Don't forget: You actually read the comment, unlike its poster. "Click this link..." in the middle of a string of text isn't that noticable if you don't read the text.
Use the "effects" of the prediction to get the desired results. For example, if you want clear sailing on Route 9 going north at 4:00pm, predict bad traffic ahead of time.
If you want more predictable traffic patterns, fudge prediction differences downwards so that less people will take action based on the predictions.
It's all one big feedback loop, dampen accordingly.
It would piss off a lot fewer perfectionist engineers.
"lot fewer" just doesn't sound right, and "many fewer" has usability issues...
And, of course, it isn't technically incorrect there, merely less likely. From www.m-w.com:
usage for Less:
The traditional view is that less applies to matters of degree, value, or amount and modifies collective nouns, mass nouns, or nouns denoting an abstract whole while fewer applies to matters of number and modifies plural nouns. Less has been used to modify plural nouns since the days of King Alfred and the usage, though roundly decried, appears to be increasing. Less is more likely than fewer to modify plural nouns when distances, sums of money, and a few fixed phrases are involved and as likely as fewer to modify periods of time.
moron not think that user be dumb and not know how to make code run
Man, this notion that users can't figure out what a file is, what a directory is, or how to click on a file and run it is just ridiculous. I've seen more quality projects torpedoed by managers with this kind of idea stuck in their cramped skull. Users can do this. It may be a nuisance for some things, but they CAN do it.
Bottom line - There are always decisions to be made. Good software should emphasize the important ones and help them be made properly, not try to make every decision for every user. And no, popping up a yes/no dialog is not a good way to emphasize an important decision.
Take email for instance. Whenever I get a non-text email with possibly infected attachments, I consider it a rather impolite, and even gross, invasion of my space. It's much like having someone breathe in my face. If users can understand a dislike for being breathed on, programmers should be able to code up software that makes them aware of when their system is being "breathed on", so they can make their own decision. The fact you used to have to save attachments, or at the least double-click on them to open them was an imposition to users that was helpful because it highlighted this exposure.
In certain instances this made for a lot of heavy breathing. Microsoft's solution was to hand out blindfolds and breathe mints. A better solution seems to be taking a step back and talking from a safer distance.
Why do I have less rights as an individual than an arrested suspect? Why do I lawfully have to divulge my identification if I don't know why I'm being asked for it?
Do these questions seem unimportant?
Perhaps they should politely ask..."Pardon me, did you rob this store or rape this woman?
Ya, until they have a warrant, or a reason to bring someone in for questioning, that's all they are allowed to do. POLITELY ask. On top of that, no one has to answer any questions except, in some cases evidently, to identify themselves.
not only do you point to the MINORITY and demonize them all
In my experience at least 40% of police officers have trouble being polite, even when merely giving out a ticket. Especially to folks who don't meet with their idea of "upstanding citizens". (long hair, tatoos, skin color etc)
and if someone cops an attitude, why, they should just get in their car and drive away.
I think the whole point of this discussion was that someone shouldn't get fined/convicted of a misdemeanor merely for copping an attitude, especially when they've done nothing else wrong. I don't recall anyone complaining this guy got brought in for questioning. There was never a suggestion the cop should have merely driven away.
Be that as it may, you do disclose your name in *some* cases. Ergo, your name is not secret and/or private information. In Java terms... I'd compare it to "package" level access. Unfortunately the law seems to be trying to decide whether name/ID falls under "public" or "protected" on a case by case basis without realizing there's a level of granularity missing in the middle.
Is it 'attitude' not to answer a question that may or may not have been asked appropriately?
Yes, the legal beagle's will define a great casm between 'stop' and 'arrest'. However, the fact remains that even in 'stop' cases there are times when a cop is not allowed to ask for your name and times when they are allowed to ask for your name. It isn't always easy to figure out which is which on the spot.
The justices in this case seemed worried that asking for name and/or ID would become a legally useless act if there was no enforcement behind it. IMO, the threat of being brought in for questioning is enough deterrent without also requiring a fine and/or misdemeanor to boot.
That's simple. I'd take em all in to the station for questioning and have the wife pick em out of a lineup...
If I can't do it alone, I'd call for backup.
Of course, ideally I'd have already acquired a picture from the wife.
The question is... after they're all dragged in does the state have the right to give the innocent 3 folks misdemeanors? This case seems to say yes, I disagree.
So, the guy gets carted in for questioning and has to pay a $250 dollar fine. If they'd drop the fine, I figure it'd be no harm no foul.
However, fining someone for not identifying themself, ie: making it a misdemeanor or what have you not to identify ones-self does open the door to police abuse because a suspect doesn't know when the cop asks for identification whether or not the cop really has a reasonable suspicion, probable cause or whatever the requirement du jour is in that area to be asking the question.
