I guess it depends on the person but I wouldn't say their "essential". My handwriting is awful, but I always took notes on paper despite being a Comptuer Science student. Maybe if you have a tablet with a writing pen it'd be the same but I always found writing notes manually helped me more. Maybe it's because I had to concentrate on what I was writing more, or because I didn't have to waste time with thinking about how I was going to draw a graph or what keys/menus would give me mathematical symbols or draw a matrix or whatever. I hardly ever even read back through my notes, but something about the tactile sensation of writing it while your hearing and reading it really helped me remember. There's some sort of disconnect as far as I'm concerned with putting things in electronic form.
I feel like there's some sort of subconscious undercurrent of understanding that when you commit something to electronic form so it's available to pull up whenever you please so you don't need to remember it. At least for me writing in on a sheet of paper makes it seem real, physical, and temporary. And therefore something in my brain knows I must memorize it, because it won't always be there at hand forever.
Ugh, no. I would have rather have the social interactions of a classroom setting and easy access to the instructor. I'm the one paying the money and that's what I want. I understand some people learn just as well that way but I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people don't. We just aren't wired that way as humans, and it has nothing to do with being "adult" about it. Humans are wired for social interaction, they are wired to listen to a leader and pay attention during instruction in a group dynamic, and they are wired to more often then not to easily concentrate on what someone is saying when they are physically in the room with them. Whether this was how we were built or these wiring's were passed on because they better contributed to the survival of the group at large it's just the way it is. People, on the whole, find it easier to learn this way. And that's before we get into all the added benefits of social interaction and collaboration.
That isn't to say offering online classes to those few who learn just as well that way, or find the trade-off worth it because of distance or time constraints is wrong, I'm just saying getting rid of physical classes completely as a solution to people distracting others with their laptops is highly illogical.
The moral of the parable was NOT feel free to fuck people over as long as you can point to someone else who's doing it worse. This widespread ideal that as long as you can point to a worse offender to somehow moralize your own actions is the singular most destructive ideal in today's political and social climate. I've seen it from all sides, all parties, and it's absolutely ludicrous.
Also it should be pointed out if you have to compare the wrongs of two people (Manning and Assange) with the wrongs of the entire Executive Branch of the United States Government over decades of history (while ignoring any counterbalancing good by either side) just to achieve that moral relativism you probably have a problem
Only if the statistical methods they are using are novel. They might just be using a grab-bag of assorted statistical methods already described by others and simply applying them to their specific problem. And really the proof here is in the results isn't it? If you use this thing and it points you to tests you should check out and upon further investigation you find those students cheated then it works. If it's also flagging 20 other tests where you don't find any evidence of the student cheating then it's not worth it. If the benefit isn't immediately obvious without a peer review and statistical analysis I can't imagine it being worth it anyways.
Yes, fear of math and statistics is exactly what will make us smarter.
I beg to differ - understanding math and statistics is what would make us smarter. I'll leave the room now and you can argue with my doctorate.
Was your thesis by chance titled Statistical Methods for Detecting Sarcasm in Unstructured Text? That might be an area where you'll find a personal benefit to using a probabilistic approach over manual identification. Just sayin;)
Also, methodology FAIL. Writing up results for publication is not just something you do when you have time, when you get around to it. In any real research field, it is an integral part of doing the work.
Believing there's no world outside of Academia/Research FAIL? Last I checked companies selling a product don't get paid for research. Their "integral part of doing the work" is selling the product. At the end of the day nothing else matters. Publishing their methods in a peer reviewed journal would necessitate the marketing gains from proving their work to outweigh the advantage they'd be giving competitors insofar as the ability to duplicate their methods. And yes, any competing company worth their salt would definitely read the published papers and implement the methods if they were found to be better.
