I got this impression from Chinese graduate students I've talked to. They are generally aware that "some anarchists tried to disrupt things" but that's it. Web pages on this subject are specifically targeted by Chinese censors.
Thanks in part to bloggers, this time the outside world is acutely aware of what is happening on the streets of Rangoon, Mandalay and Pakokku and is hungry for more information.
Sure, and I'm sure that the Burmese authorities would sooner the word not get out. But the principal role of censorship -- and one for which it is effective notwithstanding a few workarounds -- is to control widespread dissemination of the information within the population.
Consider China, for example. Sophisticated computer users can find foreign news and commentary. But the masses have successfully been kept in the dark about, say, Tiananmen Square. This ignorance helps shape public opinion and marginalize those few who have access to the information.
Opportunistic analogy. If you look beyond the U.S. borders you will find plenty of jurisdictions that have gun control and low crime. Not to concede your cherry-picked U.S. examples. The bottom line is that you need to study up on the difference between correlation and causality.
We don't always see eye-to-eye on our ideology, but I know we both have the same goals at heart.
But they don't have the same goals at heart. Torvalds wants to generate software that works in the current political/technical/cultural environment, while Stallman seeks to optimize the freedom afforded by that environment, now and in the future.
It is difficult to argue that Torvalds and Stallman have not had substantial success in their respective goals. It is difficult to predict how much success they may have in the future. But the same goals? I think not.
I'm not sure why an opportunist and an idealist cannot have a symbiotic relationship. The Gnu toolset certainly contributed to Linux. I daresay that GPL contributed to Linux, too. Did Torvalds choose GPL because he believed in it, or because it was "just there." I don't know the inner workings of his mind at the time. If he'd just put Linux "out there" under some other license akin to BSD license, would Linux have gathered the following it has?
Torvalds' key opportunity came at a time when BSD was mired in the AT&T litigation. At the time, on x86, there was SCO, BSD, Linux. SCO had its problems, including price. AT&T held BSD at bay while Linux established a beach head.
Linux now has substantial inertia. It is the path of least resistance. But if Linux disappeared tomorrow, Solaris or BSD could fill the void. They're just not the commodity choice right now.
Unfortunately, a large fraction of the world seem to disavow the fact that Stallman's efforts provided Torvalds with much of the opportunity on which he was able to capitalize.
My point of view is that polygraphs and other "lie detectors" can detect neither truth nor belief. Any discussion that assumes polygraphs have any diagnostic capability helps to perpetrate the myth of their efficacy and is therefore a disservice to the world.
So many advocates of the police state make the argument that "lie detectors are flawed but they're the best we have." They might as well substitute "tarot cards" or "thumbscrews" or any number of mystical and/or torture devices.
Schools tend to emphasize creative writing and literature at the expense of expository.
You might, for instance, have students write essays to explain to a stranger or alien how do do some familiar task, and perhaps have some other student read the instructions and follow them to the letter.
You might then have them describe (or read how to accomplish) some task for which there is some degree of uncertainty. For example, suppose you have three people, explain how to find out who is the strongest in an arm wrestling tournament.
In general, you can tie in any number of math and science subjects, but the trick is to have them describe and solve real (if trivial) problems, rather than providing bland summaries of what they read. If they do the latter, they might as well simply summarize the latest Harry Potter book, or the issues leading to the Civil War, or whatever.
I can't tell you how to spend your next $3.00 but I suggest that you might get that much value -- entertainment if nothing else -- from reading a primary source rather than relying on Wikipedia paraphrasals
The meta-study found only 57 studies that were carried out with sufficient rigor to be considered. Of those, some but not all showed that under laboratory conditions the polygraph showed better than chance results. The result specifically notes that these laboratory findings likely overestimate (i.e. are an upper bound on) the potential accuracy of polygraphs for investigative or screening purposes.
Does this link not work for you?
I can attempt to paraphrase the paper but since it is only two pages long it would speak for itself much better. I was aware of this article and it does show in one particular laboratory experiment that polygraph results likely differ from chance. The article does not conclude that the results are reliable or transferrable to a diagnostic setting.