I mean sheesh, the hysterical jerk already helps pay the cop's salary (taxes) he also has to pay for his own questioning?
All the laws in the world can get passed trying to make people identify themselves. But those who feel they have something to prove, or are just too tired to walk to the back of the bus one day, or had a bad day at work and don't feel like being pulled over and questioned will continue to disobey those laws from time to time.
How these border cases turn out is a very important indicator of whether, and how much, legal authority is being abused.
I seem to recall being pulled over one time, as a passenger in a friends car, and getting the third degree from a backup cop because of a water-ski handle mark on my arm. Bad attitudes may smell coming from a suspect, but they're really rank coming off of Johnny Law.
I've had enough of these experiences, and have had enough friends with more interesting experiences, that if a self-important cop comes up on the street and asks for my name, I might decide to tell him "John Smith". Or, perhaps I'll excercise this right to silence I'm supposed to have...
As to this case in particular, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the wording regarding balance between the individual's expectation of privacy and "interests of the state". Sure, its probably okay to book someone for being flip, uncooperative, and/or lieing to a police officer with "suspicions" but the agency in question better be well prepared to do a quick 180 if it turns out they were a little over-zealous.
As to this: the testimonial components of a requirement to produce identification would be non-incriminating in almost all situations. If compelled production of an identification generally raises no Fifth Amendment concerns,it would be anomalous to conclude that a compelled statement of identity infringes the Fifth
This kind of "requirement to produce identification" is exactly what bothers folks, ergo the if is not satisfied (because, yet again, almost is not all) and so it would be "anomalous" (or better yet simply erroneous) to conclude there are no dangers to the Fifth here.
I hate to break it to the high falutin legal beagles but the Fifth says "on the grounds that it *may* incriminate", not "on the grounds that it *will* incriminate", or "on the grounds that 5 judges and a lawyer agree its unlikely to incriminate in any typical case". Historically the defendent, suspect etc. has been the one who gets to make that determination, to the point we talk about a "right to remain silent".
Hiibel's refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him
Again, we see this notion exemplified that the suspect doesn't get to decide what they will or won't disclose. Fine, okay. Detain a person for questioning. It shouldn't matter who they are to decide whether or not they should be detained... Should it?
Of course... If you work with the original coder and talk to them or share documentation with them, you're going to have a tower of babel problem sharing your code snippets with each other.
Even if the future isn't going to sway against copyright anytime soon, does that mean we should all just switch to the "winning" side?
Of course not.
Personally I see the draconian measures as a sign of desperation.
I hope you're correct, but there are those who have compared modern Intellectual Property trends with a second enclosure movement and unfortunately, even many in the F/OSS movement seem to prefer more control over their creative works.
I have a hope that the people will eventually rise against them and get rid of them, preferably peacefully.
I'm sure freedom will win out long-term, but the short term has been gearing up to be rather nasty.
Do you really think the future is going to sway against copyright?
With laws like the DMCA, and technologies like Palladium on the horizon, I'm not so sure myself. What do you think is going to keep us out of the future Stallman outlines in the Right to Read?
What happens when it becomes criminal to interface a "free" system with a proprietary one? Microsoft already appears to be gearing up for this on Palladium with a beefed up patent portfolio. (DVD's and CSS are one tiny hole in free software currently, but whats to stop the same mechanisms from creating more significant holes?)
Yes, he could say "I own the equipement". ie: a general purpose computer, gcc etc, and his own two hands *are* all the equipement needed to play a DVD on Linux (Or allow everyone to play DVDs on Linux for free). But that equipement is not legal for use.
Because the magic phrase "copy protection" is invoked, the MPAA gets an instant monopoly on DVD player software that it hasn't earned, either through patent or copyright. (And yes, they charge heavily for licenses on this monopoly...)
The problem with the DMCA is you can simply define all/any proprietary software as being reliant on copy-protection and then any free/open/competing replacements become illegal. The interoperability clauses have yet to hold any water whatsoever.
The fact is, no one should have to pay for DVD player software when people are willing to write it for free and give it away.
If not already underway, the open source community should step forward and come up with a more advanced alternative to UML and then perhaps demonstrate its usefulness by applying it to a complete modelling of say.. oh.. umm... Linux;)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you but the article did mention that there are known major spammers that they are unable to prosecute.
If that's so, why aren't the others already in jail and what are the reasons that "many" major spammers can't be prosecuted?
This article seems a bit light on details.
Queue up more foreign and domestic governmental agencies wishing to "solve" all our spam problems...
Don't forget: You actually read the comment, unlike its poster. "Click this link..." in the middle of a string of text isn't that noticable if you don't read the text.
Use the "effects" of the prediction to get the desired results. For example, if you want clear sailing on Route 9 going north at 4:00pm, predict bad traffic ahead of time.
