How exactly do you think that card manipulations tricks, collusion, and information sharing can help you cheat in a game of chess - in which there are no cards, there is no hidden information, and there are only two players?
Sure there's a trade off. Things might turn out better if you talk, you might avoid a fine or whatever. However, the downside can be huge.
There's common sense at work, for a traffic violation admitting you did it when the caught you in the act is fine - the penalties aren't jail terms (I'm not counting DUI offenses at traffic violations) and the cops word that you did it is good enough in court anyway. If they ask questions that require you to remember something you stop talking - after all recollecting incorrectly gets construed as lying easily enough. If you start getting emotional you stop talking. If you get placed under arrest then you say nothing until you have a lawyer who will hopefully prevent you from believing promises from the police and from letting your emotions (in an extremely stressful sitution) take over.
The UK (well England and Wales, I'm not sure how uniform things are over there - I suspect not very) is a little different from the US, since your silence can be used to draw inferences of guilt in court something that isn't allowed in the US. If anything that makes it even more critical to get a lawyer on your side to help you determine what to answer and what not to answer, since not answering at all can make things worse.
You certainly don't sign anything without a lawyer on your side. That isn't an EULA that you click OK to without reading. It potentially has a far bigger effect on your life than something like signing to buy a house which most people wouldn't do without having someone experienced in real estate transactions read.
Great idea. Rather than just saying nothing as all the experts (both lawyers and the police) say you should, instead try and emulate One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
She didn't do the right thing. In many jurisdictions starting the car while over the limit is a an offense. Sitting in the driver's seat of a running car while over the limit is. Being the only person in a running car might even be (you could be considered to be in control of the vehicle). Since she ended up with a fine and lost her license it seems to be an offense in her jurisdiction and hence she wasn't "doing the right thing".
She also talked to the cops. That's also not "doing the right thing". And worse signed a statement! Without a lawyer. She's either a grade A moron, or was ridiculously sloshed.
I think you might be surprised just how large that "nearby" area is during a large Australian bushfire. Whichever deity designed the Australian bush was clearly a pyromaniac.
Though the obvious counter to me is Australia and New Zealand. Similar to the US in that neither saw it's civilian populations bombed on any significant scale (Australia did get bombed by the Japanese about a hundred times, but nothing like the bombing in Europe - lots of it attacks on shipping). Both saw large number of able bodied young men die (relative to their populations). They aren't at the bottom of the chart.
Yes, and they also lots huge number of civilians when cities were firebombed, which the US did not.
As I said I don't think it's a valid argument, but the argument itself is based on the "nuked their fucking civilians" and "firebombed the fuck out of their cities" parts and hence those don't make for a good counter argument.
I don't agree with the argument, but I think that was his point.
The Japanese and Germans were bombed to all hell - killing across the board. That doesn't change the ratios, it just lowers the population.
Whereas America was not, it's deaths in WW2 were restricted to soldiers (obviously with some exceptions) - and the soldiers were selected from the fittest of the population. That will up the ratio of not healthy to fit individuals in the remaining lower population.
How do you know? Do you have a parallel universe machine that lets you see what would have happened in all the cases in which someone did use a gun in self defense if they had not done so?
Ten seconds of looking gives me: http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8378732&nav=menu549_2
- man starts shooting in a bar containing 300 people. 2 people die before he is shot by a civilian. Somehow you know that even though he was reloading when he was shot he wasn't going kill enough more people for you to call it a massacre?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html
- man has already killed 4 and is shot by a a lady who was volunteering as security at her church (so not quite a random bystander, but still a civilian carrying their private weapon). You know he wasn't going to kill anyone else, he brought 1000 rounds of ammunition for no reason at all.
Of course you are, most of the times a gun is used in self defense it doesn't result in the intruder being killed and hence isn't counted in such studies. And suicides which count in those "against someone you know" make up the majority of such deaths, though suicide rates in the US while pretty high don't scale with gun ownership (Japan has a much higher suicide rate but extremely strict gun control, The US has only a 20% higher suicide rate than Australia a country with strict gun control laws).
So sure the most likely death that will result from your gun is a suicide, but given the experience in other countries those suicides will happen anyway if you didn't own the gun. And of course by "suidices" I mean the 0.00007 suicides that will likely occur each year from it given the number of suicides and the number of guns in the US.
Exactly it's a "weed out the dullards" test. Sure you are going to lose some good people at that step (whether they find it so demeaning they walk out as the start of this thread seemed to state, or they are don't know that language but I'll learn it 2 days and be better than most experts types) but that's the case with whatever criteria you are selecting on.