Ummm..are you sure that's the analogy you want to go with? I'm pretty sure the Chief Executive Officer of a company would correspond to...you know....the Chief Executive Officer of America (hint: it's the one in charge of the Executive Branch). The citizens and employees would all be shareholders with one share each. Non-employee shareholders would expect the CEO and elected board members to keep the employees in line and would vote them out in favor of someone who will if they fail to do so, but wouldn't expect to be given complete public access to all company information as then competing companies would then have an advantage. I mean my God, if you could have picked another analogy that would better proved the exact opposite of what you wanted I'd like to hear it.
Like a redlight at a deserted intersection in the middle of nowhere, there isn't a "pointless" exception when it comes to rules on handling classified material that's been leaked worldwide either. However, the will and ability to enforce it probably follows the same track as the analogy as well.
You're making things up to argue against. They're using it as a way to identify which tests/students to take a closer look at, not as the final judgment. I'd also like to point out the irony of you clamoring over the "dumbing-down of America" while spewing fear over the black magic snake oil of statistical analysis. Yes, fear of math and statistics is exactly what will make us smarter.
Get up off of your fat arses and do your damned job. You can tell in under 5 minutes which students have studied and which haven't, just by talking to them, and this information is far more valuable than any statistical snake oil.
But can you tell in under 5 minutes exactly what student he cheated off of in a state-wide exam when he could be texting answers to a friend the next school over? I doubt it. Whereas a statistical analysis might pick those two or more tests out for someone to review more closely and give them a chance to connect the dots and find hard evidence beyond "Well I talked to the student and I have no idea who he could have cheated off of but I know he doesn't know this material well enough to get that grade!"
Was it really a time of war? Has war been declared? I'm not a lawyer, but if war hasn't legally been declared, then I don't think it could legally be a time of war, now could it?
Since you want to play the pedant game yes, it could. Welcome to the second half of the 20th century. For example, in the Korean War congress never officially declared war. However, the president issued a finding saying a "state of war" existed for the purposes of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This changes the maximum punishment for things like disobeying an order, misconduct by a sentry, and spying. There hasn't been an official finding from the president or other authority whether a state of war exists but I believe if the prosecution wanted to push for something that would be effected by the change a ruling would have to be made as to whether such a state does exist. (IANAML)
That said I wasn't referring to the legal state of war. I was more referring to how both the officials and "jury" will view him for committing these crimes due to the current situation: harshly
When you join the military you voluntarily give up a lot of your rights. For example, you could be legally required to be in a fox hole without blankets or sheets 24 hours a day unable to exercise in the dead of winter with inadequate clothing and food while German artillery pounds the hell out of your position. And that's if you're doing your job correctly. Manning betrayed his country and oath in a time of war disseminating classified information to the enemy. And they won't give him a pillow? Cry me a fucking river.
I hear the KGB would often send stolen documents back too asking the pentagon to highlight ^W^W^W^Wredact the important parts too. Who knows why they would always refuse.
In addition to Hymie!'s answer above you can also ask the Baliff who will pass the request on to the judge. The judge will then explain or find a way for it to be explained to you, sometimes needing to confer with defense/prosecution. At no point is doing original research as a juror and deciding for yourselves what sources are admissible in court or not an option. How would you feel as a defendant if someone convicted you because a Wikipedia entry was slightly incorrect that day and your lawyer didn't even know it was influencing the jury?
No, one would prefer a jury be informed by the testimony of an expert witness who has been accepted by the court as having credentials and experience in the field and not a bunch of guys int heir basements edit-warring over an article or page on a subject they have no direct research experience in.
It's like having signed your name to the US Constitution or Communist Manifesto and somehow it leaks out and now they all know who you are
God help me when I figure out where that George Washington guy lives!