If you want more predictable traffic patterns, fudge prediction differences downwards so that less people will take action based on the predictions.
It's all one big feedback loop, dampen accordingly.
"lot fewer" just doesn't sound right, and "many fewer" has usability issues...
And, of course, it isn't technically incorrect there, merely less likely. From www.m-w.com:
moron not think that user be dumb and not know how to make code run
Man, this notion that users can't figure out what a file is, what a directory is, or how to click on a file and run it is just ridiculous. I've seen more quality projects torpedoed by managers with this kind of idea stuck in their cramped skull. Users can do this. It may be a nuisance for some things, but they CAN do it.
Bottom line - There are always decisions to be made. Good software should emphasize the important ones and help them be made properly, not try to make every decision for every user. And no, popping up a yes/no dialog is not a good way to emphasize an important decision.
Take email for instance. Whenever I get a non-text email with possibly infected attachments, I consider it a rather impolite, and even gross, invasion of my space. It's much like having someone breathe in my face. If users can understand a dislike for being breathed on, programmers should be able to code up software that makes them aware of when their system is being "breathed on", so they can make their own decision. The fact you used to have to save attachments, or at the least double-click on them to open them was an imposition to users that was helpful because it highlighted this exposure.
In certain instances this made for a lot of heavy breathing. Microsoft's solution was to hand out blindfolds and breathe mints. A better solution seems to be taking a step back and talking from a safer distance.
I think you're right.
Of course "no known defects" doesn't sound as neat as "zero defects" to managers, but it would probably piss off a lot less perfectionist engineers...
Why do I have less rights as an individual than an arrested suspect? Why do I lawfully have to divulge my identification if I don't know why I'm being asked for it?
Do these questions seem unimportant?
Perhaps they should politely ask..."Pardon me, did you rob this store or rape this woman?
Ya, until they have a warrant, or a reason to bring someone in for questioning, that's all they are allowed to do. POLITELY ask. On top of that, no one has to answer any questions except, in some cases evidently, to identify themselves.
not only do you point to the MINORITY and demonize them all
In my experience at least 40% of police officers have trouble being polite, even when merely giving out a ticket. Especially to folks who don't meet with their idea of "upstanding citizens". (long hair, tatoos, skin color etc)
and if someone cops an attitude, why, they should just get in their car and drive away.
I think the whole point of this discussion was that someone shouldn't get fined/convicted of a misdemeanor merely for copping an attitude, especially when they've done nothing else wrong. I don't recall anyone complaining this guy got brought in for questioning. There was never a suggestion the cop should have merely driven away.
I think you're preaching to the choir here.
Be that as it may, you do disclose your name in *some* cases. Ergo, your name is not secret and/or private information. In Java terms... I'd compare it to "package" level access. Unfortunately the law seems to be trying to decide whether name/ID falls under "public" or "protected" on a case by case basis without realizing there's a level of granularity missing in the middle.
Is it 'attitude' not to answer a question that may or may not have been asked appropriately?
Yes, the legal beagle's will define a great casm between 'stop' and 'arrest'. However, the fact remains that even in 'stop' cases there are times when a cop is not allowed to ask for your name and times when they are allowed to ask for your name. It isn't always easy to figure out which is which on the spot.
The justices in this case seemed worried that asking for name and/or ID would become a legally useless act if there was no enforcement behind it. IMO, the threat of being brought in for questioning is enough deterrent without also requiring a fine and/or misdemeanor to boot.
Ya, "Ask me no questions I'll tell you no lies." is probably more my style in all reality...
That's simple. I'd take em all in to the station for questioning and have the wife pick em out of a lineup...
If I can't do it alone, I'd call for backup.
Of course, ideally I'd have already acquired a picture from the wife.
The question is... after they're all dragged in does the state have the right to give the innocent 3 folks misdemeanors? This case seems to say yes, I disagree.
against being a hysterical jerk?
So, the guy gets carted in for questioning and has to pay a $250 dollar fine. If they'd drop the fine, I figure it'd be no harm no foul.
However, fining someone for not identifying themself, ie: making it a misdemeanor or what have you not to identify ones-self does open the door to police abuse because a suspect doesn't know when the cop asks for identification whether or not the cop really has a reasonable suspicion, probable cause or whatever the requirement du jour is in that area to be asking the question.
I mean sheesh, the hysterical jerk already helps pay the cop's salary (taxes) he also has to pay for his own questioning?
All the laws in the world can get passed trying to make people identify themselves. But those who feel they have something to prove, or are just too tired to walk to the back of the bus one day, or had a bad day at work and don't feel like being pulled over and questioned will continue to disobey those laws from time to time.
How these border cases turn out is a very important indicator of whether, and how much, legal authority is being abused.
