Nonsense. The editorial staff is larger than it has ever been, and there's a record number of writers contributing. Check the change logs. They're public. The sheer number of junk articles deleted is higher than ever but as a percentage it does not appear to be -- as the size of Wikipedia has grown, so has the junk people have tried to add into it.
The shell script should help make sure that the necessary task of pruning the junk is applied objectively.
Apple bought Beats. They make good headphones. My guess is that Apple will say, "There's at least one vendor who makes really excellent [opinions may vary, I'm stating this from Apple's perspective] headphones. Buy those." And enough of the market will accept that to make yet another piece of hardware be Apple exclusive.
This is an area where I would support government regulation -- banning the sale of devices that don't meet a high security standard, just like we ban food that's unfit for consumption or require specific safety devices in cars. I've hoped that, as cars get more computerized, the regulations around cars would have a bleed-over effect, but, so far, no luck there.
The FDA is concerned about coercion. We find this all the time -- someone wants to do something voluntarily. Someone else doesn't, but gets coerced into it through some sort of blackmail and forced to claim to be a volunteer. The only way anyone has found to block the coercion is to block the volunteers.
You see this all the time in work contracts for unions -- the union wants to stop business from demanding ridiculous overtime, so they negotiate limit X. They then include a clause that bans anyone from volunteering to do more than X because if anyone can volunteer to do it, then you can be coerced into doing it through various economic pressures -- as a manager, you'll promote/retain the one who volunteers more of his time, thus making it effectively a requirement of the job to volunteer in order to stay competitive, so you're right back where you started. The only solution is to ban volunteers.
The problem the FDA faces is that when we allow "volunteers", we immediately start seeing coerced cases. The only way to prevent coercion of patients is to forbid the practice universally.
> On the other hand, they arn't forcing people to use their credit cards beyond their means.
If you look at a lot of the ads that they send us, those ads suggest strongly that they're making the offer because it *is* within your means. These people with advanced math degrees say you're a great person to get this credit... it's easy to start thinking they understand something about your finances that you've missed if you don't really grasp the terms "compound interest" and "APR" etc. I think the sales pitch often crosses the line into dishonesty. Not always, but frequently.
He didn't go on TV to "brag" about it until the Internet got ahold of the story. And I wouldn't call it bragging -- he seemed (to me when I saw the story) to think in his own twisted mind that this was a greatest good argument -- that him making lots of money off of other people's lives would somehow help his business help other people. Bragging would be if he thought he was getting away with evil. He seemed to think he wasn't. He's still evil, but not inside his own head.
The angel company is a new startup that is trying to break into the market, and this is cheap advertising for them, even though they're going to lose money on the pills at that rate. It's a brilliant move, and an example of why you can only push a monopoly position so far before someone will find a way to undercut you.
Long and short of it: I don't think there's any conspiracy here.
You'd never get to submit the code to the trunk if there's even a minimal build gate for submissions -- it wouldn't compile. So, yeah, it would have to be on someone's computer.
Problem may be solved, but the legal question remains: did the person who abused your password do something illegal? If I leave my house unlocked, someone who comes in and steals stuff is still guilty of a crime. If I share my password, they *can* use my stuff, but there's still a legal bar that says they *should not*, and if they do, there may be criminal charges. This case is critical for determining what happens in various fraud and phishing scams. That's why in needs to go to court.
When I read your first sentence (slashdot collapsed section only presented that one line) I thought you were going to suggest bludgeoning them until the amnesia makes them forget the password... other stuff, too, but the password is the legally important bit.
Just because you think you should be able to do that under the EULA does not mean you can do that under the EULA. One clause gives permission to three other people to use the account -- but only if you can fulfill the other clauses. Just because there's no technological way to do that doesn't mean you get to break the EULA, legally speaking.