But in all seriousness, you do realize the US Constitution was written by a Convention years after the Revolutionary war in free states after the first government didn't work right? And if you meant the deceleration of Independence they DID sign their names to the document, then read and distributed it to the public, and then crown servants mailed that motherfucker right to the King. One of their famous quotes is along the lines of "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." The point being if you believe in something you should be willing to stand up and put your name on it because when you do other people take notice and are willing to stand beside you. They knew they could all be hung as traitors when they did that, but they decided it was worth the risk. That's kinda the exact opposite of Anonymous tactics
And as we all know, if they can manage to find an excuse to put away an upstanding citizen like Al Capone, they can find a reason to lock up ANYBODY!!;)
Sort of like if they stopped making people buy homeowners insurance burning your house down and losing all your possessions would be forced to become affordable?
OK, Lets forgo the snide example and explain where your idea breaks down, and how the free market solves it. That's right, your arguing against the free market and calling it the libertarians perspective. Lets say there's a rare disease or injury you can receive that requires a machine that is very expensive to make. I was about to start listing example numbers but this is so painfully obvious I think you should see where this is going so I'm going to cut it short. Small market, expensive product. You can either make that cure cost ridiculous amounts of money to the end user, or the end user can PERSONALLY DECIDE to offset the risk of them getting that disease by paying an insurance company a lesser amount of money in a gamble to avoid the risk of coming down with said disease and being shit out of luck or having to pay ridiculous sums of money for access to it. In a world where you've disallowed the free market to have insurance companies the machine would almost surely never be made because a simple cost-benefit analysis to the builder would show he'd never recoup his costs let alone make profit because no one who needs it could afford it out of pocket. Getting rid of the option to buy insurance isn't going to make the production, care, maintenance and training for that machine any cheaper. It'll just mean everything that is available is cheap enough for people to afford, and all the expensive rare and technologically advance treatments simply won't be there or will only be used by the super rich.
If you purposefully and physically prevent another free citizen to go about their business you are interfering with that persons freedoms and rights. You can protest outside a building, but you can't chain the doors shut or link arms and bar another citizen entry. As the saying goes, your freedoms end where your neighbors freedoms begin.
A diplomatic case or bag is different than what Manning got ahold of.
Really, a diplomatic case carrying documents containing communications between ambassadors and their bosses not meant to be read by others is different than secure diplomatic cables of documents containing communication between ambassadors and their bosses not being meant to be read by others? How do you think this stuff was transferred before faster secure communications became available?
If the United States was really trying to keep this crap secret, why were hundreds of thousands of files accessible to a Private First Class assigned to an infantry division stationed in Iraq?
This argument is entirely off topic from the issue at hand which is whether all diplomatic communications SHOULD be transparent or not. It's like saying if you think getting robbed is wrong why did you trust the cleaning service that went through an extensive background check and swore an oath? Besides which, no one knows for sure if the diplomatic cable leak was related to Manning anyways.
Look at 1990, right before Iraq attacked Kuwait, Saddam hinted very heavily to the US Ambassador that they were going to attack and they might even keep going into Saudi Arabia and Saddam took an American lack of reaction as a tact "OK". Had that interaction been in the open and a public US government reaction been made, well then hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved and hundreds of billions of dollars would have not been wastes.
If true, this was a mistake by the ambassador not to pick up on it and react accordingly. In the world you imagine though, Saddam would know that regardless of our reaction any hint of war plans would be given to the public at large and therefore Kuwait and Saudi Arabia who would prepare defenses or possibly strike first. In such a case he'd be less likely to even mention it to our ambassador and we would have lost the chance to avert the war at all.
Your mistaking being for transparency when it comes to alliances pact and treaties, with transparency when it comes to everything a diplomat says to his boss. I don't think the US has ever been in favor of having diplomats and their diplomatic cases being searched and read by anyone and everyone so that everything they write has to be made for public consumption so as to not damage foreign relationships instead of quick and honest truth.
Apologies for the assumption then. Made the incorrect leap that saying it would be good for some people meant that you supported it being done and the reason for doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it depends on the person but I wouldn't say their "essential". My handwriting is awful, but I always took notes on paper despite being a Comptuer Science student. Maybe if you have a tablet with a writing pen it'd be the same but I always found writing notes manually helped me more. Maybe it's because I had to concentrate on what I was writing more, or because I didn't have to waste time with thinking about how I was going to draw a graph or what keys/menus would give me mathematical symbols or draw a matrix or whatever. I hardly ever even read back through my notes, but something about the tactile sensation of writing it while your hearing and reading it really helped me remember. There's some sort of disconnect as far as I'm concerned with putting things in electronic form.