The authors report on a single experiment in which 100 people are re-interviewed for theft cases that have previously been resolved. 50 are innocent (because somebody else confessed) and 50 are guilty (because they confessed). In this experiment, false positive rates of up to 50% and false negative rates of up to 36% were observed (depending on the interpreter of the charts). These findings are better than chance (p.05).
The authors conclude, "Hence, we conclude that the validity and reliability of polygraphic interrogation have yet to be established."
With your interpretation, the clause "if the interrogated person is subjected to a lie detector" would be useless, having no more meaning than "if pink unicorns orbited pluto." The presumption that the clause is useful, i.e. that the use of a lie detector has some relationship to whether the subject's belief, is implicit in its having included it in the statement.
These tests have been shown to product accurate results about 65% of the time (that's per person tested).
Please cite a reference. The statement asserts that polygraph tests have better than chance diagnostic capability and if that has been demonstrated in the literature, I would like to hear about it.
However, I'm skeptical based, if nothing else, on how the result is paraphrased. It is not hard to make a test that has 0 diagnostic capability be "accurate 65% of the time." Here are two examples:
1. I have a deck of cards all of which say "true" I draw 100 people at random from an elementary school and ask them each in turn to say, "I did not murder anybody." Then I hold up one of the cards from my deck. Guess what? My test will be accurate nearly 100% of the time. Way more than 65%, in any event.
2. Now that's absurd, but suppose 65 of the cards said "true" while 35 said "false." I would be able to accuse school children of murder with 65% accuracy [sic]. The test -- drawing a card from the deck -- is utter crap, but still 65% accurate.
If, on the other hand, my deck of cards identified 65% of a group of murderers as such, and 65% of a group of non-murders as such, it would have some diagnostic value. But it would still be *utterly useless* for screening school children. Or murder suspects, for that matter.
That said, I do not stipulate that any study has shown that a lie detector test has *any* diagnostic power, whether or not that diagnostic power is of practical investigative use.
The most common figure for the accuracy of polygraph tests is 70%.
No repeatable study or sequence of studies has demonstrated that the polygraph as deployed for interrogation, screening or any other diagnostic purpose, has 70% accuracy. Or, to be more precise, better than 30% false positive or false negative rates.
The argument is not well served by taking figures like this from the air. If you care to cite a particular study, we can debate its methodology, statistical power, and freedom from confounds such as selective sampling or lack of blinding to the "true" result.
Worse, they tend to work worse when the subject is already under stress.
The above statement presupposes that lie detectors work at all. This presupposition is unsupported by evidence. So the statement is akin to "mediums are not as able to recall the dead if there's a skeptic in the room."
I bet at that point if the interrogated person is subjected to a lie detector, they will actually believe that the alternative sequence of events was actually the truth.
This statement presupposes that the lie detector can determine someone's belief. It cannot, at least not any better than Tarot cards or tea leaves.
We all have faith. For example, I have absolute faith that if I jump up I will fall back to earth.
Not all faith is created equal. My faith that I will fall back to earth is, I daresay, more rational than that of somebody who believes he or she will fly away. That's because the latter is not only unsupported by, but contradicted by, our understanding of the natural world.
So I can split faith into four categories:
1. faith in things supported by our observations
2. faith in things for which there is no evidence but could
conceivably be observed
3. faith in things that by definition can never be observed
4. faith in things for which contradict our observations
Categories 2 and 3 are, in my opinion, harmless but useless. Category 4 is harmful.
Personally, I stick to category 1 and am a devout athiest. Many mainstream religions and a large number of individuals stick to categories 2 and 3. Except, perhaps, as far as the historical record is concerned (paranormal events caused by the intervention of metaphysical beings). It is easy enough to agree to disagree on these matters.
The advantages of a pre-installed and supported Linux distro are substantial and worth paying for.
A Linux system like RH is way more functional out of the box than vanilla Windows + junkware. The integration effort to install an OS and application suite and configure them so that it all "just works" is non-trivial, and valuable. Then there's support. Think what you will of the quality of HP's help desk, they have to write Linux scripts for their operators.
Slashdot Mirror
I got this impression from Chinese graduate students I've talked to. They are generally aware that "some anarchists tried to disrupt things" but that's it. Web pages on this subject are specifically targeted by Chinese censors.