I've got some feedback to point you toward, NotDrWho. The style of classroom you describe is used extensively by the University of Oklahoma School of Computer Science after a bunch of research. Several years worth of studies essentially found that the lower performing students in those groups would later take individual exams and score roughly half a letter grade higher than those who didn't work in those group projects... follow up studies attributed this gain mostly to being forced to be in proximity to the already-successful students. The already-successful students ALSO BENEFIT from the system, showing a notable jump in their own individual exam scores, but, more importantly, showing a significant jump in their individual *retention* of information a year later, attributed to not only having to learn the material but attempting to teach the material. The situation is pretty much loathed by the already-successful students, but the data has been repeated year after year that it is better for nearly all the students in the environment, both the top performers and the bottom performers. Moreover, over several years of exposure, a peer pressure effect builds up, and you get more and more students actively participating in the later years.
I heard someone propose that software engineers in an Agile environment could be measured by "number of user stories marked finished AND accepted by testers", on the assumption that the software engineers were not allowed to write the user stories in the first place. It's an approach that seems questionable to me, but it was the first proposal I'd heard that seemed tied to the results of the programming instead of to the activity of the programming (i.e. you would be rewarded for finishing a user story in less code and less time instead of more code/more time). The theory was that different size user stories would average out over time so that over the course of a year or so everyone on the team would work on some big stories and some small but the results at the end would be comparable.
Has anyone ever worked in an environment like that? If so, what's it like?
As a journalism major, one of my projects was to evaluate the quality of different news sources. CSM ranked in that project as a very high quality newspaper. The religion of their founder includes "tell the truth" among its foundational tenets, and over 100 years, they've allowed that to take priority over the rest of their philosophy, even in medical reporting, which is the area where Christian Science and actual science differ the most.
It is not factually relevant. It is, in fact, factually misleading. Talking about revenue percentage tells you nothing about how reasonable it is for a company to continue doing this kind of charity. If Intel had X revenue but lost money for the year such that they had negative profit, that highlights even more starkly just how irrelevant the revenue percent is. But by highlighting percent of revenue, the article summary make it sound like Intel is obviously doing this for reasons other than financial, whereas by stating it as a percent of profit, we can have a real debate about whether the financial incentives are sufficient motivation, without trying to pre-judge Intel with other motivations.
This isn't a "home invader" in the traditional sense of being a person. This is a device. Totally different category. This is not a use of deadly force case. This is a case of shutting down an invading device.
In Texas, you could completely dismantle the car as part of removing it from your property as long as you requested it to move and gave the person reasonable time to do so. The person signaled the drone to leave. It didn't. It gets squished. Legal here. Your laws may vary.
Where I live in Texas, that would be perfectly legal if you gave them time to withdraw after signaling you wanted them gone. They didn't, it becomes legit for you to remove it, even if that breaks whatever it is.
I think this may be a marketing mistake. Can we get the performance boost with the new substance but continue to call the new substance "silicon"? Perhaps we could rename silicon as something else to free up the namespace? "Silicon classic" perhaps?:-)
You don't want to autocorrect it unless you also provide a way for the user to say, "No, I really meant to type that." After all, what if this were a bug on a different service, say, Facebook, and you wanted to spread the word about it on Twitter? If autocorrect prevents you from typing certain strings, that's a potential problem when coincidentally there's a need to discuss that string. The correct thing is to decide it isn't a URL and just let it go.
It's still a tramp stamp, but now it is a tramp stamp that broadcasts just what kind of tramp you are. Herpes? Chlamydia? It'll make classifications much simpler for biologists studying the Wild American Tramp species.
This is why I advise a privacy policy of clicking on every link you see! Let 'em mine that! Plays havoc with a goal of "keep machine free of malware", of course, but, hey, that's the price of privacy these days, right?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. The editorial staff is larger than it has ever been, and there's a record number of writers contributing. Check the change logs. They're public. The sheer number of junk articles deleted is higher than ever but as a percentage it does not appear to be -- as the size of Wikipedia has grown, so has the junk people have tried to add into it.