I feel like there's some sort of subconscious undercurrent of understanding that when you commit something to electronic form so it's available to pull up whenever you please so you don't need to remember it. At least for me writing in on a sheet of paper makes it seem real, physical, and temporary. And therefore something in my brain knows I must memorize it, because it won't always be there at hand forever.
Ugh, no. I would have rather have the social interactions of a classroom setting and easy access to the instructor. I'm the one paying the money and that's what I want. I understand some people learn just as well that way but I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people don't. We just aren't wired that way as humans, and it has nothing to do with being "adult" about it. Humans are wired for social interaction, they are wired to listen to a leader and pay attention during instruction in a group dynamic, and they are wired to more often then not to easily concentrate on what someone is saying when they are physically in the room with them. Whether this was how we were built or these wiring's were passed on because they better contributed to the survival of the group at large it's just the way it is. People, on the whole, find it easier to learn this way. And that's before we get into all the added benefits of social interaction and collaboration.
That isn't to say offering online classes to those few who learn just as well that way, or find the trade-off worth it because of distance or time constraints is wrong, I'm just saying getting rid of physical classes completely as a solution to people distracting others with their laptops is highly illogical.
The moral of the parable was NOT feel free to fuck people over as long as you can point to someone else who's doing it worse. This widespread ideal that as long as you can point to a worse offender to somehow moralize your own actions is the singular most destructive ideal in today's political and social climate. I've seen it from all sides, all parties, and it's absolutely ludicrous.
Also it should be pointed out if you have to compare the wrongs of two people (Manning and Assange) with the wrongs of the entire Executive Branch of the United States Government over decades of history (while ignoring any counterbalancing good by either side) just to achieve that moral relativism you probably have a problem
Only if the statistical methods they are using are novel. They might just be using a grab-bag of assorted statistical methods already described by others and simply applying them to their specific problem. And really the proof here is in the results isn't it? If you use this thing and it points you to tests you should check out and upon further investigation you find those students cheated then it works. If it's also flagging 20 other tests where you don't find any evidence of the student cheating then it's not worth it. If the benefit isn't immediately obvious without a peer review and statistical analysis I can't imagine it being worth it anyways.
Yes, fear of math and statistics is exactly what will make us smarter.
I beg to differ - understanding math and statistics is what would make us smarter. I'll leave the room now and you can argue with my doctorate.
Was your thesis by chance titled Statistical Methods for Detecting Sarcasm in Unstructured Text? That might be an area where you'll find a personal benefit to using a probabilistic approach over manual identification. Just sayin ;)
Also, methodology FAIL. Writing up results for publication is not just something you do when you have time, when you get around to it. In any real research field, it is an integral part of doing the work.
Believing there's no world outside of Academia/Research FAIL? Last I checked companies selling a product don't get paid for research. Their "integral part of doing the work" is selling the product. At the end of the day nothing else matters. Publishing their methods in a peer reviewed journal would necessitate the marketing gains from proving their work to outweigh the advantage they'd be giving competitors insofar as the ability to duplicate their methods. And yes, any competing company worth their salt would definitely read the published papers and implement the methods if they were found to be better.
Ummm..are you sure that's the analogy you want to go with? I'm pretty sure the Chief Executive Officer of a company would correspond to...you know....the Chief Executive Officer of America (hint: it's the one in charge of the Executive Branch). The citizens and employees would all be shareholders with one share each. Non-employee shareholders would expect the CEO and elected board members to keep the employees in line and would vote them out in favor of someone who will if they fail to do so, but wouldn't expect to be given complete public access to all company information as then competing companies would then have an advantage. I mean my God, if you could have picked another analogy that would better proved the exact opposite of what you wanted I'd like to hear it.