I seem to recall being pulled over one time, as a passenger in a friends car, and getting the third degree from a backup cop because of a water-ski handle mark on my arm. Bad attitudes may smell coming from a suspect, but they're really rank coming off of Johnny Law.
I've had enough of these experiences, and have had enough friends with more interesting experiences, that if a self-important cop comes up on the street and asks for my name, I might decide to tell him "John Smith". Or, perhaps I'll excercise this right to silence I'm supposed to have...
As to this case in particular, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the wording regarding balance between the individual's expectation of privacy and "interests of the state". Sure, its probably okay to book someone for being flip, uncooperative, and/or lieing to a police officer with "suspicions" but the agency in question better be well prepared to do a quick 180 if it turns out they were a little over-zealous.
As to this:
the testimonial components of a requirement to produce identification would be non-incriminating in almost all situations. If compelled production of an identification generally raises no Fifth Amendment concerns,it would be anomalous to conclude that a compelled statement of identity infringes the Fifth
This kind of "requirement to produce identification" is exactly what bothers folks, ergo the if is not satisfied (because, yet again, almost is not all) and so it would be "anomalous" (or better yet simply erroneous) to conclude there are no dangers to the Fifth here.
I hate to break it to the high falutin legal beagles but the Fifth says "on the grounds that it *may* incriminate", not "on the grounds that it *will* incriminate", or "on the grounds that 5 judges and a lawyer agree its unlikely to incriminate in any typical case". Historically the defendent, suspect etc. has been the one who gets to make that determination, to the point we talk about a "right to remain silent".
Hiibel's refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him
Again, we see this notion exemplified that the suspect doesn't get to decide what they will or won't disclose. Fine, okay. Detain a person for questioning. It shouldn't matter who they are to decide whether or not they should be detained... Should it?
Or else you'll be eaten by a stuffed tiger.
In my opinion, there's really only one macro missing in Java. Something to do away with the performance difference between:
dbg.out("x=" + x);
-- and --
if( dbg.on() )
dbg.out("x=" + x);
Of course... If you work with the original coder and talk to them or share documentation with them, you're going to have a tower of babel problem sharing your code snippets with each other.
When developers do what their customers do, they should (hopefully) use the tools they provide to their customers.
However, would you expect a baker to use bread to make bread? Or would flour, water, baking soda, etc. be better suited for the task?
When MPAA members create and sell movies to people who want to see them, that's business.
When MPAA members benefit from biased legislation supported by other's tax dollars, that's welfare.
Translation of the MPAA side:
Boo hoo! I want corporate welfare!
Even if the future isn't going to sway against copyright anytime soon, does that mean we should all just switch to the "winning" side?
Of course not.
Personally I see the draconian measures as a sign of desperation.
I hope you're correct, but there are those who have compared modern Intellectual Property trends with a second enclosure movement and unfortunately, even many in the F/OSS movement seem to prefer more control over their creative works.
I have a hope that the people will eventually rise against them and get rid of them, preferably peacefully.
I'm sure freedom will win out long-term, but the short term has been gearing up to be rather nasty.
Do you really think the future is going to sway against copyright?
With laws like the DMCA, and technologies like Palladium on the horizon, I'm not so sure myself. What do you think is going to keep us out of the future Stallman outlines in the Right to Read?
What happens when it becomes criminal to interface a "free" system with a proprietary one? Microsoft already appears to be gearing up for this on Palladium with a beefed up patent portfolio. (DVD's and CSS are one tiny hole in free software currently, but whats to stop the same mechanisms from creating more significant holes?)
except "The FreeFi QwikBar"!
A piece of software designed to make me watch adds isn't supposed to be invasive?
Yes, he could say "I own the equipement". ie: a general purpose computer, gcc etc, and his own two hands *are* all the equipement needed to play a DVD on Linux (Or allow everyone to play DVDs on Linux for free). But that equipement is not legal for use.
Because the magic phrase "copy protection" is invoked, the MPAA gets an instant monopoly on DVD player software that it hasn't earned, either through patent or copyright. (And yes, they charge heavily for licenses on this monopoly...)
The problem with the DMCA is you can simply define all/any proprietary software as being reliant on copy-protection and then any free/open/competing replacements become illegal. The interoperability clauses have yet to hold any water whatsoever.
The fact is, no one should have to pay for DVD player software when people are willing to write it for free and give it away.
If not already underway, the open source community should step forward and come up with a more advanced alternative to UML and then perhaps demonstrate its usefulness by applying it to a complete modelling of say.. oh.. umm... Linux ;)
Hmm... You mean like well commented source code?
"lessthan[a-z]" - interesting, slashdot filters lessthan
Its HTML, try <
Like this:
"<[a-z]"