The shell script should help make sure that the necessary task of pruning the junk is applied objectively.
Apple bought Beats. They make good headphones. My guess is that Apple will say, "There's at least one vendor who makes really excellent [opinions may vary, I'm stating this from Apple's perspective] headphones. Buy those." And enough of the market will accept that to make yet another piece of hardware be Apple exclusive.
This is an area where I would support government regulation -- banning the sale of devices that don't meet a high security standard, just like we ban food that's unfit for consumption or require specific safety devices in cars. I've hoped that, as cars get more computerized, the regulations around cars would have a bleed-over effect, but, so far, no luck there.
The FDA is concerned about coercion. We find this all the time -- someone wants to do something voluntarily. Someone else doesn't, but gets coerced into it through some sort of blackmail and forced to claim to be a volunteer. The only way anyone has found to block the coercion is to block the volunteers.
You see this all the time in work contracts for unions -- the union wants to stop business from demanding ridiculous overtime, so they negotiate limit X. They then include a clause that bans anyone from volunteering to do more than X because if anyone can volunteer to do it, then you can be coerced into doing it through various economic pressures -- as a manager, you'll promote/retain the one who volunteers more of his time, thus making it effectively a requirement of the job to volunteer in order to stay competitive, so you're right back where you started. The only solution is to ban volunteers.
Same with FDA.
The problem the FDA faces is that when we allow "volunteers", we immediately start seeing coerced cases. The only way to prevent coercion of patients is to forbid the practice universally.
> On the other hand, they arn't forcing people to use their credit cards beyond their means.
If you look at a lot of the ads that they send us, those ads suggest strongly that they're making the offer because it *is* within your means. These people with advanced math degrees say you're a great person to get this credit... it's easy to start thinking they understand something about your finances that you've missed if you don't really grasp the terms "compound interest" and "APR" etc. I think the sales pitch often crosses the line into dishonesty. Not always, but frequently.
He didn't go on TV to "brag" about it until the Internet got ahold of the story. And I wouldn't call it bragging -- he seemed (to me when I saw the story) to think in his own twisted mind that this was a greatest good argument -- that him making lots of money off of other people's lives would somehow help his business help other people. Bragging would be if he thought he was getting away with evil. He seemed to think he wasn't. He's still evil, but not inside his own head.
The angel company is a new startup that is trying to break into the market, and this is cheap advertising for them, even though they're going to lose money on the pills at that rate. It's a brilliant move, and an example of why you can only push a monopoly position so far before someone will find a way to undercut you.
Long and short of it: I don't think there's any conspiracy here.
You'd never get to submit the code to the trunk if there's even a minimal build gate for submissions -- it wouldn't compile. So, yeah, it would have to be on someone's computer.
Citation needed. This does not match what I know of the federal poverty levels and definition of rich.
Problem may be solved, but the legal question remains: did the person who abused your password do something illegal? If I leave my house unlocked, someone who comes in and steals stuff is still guilty of a crime. If I share my password, they *can* use my stuff, but there's still a legal bar that says they *should not*, and if they do, there may be criminal charges. This case is critical for determining what happens in various fraud and phishing scams. That's why in needs to go to court.
When I read your first sentence (slashdot collapsed section only presented that one line) I thought you were going to suggest bludgeoning them until the amnesia makes them forget the password... other stuff, too, but the password is the legally important bit.
Just because you think you should be able to do that under the EULA does not mean you can do that under the EULA. One clause gives permission to three other people to use the account -- but only if you can fulfill the other clauses. Just because there's no technological way to do that doesn't mean you get to break the EULA, legally speaking.
I've got some feedback to point you toward, NotDrWho.