Sure, and I'm sure that the Burmese authorities would sooner the word not get out. But the principal role of censorship -- and one for which it is effective notwithstanding a few workarounds -- is to control widespread dissemination of the information within the population.
Consider China, for example. Sophisticated computer users can find foreign news and commentary. But the masses have successfully been kept in the dark about, say, Tiananmen Square. This ignorance helps shape public opinion and marginalize those few who have access to the information.
I believe that this statement is inaccurate, and that expenses have been demanded and paid.
Perhaps this is how multiplication is done in OOXML. They do leap years in dates wrong, too.
Their counsel were notified in writing and failed to respond.
You may argue that the time given for response was short,
but it should have been adequate given the nature of
the allegation.
Also don't assume that all interaction between the parties
is documented in the complaint.
Or another text-oriented browser. The ultimate pop-up blocker!
You can approximate that by turning off images in your
graphical browser.
Your need to see images to navigate is inversely proportional
to the merit of the site, in my experience.
Opportunistic analogy. If you look beyond the U.S. borders you will find plenty of jurisdictions that have gun control and low crime. Not to concede your cherry-picked U.S. examples. The bottom line is that you need to study up on the difference between correlation and causality.
A drop in crime is evidence that the cameras work.
An increase in crime is evidence that more cameras are necessary.
We don't always see eye-to-eye on our ideology, but I know we both have the same goals at heart.
But they don't have the same goals at heart. Torvalds wants to generate software that works in the current political/technical/cultural environment, while Stallman seeks to optimize the freedom afforded by that environment, now and in the future.
It is difficult to argue that Torvalds and Stallman have not had substantial success in their respective goals. It is difficult to predict how much success they may have in the future. But the same goals? I think not.
I'm not sure why an opportunist and an idealist cannot have a symbiotic relationship. The Gnu toolset certainly contributed to Linux. I daresay that GPL contributed to Linux, too. Did Torvalds choose GPL because he believed in it, or because it was "just there." I don't know the inner workings of his mind at the time. If he'd just put Linux "out there" under some other license akin to BSD license, would Linux have gathered the following it has?
Torvalds' key opportunity came at a time when BSD was mired in the AT&T litigation. At the time, on x86, there was SCO, BSD, Linux. SCO had its problems, including price. AT&T held BSD at bay while Linux established a beach head.
Linux now has substantial inertia. It is the path of least resistance. But if Linux disappeared tomorrow, Solaris or BSD could fill the void. They're just not the commodity choice right now.
Unfortunately, a large fraction of the world seem to disavow the fact that Stallman's efforts provided Torvalds with much of the opportunity on which he was able to capitalize.
I'm not sure but I think I'm who you call GGP.
My point of view is that polygraphs and other "lie detectors" can detect neither truth nor belief. Any discussion that assumes polygraphs have any diagnostic capability helps to perpetrate the myth of their efficacy and is therefore a disservice to the world.
So many advocates of the police state make the argument that "lie detectors are flawed but they're the best we have." They might as well substitute "tarot cards" or "thumbscrews" or any number of mystical and/or torture devices.
Schools tend to emphasize creative writing and literature at the expense of expository.
You might, for instance, have students write essays to explain to a stranger or alien how do do some familiar task, and perhaps have some other student read the instructions and follow them to the letter.
You might then have them describe (or read how to accomplish) some task for which there is some degree of uncertainty. For example, suppose you have three people, explain how to find out who is the strongest in an arm wrestling tournament.
In general, you can tie in any number of math and science subjects, but the trick is to have them describe and solve real (if trivial) problems, rather than providing bland summaries of what they read. If they do the latter, they might as well simply summarize the latest Harry Potter book, or the issues leading to the Civil War, or whatever.
I can't tell you how to spend your next $3.00 but I suggest that you might get that much value -- entertainment if nothing else -- from reading a primary source rather than relying on Wikipedia paraphrasals
The meta-study found only 57 studies that were carried out with sufficient rigor to be considered. Of those, some but not all showed that under laboratory conditions the polygraph showed better than chance results. The result specifically notes that these laboratory findings likely overestimate (i.e. are an upper bound on) the potential accuracy of polygraphs for investigative or screening purposes.