Like a redlight at a deserted intersection in the middle of nowhere, there isn't a "pointless" exception when it comes to rules on handling classified material that's been leaked worldwide either. However, the will and ability to enforce it probably follows the same track as the analogy as well.
You're making things up to argue against. They're using it as a way to identify which tests/students to take a closer look at, not as the final judgment. I'd also like to point out the irony of you clamoring over the "dumbing-down of America" while spewing fear over the black magic snake oil of statistical analysis. Yes, fear of math and statistics is exactly what will make us smarter.
Get up off of your fat arses and do your damned job. You can tell in under 5 minutes which students have studied and which haven't, just by talking to them, and this information is far more valuable than any statistical snake oil.
But can you tell in under 5 minutes exactly what student he cheated off of in a state-wide exam when he could be texting answers to a friend the next school over? I doubt it. Whereas a statistical analysis might pick those two or more tests out for someone to review more closely and give them a chance to connect the dots and find hard evidence beyond "Well I talked to the student and I have no idea who he could have cheated off of but I know he doesn't know this material well enough to get that grade!"
A better lock just makes a better lock picker.
I have a tall fence I'd like to sell to you which will make you a better jumper.
A chance of about one in a million means that if you have one million pupils usually one will be flaged without any reason.
Luckily no single school has either over a million pupils or a deep understanding of statistics so we're safe ;)
Was it really a time of war? Has war been declared? I'm not a lawyer, but if war hasn't legally been declared, then I don't think it could legally be a time of war, now could it?
Since you want to play the pedant game yes, it could. Welcome to the second half of the 20th century. For example, in the Korean War congress never officially declared war. However, the president issued a finding saying a "state of war" existed for the purposes of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This changes the maximum punishment for things like disobeying an order, misconduct by a sentry, and spying. There hasn't been an official finding from the president or other authority whether a state of war exists but I believe if the prosecution wanted to push for something that would be effected by the change a ruling would have to be made as to whether such a state does exist. (IANAML)
That said I wasn't referring to the legal state of war. I was more referring to how both the officials and "jury" will view him for committing these crimes due to the current situation: harshly
When you join the military you voluntarily give up a lot of your rights. For example, you could be legally required to be in a fox hole without blankets or sheets 24 hours a day unable to exercise in the dead of winter with inadequate clothing and food while German artillery pounds the hell out of your position. And that's if you're doing your job correctly. Manning betrayed his country and oath in a time of war disseminating classified information to the enemy. And they won't give him a pillow? Cry me a fucking river.
I hear the KGB would often send stolen documents back too asking the pentagon to highlight ^W^W^W^Wredact the important parts too. Who knows why they would always refuse.
How many universities did you attend?
Clearly, like the rest of us, he attended the only University that did things correctly: The one we went to. You didn't? ;)
In addition to Hymie!'s answer above you can also ask the Baliff who will pass the request on to the judge. The judge will then explain or find a way for it to be explained to you, sometimes needing to confer with defense/prosecution. At no point is doing original research as a juror and deciding for yourselves what sources are admissible in court or not an option. How would you feel as a defendant if someone convicted you because a Wikipedia entry was slightly incorrect that day and your lawyer didn't even know it was influencing the jury?
No, one would prefer a jury be informed by the testimony of an expert witness who has been accepted by the court as having credentials and experience in the field and not a bunch of guys int heir basements edit-warring over an article or page on a subject they have no direct research experience in.
It's like having signed your name to the US Constitution or Communist Manifesto and somehow it leaks out and now they all know who you are
God help me when I figure out where that George Washington guy lives!
