I came here to say the same thing: The stamps are not smart any more than a barcode is smart or a book is smart or a painting is smart. “Smart” implies the ability to process information, not just the ability to store or convey information.
The phone that can snap the photo and recognize the stamp may, arguably, be called smart. The stamps are not smart.
The articles and titles often get edited when they are posted with typos or errors. Users’ posts do not, so even if the headline gets fixed, we will still get to look at your spelling error.
Don’t forget the people who see speed limit signs and think that since theyre advertising the upper limit at which one should travel, it is perfectly okay for them to travel 5 MPH under in the left lane of traffic and feel smugly superior to the guy weaving and flashing his lights behind them because they’re meticulously following the law and bent on forcing the asshole behind them to follow the law too (well, at least until he gets an opportunity to break the law again by passing you on the right, and wish for a portable rocket launcher with with to break the law further by blowing your smug self onto the median). Ironically enough, this is illegal in many (most?) states: slower-moving traffic should move right, regardless of the speed limit... and also ironically enough, it is illegal precisely because they are inconsiderately endangering others on the road. So, if you are one of those drivers, you can take your smugness and shove it up your ass. At least the guy behind you isn’t making any hypocritical pretenses about strictly following the law while he’s driving like an asshole.
He was not referring to the turn lanes. He was referring to the entrance ramp to the highway – a.k.a. the “pull out and wait to merge” lane by stupid drivers who think that is how you get onto a highway: pull onto the acceleration lane, STOP, and wait for an opening large enough to accelerate into from a complete stop. I.e. one large enough to drive a semi through.
Um, no, actually I went and found the actual link (as D2 doesn’t give you a proper link – it’s all Javascript and AJAX) and that is what I posted. And, as it happens, I visited it to make sure of myself before I posted it. “Web” is an option on many of the items – not all of them.
Did you even click the link I posted – or were you perhaps in the D2 system? (If you went through help & preferences, you were in D2.)
I’ve found that the original discussion / “new” discussion (D2) systems have clashed at times – for a while my account was screwed up (D2 just plain not working – links loading new pages instead of AJAX – browsing threshold mysteriously locked at +2 despite saying it was at -1), but I finally got it straightened out. In my case, it was the/my/comments page that fixed it – my all-else-failed was clicking the “Restore Defaults” button at the very bottom, and then it was working. It resets all the options on that page, though.
the statement '2 in 5 are below 100' is generally accepted by statisticians in such a context
Probably so but it’s still misleading because most non-statisticians will think that given 5 people, 2 will be below 100.
Like the old joke (many varieties of it exist)... statisticians tell me that 1 in 3 people is Chinese, and my parents have 3 children, and I’m pretty sure I’m not Chinese, so that leaves Fred and Hu. Personally, I’m inclined to think it’s Fred.
There are ways to lose your citizenship, so if you really don’t want it you can probably find a way to be rid of it. Of course that means finding somewhere else to live...
Erm, no, it still doesn’t. At best, I’ll give you that it means there’s a good probability that 2 of them are below 100 IQ if the 5 people were randomly selected. I suspect this is what the Anonymous Coward was elusively hinting at./pedantic
You could change your mind, but then you’d look stupid, which biases you toward maintaining the conclusion you jumped to before you knew all of the facts. Jurors aren’t supposed to be biased.
I find the easiest way to identify a dumb person is by seeing who makes narcissistic, holier-than-thou posts on Slashdot. Thanks for making my life so easy.
It’s true. Jurors are legally obligated to think in a certain way: reasonably and without unjust bias.
That said, I am absolutely opposed to any semblance of thoughtcrime and people should be punished for the effects of their actions, not for their thoughts or motives. This doesn’t make their thoughts or motives necessarily right or okay... it just means that thoughts and motives don’t cause actual harm if they aren’t carried out and people shouldn’t be punished for them.
Yeah, that’s pretty much my point. A jurors job is not to jump to the right conclusion, it is to know the right conclusion because of the process of the trial that was supposed to lead to that right conclusion.
Still not threatening, though at that point you’re bordering on behaviour that could get you a talking-to from someone who’s interested in researching you.
His motive (personal bias) is irrelevant, because he isn’t the person who got to decide what her punishment would be, or even whether or not what she did was wrong. The judge did. All he did was fact-finding.
Threatening and intimidating the jury is a great way to get jailtime, if that’s what you’re after...
Doing a bit of research to ensure that the jury isn’t biased, on the other hand, is not “threatening” or “intimidating” them... any more than taking pictures of cops is “threatening” or “intimidating”. It’s their job. They’re working for you. You’re making sure they’re doing the job. Problem, officer?
The judge was punishing her for talking about her opinion – ideally we’d like to punish her for having it, but that’d be difficult if she didn’t talk about having it.
And, as other people pointed out slightly more explicitly than I had tried to imply, having an opinion and changing it is a little more likely if you didn’t broadcast the opinion for the world to see.
Slashdot Mirror
I came here to say the same thing: The stamps are not smart any more than a barcode is smart or a book is smart or a painting is smart. “Smart” implies the ability to process information, not just the ability to store or convey information.
The phone that can snap the photo and recognize the stamp may, arguably, be called smart. The stamps are not smart.
The articles and titles often get edited when they are posted with typos or errors. Users’ posts do not, so even if the headline gets fixed, we will still get to look at your spelling error.
Unlike most fantasies, your fantasy world sucks. I actually think I like reality better.
