolves the split.
This is a *very* small array for an electronic report.
The company writes a single check, with a monthly electronic report breaking it down by zip code.
Slashdot Mirror
Physics has a several hundred year head start on Economics. In some ways, we're about where Newton was . . .
And we have older folks who haven't progressed what was taught when they were in grad school (e.g., Krugman). Samuelson observed that the field progresses "one funeral at a time."
And testing hypotheses in economics tends to take longer, and we aren't allowed to tinker with economies to take measurements, for some reason :) [Congress hating competition?]
hawk
About two thirds of things are within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% within two, and 99% in three.
This applies to all bell-shaped data, which is nearly (but not quite) all of it. Slightly broader rules (Chebyshev) apply to all data, regardless of distribution)
There is no similar statement for average deviation.
hawk
This gives us two possibilities:
1) You had a bad statistics professor, or
2) You shouldn't have received your passing grade.
hawk
And *you* seem to be under the impression that economists are "social scientists," or act similarly.
I have a B.S. in Physics, and my Ph.D. is jointly in Economics and Statistics--including classes taken in Pearson Hall (yes, the same Pearson--statistics as a field comes largely from the Iowa State Statistics Lab).
Again, with a Ph.D. in economics, I still don't understand what the so-called "social sciences" are--they seem to be primarily an claim to an exemption from the scientific method (which has a lot to do with economists not getting along with social scientists).
Mainstream modern economists are indeed scientists, although there are definite problems with gathering data.
hawk, aka dochawk
Won't this leave our *own* Australian coast undefended from rampaging icebergs!
hawk, scratching his head trying to figure out what the USCG is doing in Australia
I've driven in NYC, Boston, Chicago, SF, LA during the freeway shootings (which my observations suggested were largely justified), and San Diego.
I live in Las Vegas with bad drivers from all of the above in no predictable pattern.
The night I learned to drive, my father took me down the aptly named "Blood Alley" in San Jose.
There's only one place I'm afraid to drive: a Roman Catholic parking lot after Mass . . .
*shudder*
hawk
>Not really an earth-shattering concept...
A bulldozer dispenser, however . . . :)
hawk
Many years ago, long before 9/11 and the TSA, I was flying with my mac powerbook 180. I had difficulty with a security official whose instructions were to make every computer show a c: prompt . . .
hawk
>>The reality is that around 80% of people use
>>non-Apple phones, which means that for any 5
>>random phones seen on TV, only one should be
>>an iPhone, yet we all know that it isn't the case.
No. 80% may use non-apple, but programs try to be about *interesting* people, who are more inclined to iPhones . . . :)
hawk, who doesn't always get stiffed on royalties when fictitious characters are based on him--but when they are, they sell crappy beer . . .
It was a Votrax, wasn't it?
I recall the 2d West Coast Computer Faire, at which I was impressed by the unit. It connected to a parallel port. They had it announcing, "My name is Vo-trax. I can say eneeeething."
hawk
Vile hereteic!
For thy sin of requesting ye olde blob, thou art excommunicated from the High Church of Emacs.
There is NEVER an excuse for not handing over all your work, err, releasing the source.
(2 minutes now is too fast? Where's the "it's *ME*, damnit key? [hawk, who has a 4 digit uid as it took him a while to get over the cookies thing)
And now 4 minutes is too soon???
No, you need to plagiarize two separate sources to be research . . .
hawk, former academic
Since that, though, Texas seceded, and then became conquered territory . . .
hawk
>I am curious, how do you think the police should be able to look for people drink driving?
Speaking as an attorney, but not giving legal advice . . .
Most DUI arrests come form being pulled over from something else. Folks aren't generally weaving from lane to lane till about .20 . . .
But inebriated folks do other things that get them pulled over--speeding, lane changes, cutting folks off, and so forth . . .
hawk, esq.
Announcing that it isn't property doesn't change seven hundred years of Common Law, anymore than the mantra that "perjury isn't impeachable" changed the law in the 90s (in fact, 7 of the 10 impeachable offenses that Blackstone listed were forms of perjury, and 3 or 4 federal judges were impeached for various perjury in the 80s).
The computer is tangible personal property, and withholding/controlling the password exercises dominion and control ofter that chattel.
This has long been recognized. For example, "trespass vi et armis" is an civil (might also be criminal; I haven't worried about it in decades) doctrine governing trespass without physically being on the land, the classic example being the percussion from an explosion on the next land causing damage.
It is certainly *easier* to prosecute under newer specific laws, but claiming that the current laws *cannot* be used is just plain wrong.
hawk, esq.
Nah, it was the writers' math teachers that were foiled . . . mixing "for the most point, they don't respond" with "nearly a third" not answered . . . so for the most part they *do* respond.
hawk
As an attorney, I could easily see prosecuting these under traditional property crimes, as well: a password is a type of property, and taking it could be larceny, for example.
Such laws certainly make the prosecution easier (to the dismay of my criminal law partner)
hawk, esq.
I won a free 7" Galaxy 3 at a conference last week.
It would take a lot more to reach "underwhelmed" by it.
At $500 for an iPad, and $100 for it, I'll take the iPad.
Heck, at $500 iPad, and free tablet, I'll take the ipad.
hawk
They're not forced. to.
To have this tax collected for them, instead of trying and failing to collect a "use tax" as they do now, they would have to agree to this simplified system which is not burdensome on the small business collecting it.
Either the entities sharing the zip code agree, or they watch the revenue pile up on trust.
hawk
Search works Dan Ashman on article life. That particular one may be apocryphal (given how AL is designed, it probably is, as most are run in artificial environments, and not on the machine themselves).
Anyway, it's well known that the experiments *do* evolve to take advantage of flaws in the environment. I had a sign error in an economic model, and it found an equilibrium at a negative price.
Dan had a bad random number generator, and the things evolved to take advantage of its sequence! (I assume he's written about this at length, as much as he talked about it . . .).
In another case where someone in that same group was evolving programs, they instituted a random choice after a certain number of program steps as a penalty for taking too long. Turns out that the critters evolved to use that as a synchronization device . . .
Either of these could be the source of your tale after being relayed a couple of times.
A second system would be unlikely for most of these--even on a 486, complex experiments were done on single computers.
hawk
Speaking as a lawyer . . .
"in court" is the catch.
*which* court?
There isn't a court in the country with jurisdiction to prosecute "he sped somewhere in some jurisdiction." A court needs to convict for a specified violation within it's own jurisdiction. An acknowledgment that means a crime was committed *somewhere* that *might* have been in that jurisdiction isn't sufficient to convict.
hawk, esq.
>Collecting sales tax on behalf of the states has
>been proposed, but some states don't collect sales
>tax and again, it probably would be struck down as
>unconstitutional based on state's rights to collect
>the tax.
Speaking as a lawyer . . .
you're just plain wrong on this.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that while states cannot force out of state entities to collect sales tax for them, it is for Congress to find a solution. It is not that states *cannot* tax the purchases, but that they cannot tax *out of state* entities. Congress indisputably has the power to handle the issue.
hawk, esq.
The solution has been obvious for more than a decade.
Each zipcode gets a tax rate. If it crosses jurisdictional lines, either the jurisdictions resolve the split between themselves, or it stays in trust until a court resolves the split.
This is a *very* small array for an electronic report.
The company writes a single check, with a monthly electronic report breaking it down by zip code.
Well, Fluffy *had* caught a record-setting number of mice about the plant recently . . .
hawk
Nah, it's well established.
I regularly get sent things that only need me to provide my card number, social security number, and date of birth to confirm my information.
The exiled Chief's widow has friends in Russia that are helping get my money back . . .
hawk