I don't hire programmers, but I hire sysadmins and there are always people applying who don't actually know anything they put in their resume, I do work with programmers, and I've seen a few who were complete crap at programming (years later the developers are still dealing with the crap they managed to get into the code base - mind you that's also the senior developers and management's fault for not reviewing it closely enough when it was first added) but who seemed to do ok in interviews.
If you don't trust Nokia to not snoop on your data then why are you carrying around a device made by Nokia that contains a camera and a microphone and a cellular connection to the internet (and probably a gps though I don't know the details of Nokia's phones)?
If cars were designed by an all knowing, all powerful, god then no I wouldn't expect them to all have 8-cylinder engines. I would expect them all to use the optimal design for the niche they are in. If there was a component that was better than some other component in every way then yes I would expect the better component to always be used.
Of course the beauty of intelligent design is that nothing can ever run counter to it and hence it can never be shown false (it also doesn't provide any useful predictions for that same reason), so we can just say "god wants diversity in his cars" and problem averted.
What assumptions and additional actors does evolution add? In what universe are they not simple compared with "First we need to have an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal being"?
You really think that would be for a senior engineer position?
Unless it's an ungraduate assignment from a very specialized course it's going to be simple to do in less than 45 minutes. The only assignment I have done or set at an undergraduate level that wouldn't have been so was the "write a ray tracer" from a computer graphics course - and only because I don't remember the math off the top my head (it almost writes itself once you have that), I'd need to reread some stuff first.
Is it going to "indicate a better programmer", No. Is it going to indicate a "better employee", No. It probably will weed a large number of the really bad programmers though. And sure it'll cull a few potentially good employees , that might be worth culling those really bad ones though.
It's exactly what they should do. Rather than crossing their fingers and leaving it open and exploitable they've shut it down until they fix it. Sure that inconveniences the users and makes IT look bad, but it's the only correct choice.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly do you think that card manipulations tricks, collusion, and information sharing can help you cheat in a game of chess - in which there are no cards, there is no hidden information, and there are only two players?
Sure there's a trade off. Things might turn out better if you talk, you might avoid a fine or whatever. However, the downside can be huge.
There's common sense at work, for a traffic violation admitting you did it when the caught you in the act is fine - the penalties aren't jail terms (I'm not counting DUI offenses at traffic violations) and the cops word that you did it is good enough in court anyway. If they ask questions that require you to remember something you stop talking - after all recollecting incorrectly gets construed as lying easily enough. If you start getting emotional you stop talking. If you get placed under arrest then you say nothing until you have a lawyer who will hopefully prevent you from believing promises from the police and from letting your emotions (in an extremely stressful sitution) take over.
The UK (well England and Wales, I'm not sure how uniform things are over there - I suspect not very) is a little different from the US, since your silence can be used to draw inferences of guilt in court something that isn't allowed in the US. If anything that makes it even more critical to get a lawyer on your side to help you determine what to answer and what not to answer, since not answering at all can make things worse.
You certainly don't sign anything without a lawyer on your side. That isn't an EULA that you click OK to without reading. It potentially has a far bigger effect on your life than something like signing to buy a house which most people wouldn't do without having someone experienced in real estate transactions read.
Great idea. Rather than just saying nothing as all the experts (both lawyers and the police) say you should, instead try and emulate One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
The one time I've been arrested I managed not to sign a confession so I'm way ahead already.
She didn't do the right thing. In many jurisdictions starting the car while over the limit is a an offense. Sitting in the driver's seat of a running car while over the limit is. Being the only person in a running car might even be (you could be considered to be in control of the vehicle). Since she ended up with a fine and lost her license it seems to be an offense in her jurisdiction and hence she wasn't "doing the right thing".
She also talked to the cops. That's also not "doing the right thing". And worse signed a statement! Without a lawyer. She's either a grade A moron, or was ridiculously sloshed.
I think you might be surprised just how large that "nearby" area is during a large Australian bushfire. Whichever deity designed the Australian bush was clearly a pyromaniac.
The post was clearly referring to hazard reduction burning, not backburning. Same organisation does them but they are very different things.
I thought I was keeping with the theme, that you might actually take it as an actual insult didn't even cross my mind.
Yeah I agree. It's a daft argument.
Though the obvious counter to me is Australia and New Zealand. Similar to the US in that neither saw it's civilian populations bombed on any significant scale (Australia did get bombed by the Japanese about a hundred times, but nothing like the bombing in Europe - lots of it attacks on shipping). Both saw large number of able bodied young men die (relative to their populations). They aren't at the bottom of the chart.