Don’t forget the people who see speed limit signs and think that since theyre advertising the upper limit at which one should travel, it is perfectly okay for them to travel 5 MPH under in the left lane of traffic and feel smugly superior to the guy weaving and flashing his lights behind them because they’re meticulously following the law and bent on forcing the asshole behind them to follow the law too (well, at least until he gets an opportunity to break the law again by passing you on the right, and wish for a portable rocket launcher with with to break the law further by blowing your smug self onto the median). Ironically enough, this is illegal in many (most?) states: slower-moving traffic should move right, regardless of the speed limit... and also ironically enough, it is illegal precisely because they are inconsiderately endangering others on the road. So, if you are one of those drivers, you can take your smugness and shove it up your ass. At least the guy behind you isn’t making any hypocritical pretenses about strictly following the law while he’s driving like an asshole.
That wasn’t the opposite, it was the same. Perhaps GP’s mother had the unspoken assumption that her offspring would be innocent.
He was not referring to the turn lanes. He was referring to the entrance ramp to the highway – a.k.a. the “pull out and wait to merge” lane by stupid drivers who think that is how you get onto a highway: pull onto the acceleration lane, STOP, and wait for an opening large enough to accelerate into from a complete stop. I.e. one large enough to drive a semi through.
Um, no, actually I went and found the actual link (as D2 doesn’t give you a proper link – it’s all Javascript and AJAX) and that is what I posted. And, as it happens, I visited it to make sure of myself before I posted it. “Web” is an option on many of the items – not all of them.
Did you even click the link I posted – or were you perhaps in the D2 system? (If you went through help & preferences, you were in D2.)
I’ve found that the original discussion / “new” discussion (D2) systems have clashed at times – for a while my account was screwed up (D2 just plain not working – links loading new pages instead of AJAX – browsing threshold mysteriously locked at +2 despite saying it was at -1), but I finally got it straightened out. In my case, it was the /my/comments page that fixed it – my all-else-failed was clicking the “Restore Defaults” button at the very bottom, and then it was working. It resets all the options on that page, though.
the statement '2 in 5 are below 100' is generally accepted by statisticians in such a context
Probably so but it’s still misleading because most non-statisticians will think that given 5 people, 2 will be below 100.
Like the old joke (many varieties of it exist)... statisticians tell me that 1 in 3 people is Chinese, and my parents have 3 children, and I’m pretty sure I’m not Chinese, so that leaves Fred and Hu. Personally, I’m inclined to think it’s Fred.
You forgot one. ;)
There are ways to lose your citizenship, so if you really don’t want it you can probably find a way to be rid of it. Of course that means finding somewhere else to live...
Erm, no, it still doesn’t. At best, I’ll give you that it means there’s a good probability that 2 of them are below 100 IQ if the 5 people were randomly selected. I suspect this is what the Anonymous Coward was elusively hinting at. /pedantic
You could change your mind, but then you’d look stupid, which biases you toward maintaining the conclusion you jumped to before you knew all of the facts. Jurors aren’t supposed to be biased.
Yes. They want monkeys.
I find the easiest way to identify a dumb person is by seeing who makes narcissistic, holier-than-thou posts on Slashdot. Thanks for making my life so easy.
There’s no +1 for “Recursive.”
It’s true. Jurors are legally obligated to think in a certain way: reasonably and without unjust bias.
That said, I am absolutely opposed to any semblance of thoughtcrime and people should be punished for the effects of their actions, not for their thoughts or motives. This doesn’t make their thoughts or motives necessarily right or okay... it just means that thoughts and motives don’t cause actual harm if they aren’t carried out and people shouldn’t be punished for them.
Yeah, that’s pretty much my point. A jurors job is not to jump to the right conclusion, it is to know the right conclusion because of the process of the trial that was supposed to lead to that right conclusion.
random people who get extra rules foisted on them for varying lengths of time which can get them jailed without a proper trial if they break them.
You’re a citizen? Okay, you already agreed to that law.
Still not threatening, though at that point you’re bordering on behaviour that could get you a talking-to from someone who’s interested in researching you.
His motive (personal bias) is irrelevant, because he isn’t the person who got to decide what her punishment would be, or even whether or not what she did was wrong. The judge did. All he did was fact-finding.
Threatening and intimidating the jury is a great way to get jailtime, if that’s what you’re after...
Doing a bit of research to ensure that the jury isn’t biased, on the other hand, is not “threatening” or “intimidating” them... any more than taking pictures of cops is “threatening” or “intimidating”. It’s their job. They’re working for you. You’re making sure they’re doing the job. Problem, officer?
The judge was punishing her for talking about her opinion – ideally we’d like to punish her for having it, but that’d be difficult if she didn’t talk about having it.
And, as other people pointed out slightly more explicitly than I had tried to imply, having an opinion and changing it is a little more likely if you didn’t broadcast the opinion for the world to see.
I'd write that 5 pages...
in 72pt...
comic sans
Just sayin'...
In the immortal words of Dirty Harry (okay, paraphrased slightly)...
“Do you feel lucky, punk?
Well...?
DO YOU?”
In the slightly-less-immortal words of me...
Try it – I think pretty much everyone would benefit from the result.
And what – posted a comment on the status update? or maybe another status update would have been more appropriate...
Why the fuck was she talking about the trial?! If nothing else, it’s a good way to bias yourself and a terrible way to make an unbiased decision.
Can but shouldn’t. Jumping to the correct conclusion is right every time... except it’s wrong by definition.
Well... you always have a choice, as this juror demonstrated...