The style of classroom you describe is used extensively by the University of Oklahoma School of Computer Science after a bunch of research. Several years worth of studies essentially found that the lower performing students in those groups would later take individual exams and score roughly half a letter grade higher than those who didn't work in those group projects... follow up studies attributed this gain mostly to being forced to be in proximity to the already-successful students. The already-successful students ALSO BENEFIT from the system, showing a notable jump in their own individual exam scores, but, more importantly, showing a significant jump in their individual *retention* of information a year later, attributed to not only having to learn the material but attempting to teach the material. The situation is pretty much loathed by the already-successful students, but the data has been repeated year after year that it is better for nearly all the students in the environment, both the top performers and the bottom performers. Moreover, over several years of exposure, a peer pressure effect builds up, and you get more and more students actively participating in the later years.
If you want to learn more, the term you should Google is "Readiness Assurance Tests"... these are tests that students take twice, once as a group and once as individuals, and your score is the average of the group and the individual. You can also take a look at these links:
https://ccistudentcenterblog.w...
http://slideplayer.com/slide/4...
https://www.ou.edu/idp/teamlea...
I heard someone propose that software engineers in an Agile environment could be measured by "number of user stories marked finished AND accepted by testers", on the assumption that the software engineers were not allowed to write the user stories in the first place. It's an approach that seems questionable to me, but it was the first proposal I'd heard that seemed tied to the results of the programming instead of to the activity of the programming (i.e. you would be rewarded for finishing a user story in less code and less time instead of more code/more time). The theory was that different size user stories would average out over time so that over the course of a year or so everyone on the team would work on some big stories and some small but the results at the end would be comparable.
Has anyone ever worked in an environment like that? If so, what's it like?
As a journalism major, one of my projects was to evaluate the quality of different news sources. CSM ranked in that project as a very high quality newspaper. The religion of their founder includes "tell the truth" among its foundational tenets, and over 100 years, they've allowed that to take priority over the rest of their philosophy, even in medical reporting, which is the area where Christian Science and actual science differ the most.
It is not factually relevant. It is, in fact, factually misleading. Talking about revenue percentage tells you nothing about how reasonable it is for a company to continue doing this kind of charity. If Intel had X revenue but lost money for the year such that they had negative profit, that highlights even more starkly just how irrelevant the revenue percent is. But by highlighting percent of revenue, the article summary make it sound like Intel is obviously doing this for reasons other than financial, whereas by stating it as a percent of profit, we can have a real debate about whether the financial incentives are sufficient motivation, without trying to pre-judge Intel with other motivations.
This isn't a "home invader" in the traditional sense of being a person. This is a device. Totally different category. This is not a use of deadly force case. This is a case of shutting down an invading device.
In Texas, you could completely dismantle the car as part of removing it from your property as long as you requested it to move and gave the person reasonable time to do so. The person signaled the drone to leave. It didn't. It gets squished. Legal here. Your laws may vary.
Where I live in Texas, that would be perfectly legal if you gave them time to withdraw after signaling you wanted them gone. They didn't, it becomes legit for you to remove it, even if that breaks whatever it is.
I think this may be a marketing mistake. Can we get the performance boost with the new substance but continue to call the new substance "silicon"? Perhaps we could rename silicon as something else to free up the namespace? "Silicon classic" perhaps? :-)
You can't tell people about this kind of research because then the malignant people change their words. The only benefit is in keeping it quiet.
I think the term would be "script daddy", yes?
You don't want to autocorrect it unless you also provide a way for the user to say, "No, I really meant to type that." After all, what if this were a bug on a different service, say, Facebook, and you wanted to spread the word about it on Twitter? If autocorrect prevents you from typing certain strings, that's a potential problem when coincidentally there's a need to discuss that string. The correct thing is to decide it isn't a URL and just let it go.
It's still a tramp stamp, but now it is a tramp stamp that broadcasts just what kind of tramp you are. Herpes? Chlamydia? It'll make classifications much simpler for biologists studying the Wild American Tramp species.
This is why I advise a privacy policy of clicking on every link you see! Let 'em mine that! :-)
Plays havoc with a goal of "keep machine free of malware", of course, but, hey, that's the price of privacy these days, right?