Perhaps they can get it removed, but how often are people really "wrongly arrested"?
You are kidding, right?
E.g, http://www.caught.net/innoc.htm:
For every seven executed, one innocent person is freed-an "error rate" of more than twelve (12) percent. In the State of Illinois, 12 people have been executed since 1977 while 13 have been released after proving they are innocent...
And that is just for the most serious crimes, where the evidence is checked much more thoroughly.
I would imagine tens or hundreds thousand people are wrongly arrested every year.
I should have made the point of my question more clear.
All we need now are a some people to coordinate it, some money to pay for it, and to get the international communities of each of the relevant disciplines to agree to it:)
Well, the distinction between inherent and empirical is somewhat unclear to me. One would presume that any absolute inherent truth would be reflected in the structure of the universe, thus making it empirical.
1+1=2 is not an empirical claim, it's an axiomatic statement, an analytical truth, if you will (one that is 'true by definition') - something like "all bachelors are unmarried men" in that it contains the predicate within the subject.
Not necessarily. If you know what one object is and if you know what two objects are, then 1+1=2 becomes an empirical statement. Given one object and another object can you recognize them together
as two objects?
Once you start applying a mathematical truth to the real world it starts being empirical. There is nothing inherently axiomatic about 4 sets of 3 objects being the same as 3 sets of 4 objects.
The reason for the magical number 7 is that military grade security standard involves overwriting the data 8 times. Of course, it is done to be absolutely sure that nothing can be restored and is not really needed.
I don't know about the university but it would be quite difficult to prove in court that she downloaded something if it does not exist on her computer anymore. E.g., how could one possibly know what she downloaded?
1. It's not diverting resources from other, more useful research -- the people doing research on toilet paper would probably not be doing research on any of the applications I mentioned if they weren't working on TP instead.
But surely it is - they could be working on something (presumably) more worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you have to think his statements are more than a bit self-serving.
You can keep your TV as long as you pay your licensing fee. Of course, if your friends come over, that would be extra.
You are kidding, right?
E.g, http://www.caught.net/innoc.htm: For every seven executed, one innocent person is freed-an "error rate" of more than twelve (12) percent. In the State of Illinois, 12 people have been executed since 1977 while 13 have been released after proving they are innocent ...
And that is just for the most serious crimes, where the evidence is checked much more thoroughly.
I would imagine tens or hundreds thousand people are wrongly arrested every year.
All we need now are a some people to coordinate it, some money to pay for it, and to get the international communities of each of the relevant disciplines to agree to it:)
Sounds easy :)
That does not answer the question. Peer review seems to have nothing to with publishing in a for-pay journal.
What does peer review have to do with journals?
And inspiration comes from nothing, right?
I learned the language of regular expressions well.
It consists of the * symbol.
Adblock is amazing. You can block anything using regular expressions!
Sure, it happens, but the general tendency in the US is for harsher penalties.
The grandparent post is right.
Of course they are quiet.
They don't even exist!
Well, the distinction between inherent and empirical is somewhat unclear to me. One would presume that any absolute inherent truth would be reflected in the structure of the universe, thus making it empirical.
Not necessarily. If you know what one object is and if you know what two objects are, then 1+1=2 becomes an empirical statement. Given one object and another object can you recognize them together as two objects?
Once you start applying a mathematical truth to the real world it starts being empirical. There is nothing inherently axiomatic about 4 sets of 3 objects being the same as 3 sets of 4 objects.
FYI, sigmoid is not a kernel. It is not positive definite.
What's your point?
Gotta love this orgy of righteousness on slashdot.
What exactly is your point?
The reason for the magical number 7 is that military grade security standard involves overwriting the data 8 times. Of course, it is done to be absolutely sure that nothing can be restored and is not really needed.
I don't know about the university but it would be quite difficult to prove in court that she downloaded something if it does not exist on her computer anymore. E.g., how could one possibly know what she downloaded?
What's wrong with this logic?
I am sorry but your comment is un-American.
But surely it is - they could be working on something (presumably) more worthwhile.
Do you also oppose research on making softer toilet paper through the same line of reasoning?
Man, that's deep.