It's not my premise.
Yes, and they also lots huge number of civilians when cities were firebombed, which the US did not.
As I said I don't think it's a valid argument, but the argument itself is based on the "nuked their fucking civilians" and "firebombed the fuck out of their cities" parts and hence those don't make for a good counter argument.
I don't agree with the argument, but I think that was his point.
The Japanese and Germans were bombed to all hell - killing across the board. That doesn't change the ratios, it just lowers the population.
Whereas America was not, it's deaths in WW2 were restricted to soldiers (obviously with some exceptions) - and the soldiers were selected from the fittest of the population. That will up the ratio of not healthy to fit individuals in the remaining lower population.
Since the government is descended from governing penal colonies it doesn't seem that strange to me.
HAARP had that very website 5 years before you were telling people about HARP you idiot. Well OK they've made a few minor updates in the meantine.
http://web.archive.org/web/19970401121448/http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
The Rentenmark was backed by land.
Why would I care?
How do you know? Do you have a parallel universe machine that lets you see what would have happened in all the cases in which someone did use a gun in self defense if they had not done so?
Ten seconds of looking gives me:
http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8378732&nav=menu549_2
- man starts shooting in a bar containing 300 people. 2 people die before he is shot by a civilian. Somehow you know that even though he was reloading when he was shot he wasn't going kill enough more people for you to call it a massacre?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/index.html
- man has already killed 4 and is shot by a a lady who was volunteering as security at her church (so not quite a random bystander, but still a civilian carrying their private weapon). You know he wasn't going to kill anyone else, he brought 1000 rounds of ammunition for no reason at all.
Of course you are, most of the times a gun is used in self defense it doesn't result in the intruder being killed and hence isn't counted in such studies. And suicides which count in those "against someone you know" make up the majority of such deaths, though suicide rates in the US while pretty high don't scale with gun ownership (Japan has a much higher suicide rate but extremely strict gun control, The US has only a 20% higher suicide rate than Australia a country with strict gun control laws).
So sure the most likely death that will result from your gun is a suicide, but given the experience in other countries those suicides will happen anyway if you didn't own the gun. And of course by "suidices" I mean the 0.00007 suicides that will likely occur each year from it given the number of suicides and the number of guns in the US.
Exactly it's a "weed out the dullards" test. Sure you are going to lose some good people at that step (whether they find it so demeaning they walk out as the start of this thread seemed to state, or they are don't know that language but I'll learn it 2 days and be better than most experts types) but that's the case with whatever criteria you are selecting on.
I don't hire programmers, but I hire sysadmins and there are always people applying who don't actually know anything they put in their resume, I do work with programmers, and I've seen a few who were complete crap at programming (years later the developers are still dealing with the crap they managed to get into the code base - mind you that's also the senior developers and management's fault for not reviewing it closely enough when it was first added) but who seemed to do ok in interviews.
If you don't trust Nokia to not snoop on your data then why are you carrying around a device made by Nokia that contains a camera and a microphone and a cellular connection to the internet (and probably a gps though I don't know the details of Nokia's phones)?
That won't be making it's ridiculous finding goal. Not very useful and stupidly expensive to boot.
If cars were designed by an all knowing, all powerful, god then no I wouldn't expect them to all have 8-cylinder engines. I would expect them all to use the optimal design for the niche they are in. If there was a component that was better than some other component in every way then yes I would expect the better component to always be used.
Of course the beauty of intelligent design is that nothing can ever run counter to it and hence it can never be shown false (it also doesn't provide any useful predictions for that same reason), so we can just say "god wants diversity in his cars" and problem averted.
What assumptions and additional actors does evolution add? In what universe are they not simple compared with "First we need to have an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal being"?
You really think that would be for a senior engineer position?
Unless it's an ungraduate assignment from a very specialized course it's going to be simple to do in less than 45 minutes. The only assignment I have done or set at an undergraduate level that wouldn't have been so was the "write a ray tracer" from a computer graphics course - and only because I don't remember the math off the top my head (it almost writes itself once you have that), I'd need to reread some stuff first.
Is it going to "indicate a better programmer", No. Is it going to indicate a "better employee", No. It probably will weed a large number of the really bad programmers though. And sure it'll cull a few potentially good employees , that might be worth culling those really bad ones though.
Silly???
It's exactly what they should do. Rather than crossing their fingers and leaving it open and exploitable they've shut it down until they fix it. Sure that inconveniences the users and makes IT look bad, but it's the only correct choice.