But in all seriousness, you do realize the US Constitution was written by a Convention years after the Revolutionary war in free states after the first government didn't work right? And if you meant the deceleration of Independence they DID sign their names to the document, then read and distributed it to the public, and then crown servants mailed that motherfucker right to the King. One of their famous quotes is along the lines of "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." The point being if you believe in something you should be willing to stand up and put your name on it because when you do other people take notice and are willing to stand beside you. They knew they could all be hung as traitors when they did that, but they decided it was worth the risk. That's kinda the exact opposite of Anonymous tactics
i believe most of those disappearances of people in those other countries can be attributed to cia
The only question is, what in the hell do they want all those old Alzheimer patients for.
And as we all know, if they can manage to find an excuse to put away an upstanding citizen like Al Capone, they can find a reason to lock up ANYBODY!! ;)
Sort of like if they stopped making people buy homeowners insurance burning your house down and losing all your possessions would be forced to become affordable?
OK, Lets forgo the snide example and explain where your idea breaks down, and how the free market solves it. That's right, your arguing against the free market and calling it the libertarians perspective. Lets say there's a rare disease or injury you can receive that requires a machine that is very expensive to make. I was about to start listing example numbers but this is so painfully obvious I think you should see where this is going so I'm going to cut it short. Small market, expensive product. You can either make that cure cost ridiculous amounts of money to the end user, or the end user can PERSONALLY DECIDE to offset the risk of them getting that disease by paying an insurance company a lesser amount of money in a gamble to avoid the risk of coming down with said disease and being shit out of luck or having to pay ridiculous sums of money for access to it. In a world where you've disallowed the free market to have insurance companies the machine would almost surely never be made because a simple cost-benefit analysis to the builder would show he'd never recoup his costs let alone make profit because no one who needs it could afford it out of pocket. Getting rid of the option to buy insurance isn't going to make the production, care, maintenance and training for that machine any cheaper. It'll just mean everything that is available is cheap enough for people to afford, and all the expensive rare and technologically advance treatments simply won't be there or will only be used by the super rich.
If you purposefully and physically prevent another free citizen to go about their business you are interfering with that persons freedoms and rights. You can protest outside a building, but you can't chain the doors shut or link arms and bar another citizen entry. As the saying goes, your freedoms end where your neighbors freedoms begin.
A diplomatic case or bag is different than what Manning got ahold of.
Really, a diplomatic case carrying documents containing communications between ambassadors and their bosses not meant to be read by others is different than secure diplomatic cables of documents containing communication between ambassadors and their bosses not being meant to be read by others? How do you think this stuff was transferred before faster secure communications became available?
If the United States was really trying to keep this crap secret, why were hundreds of thousands of files accessible to a Private First Class assigned to an infantry division stationed in Iraq?
This argument is entirely off topic from the issue at hand which is whether all diplomatic communications SHOULD be transparent or not. It's like saying if you think getting robbed is wrong why did you trust the cleaning service that went through an extensive background check and swore an oath? Besides which, no one knows for sure if the diplomatic cable leak was related to Manning anyways.
Look at 1990, right before Iraq attacked Kuwait, Saddam hinted very heavily to the US Ambassador that they were going to attack and they might even keep going into Saudi Arabia and Saddam took an American lack of reaction as a tact "OK". Had that interaction been in the open and a public US government reaction been made, well then hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved and hundreds of billions of dollars would have not been wastes.
If true, this was a mistake by the ambassador not to pick up on it and react accordingly. In the world you imagine though, Saddam would know that regardless of our reaction any hint of war plans would be given to the public at large and therefore Kuwait and Saudi Arabia who would prepare defenses or possibly strike first. In such a case he'd be less likely to even mention it to our ambassador and we would have lost the chance to avert the war at all.
Your mistaking being for transparency when it comes to alliances pact and treaties, with transparency when it comes to everything a diplomat says to his boss. I don't think the US has ever been in favor of having diplomats and their diplomatic cases being searched and read by anyone and everyone so that everything they write has to be made for public consumption so as to not damage foreign relationships instead of quick and honest truth.
Apologies for the assumption then. Made the incorrect leap that saying it would be good for some people meant that you supported it being done and the reason for doing so.