Does this link not work for you? I can attempt to paraphrase the paper but since it is only two pages long it would speak for itself much better. I was aware of this article and it does show in one particular laboratory experiment that polygraph results likely differ from chance. The article does not conclude that the results are reliable or transferrable to a diagnostic setting. The authors report on a single experiment in which 100 people are re-interviewed for theft cases that have previously been resolved. 50 are innocent (because somebody else confessed) and 50 are guilty (because they confessed). In this experiment, false positive rates of up to 50% and false negative rates of up to 36% were observed (depending on the interpreter of the charts). These findings are better than chance (p .05).
The authors conclude, "Hence, we conclude that the validity and reliability of polygraphic interrogation have yet to be established."
With your interpretation, the clause "if the interrogated person is subjected to a lie detector" would be useless, having no more meaning than "if pink unicorns orbited pluto." The presumption that the clause is useful, i.e. that the use of a lie detector has some relationship to whether the subject's belief, is implicit in its having included it in the statement.
Polygraph, voice stress analysis, fMRI, Tarot cards, have equal diagnostic value. Zero.
To be more precise, no study has yet demonstrated that any is more or less effective than the others.
Please cite a reference. The statement asserts that polygraph tests have better than chance diagnostic capability and if that has been demonstrated in the literature, I would like to hear about it.
However, I'm skeptical based, if nothing else, on how the result is paraphrased. It is not hard to make a test that has 0 diagnostic capability be "accurate 65% of the time." Here are two examples:
1. I have a deck of cards all of which say "true" I draw 100 people at random from an elementary school and ask them each in turn to say, "I did not murder anybody." Then I hold up one of the cards from my deck. Guess what? My test will be accurate nearly 100% of the time. Way more than 65%, in any event.
2. Now that's absurd, but suppose 65 of the cards said "true" while 35 said "false." I would be able to accuse school children of murder with 65% accuracy [sic]. The test -- drawing a card from the deck -- is utter crap, but still 65% accurate.
If, on the other hand, my deck of cards identified 65% of a group of murderers as such, and 65% of a group of non-murders as such, it would have some diagnostic value. But it would still be *utterly useless* for screening school children. Or murder suspects, for that matter.
That said, I do not stipulate that any study has shown that a lie detector test has *any* diagnostic power, whether or not that diagnostic power is of practical investigative use.
If you disagree, please cite the study.
No repeatable study or sequence of studies has demonstrated that the polygraph as deployed for interrogation, screening or any other diagnostic purpose, has 70% accuracy. Or, to be more precise, better than 30% false positive or false negative rates.
The argument is not well served by taking figures like this from the air. If you care to cite a particular study, we can debate its methodology, statistical power, and freedom from confounds such as selective sampling or lack of blinding to the "true" result.
The above statement presupposes that lie detectors work at all. This presupposition is unsupported by evidence. So the statement is akin to "mediums are not as able to recall the dead if there's a skeptic in the room."
We all have faith. For example, I have absolute faith that if I jump up I will fall back to earth.
Not all faith is created equal. My faith that I will fall back to earth is, I daresay, more rational than that of somebody who believes he or she will fly away. That's because the latter is not only unsupported by, but contradicted by, our understanding of the natural world.
So I can split faith into four categories:
1. faith in things supported by our observations
2. faith in things for which there is no evidence but could
conceivably be observed
3. faith in things that by definition can never be observed
4. faith in things for which contradict our observations
Categories 2 and 3 are, in my opinion, harmless but useless.
Category 4 is harmful.
Personally, I stick to category 1 and am a devout athiest.
Many mainstream religions and a large number of individuals
stick to categories 2 and 3. Except, perhaps, as far as
the historical record is concerned (paranormal events caused
by the intervention of metaphysical beings). It is easy enough
to agree to disagree on these matters.
The problem, of course, is category 4.
Try this on yer a-ver-age Linux system:
/zpool1
bash-3.2$ df
Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on
zpool1 17193093120 39 17193092990 1%
The advantages of a pre-installed and supported Linux distro are substantial and worth paying for.
A Linux system like RH is way more functional out of the box than vanilla Windows + junkware. The integration effort to install an OS and application suite and configure them so that it all "just works" is non-trivial, and valuable. Then there's support. Think what you will of the quality of HP's help desk, they have to write Linux scripts for their operators.