When Castro seized the assets of Cuba's property owners, they fled to the US. Obviously, these people don't care much for Castro and they happen to wield a considerable amount of influence, particularly in Florida, one of the most important swing states in the presidential elections.
On top of this, there are still some old cold war hawks who view Cuba as a lingering threat of communist influence in Latin America. There is a lot of nostalgic fear attached to Castro's name. This may soften if Raul turns out to be Castro Lite.
My philosophy is to make your best guess in the face of uncertainty while still recognizing that uncertainty means that you will be wrong at least some of the time (maybe even all the time).
I've found that there is no surer path to error than in believing that you've figured something out.
I've worked on a few medical data projects, and one thing that has struck me was the great lengths taken to make sure that I had no contact whatsoever with actual doctors or nurses. Any software developer knows what the results will be if they are denied communication with the users. You get software that makes perfect sense to a software developer, but is incomprehensible to anyone else. It typically takes several rounds of "beta" testing to overcome this problem, and to rebuild the user-interface stuff so that the real users can actually use it.
I've been thinking about this sort of thing lately, except from the end user perspective. Our company uses an in-house developed program which runs code tailored for each case. However, most of the end users are not trained as programmers, but they understand the concepts needed to do their jobs. Since the developers of the software are in another office, I end up being the guy people come to when they can't figure out what the program is trying to do. A few times I've had to solve problems resulting from errors in code the developers emailed because they answered off the top of their heads without testing it first.
I think all developers would benefit from having to walk a mile in their users shoes to see all of the abnormal cases that come up and the messes their users create when they aren't around to hold their hands.
Problems with software can be made worse by the fact that the young people who adapt to the software most quickly are the ones with the least knowledge of when something isn't working properly.
I've been thinking of writing up a description of some common problems users have with understanding our program and making some suggestions. Of course, it could be a bit dangerous to send someone in another office a list of suggestions, even if they are politely worded. So far I haven't known anyone to be unreasonable at my company, so there may be hope.
Pneumonia is inflammation of the lungs caused by an infection.
Asthma is inflammation of the lungs caused by an immune response.
I'm not a doctor, but I'm guessing that if he had pneumonia and they treated him for asthma, he would die. Even though his history probably makes asthma much more likely than pneumonia, if they treated him for asthma without ruling out pneumonia, and he ended up dying, they would be liable for his death.
I've generally found that when people think other people are incompetent, it's because they don't understand the problems they have to deal with. Perhaps you should take the time to think about why a person might have acted a certain way rather than just labeling them stupid.
You should indeed be shooting for better than average (haha). But in the real world if you make money just slighter greater than 50% of the time (let's say 51%), if the volume is large enough then guess what: you make a whole lotta money. It's a viable strategy.
Until you're wrong. In which case, you're wrong in a large volume.
The problem with trying to use logic for a system like this is that you have to start from assumptions. There is no natural method of determining which assumptions you should start from.
This isn't like chemistry where you can try different equations for a reaction rate until you get one that fits the data and if you don't have enough data you can run more trials. Your financial model can only be tested against historical data. The very best you can do is to prove that your model explains the range of observed variation, you have no means of proving that it can explain future variation.
There are no bounds on these financial variables and there is no way of telling how far out the future outliers will be.
It works fine once you run OUT of people who hate their lives. Which if you shoot them, you will, since the number of people willing or able to become pirates is not infinite.
Yeah, but there sure are a lot of them.
As to seizing a gunboat and making away with it, I gather this has been done -- and then along came the navy and blew 'em out of the water.
Yeah, but how much does that cost?
But letting them get away with it because of the drawbacks of fighting them is not a good solution.
There's no such thing as a solution. All you ever do is transform the problem into a different problem that you're willing to live with.
You start killing pirates and making it really risky to be a pirate and there won't be any more pirates willing to take the risk. Kinda like the old saying, "There are old pirates and there are bold pirates, but there are no old bold pirates".
That logic doesn't work on someone who hates his life.
A heavily armed ship would be an even more desirable target than an unarmed one. If you put more armed ships out there, then at some point, some clever pirate is going to figure out a way to seize one by stealth or trickery.
A weapon that can't be carried by a small maneuverable ship avoids this problem.
As I see it, a signature is a sort of signifier that a person recognizes they are agreeing to something that they can't trivially disavow later. It's basically evidence that someone entered into an agreement or issued a statement under their name willingly. It doesn't prove who actually did the signing, but as you said other evidence can corroborate that.
It's not something you can claim you did accidentally. If you sign something without reading it, then you're willingly trusting the person who asked you to sign it.
Your mother probably wouldn't like it if you used a sample of grandma's ashes to test your carbon dating system.
Everyone attaches sentimental significance to different things. There are a lot of people who think that both the origins and destined state of all people should be treated with a certain level of gravitas.
Just because you don't understand why someone feels a certain way doesn't mean it's productive to ignore their feelings. Whether you like it or not, you have to live with other people and you can get more done by keeping calm and trying to come to a compromise with the ones who are willing to listen than you can by just getting indignant and alienating everyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Still, there is some potential for deeper insight here.
Quantum mechanics allows you to use the same formalism for abstract descriptions of systems (|psi>=a*|cat dead>+b*|cat alive>) as you do for more concrete descriptions (position, momentum, etc.).
If describe decision theory in quantum mechanical terms, and make falsifiable predictions from it, that would be evidence that superpositions of distinct psychological states exist. Not proof, but at the least some more fuel for some old debates.
What if Google and other online advertising providers could allow for a linker and a linkee to exchange some fraction of their advertising revenue? This would acknowledge that some portion of the aggregator's revenue is the result of the linked content and that some portion of the content creator's revenue is the result of being linked by the aggregator.
If the system were set up right, an aggregator that produces a great deal of additional traffic for the content provider receives a net payment while an aggregator that doesn't produce many hits pays the content creator (not to exceed their revenue from the page or pages with the link).
You could have a bidding system where content creators establish required revenue sharing rates for a link and offered revenue sharing rates for a click-through. Content providers that offer good content for a competitive price would benefit and aggregators that generate a lot of traffic for the content providers would also benefit.
Of course this would probably kill Slashdot since no one reads the articles around here.
I'd prefer to see funds for infrastructure improvements allocated to the states for general categories of projects rather than the current situation which allows debates over the merits of individual projects to bog down congressional debate (and media coverage of congressional debate).
In the current economic climate, do you think that any boss in the US would take you seriously if you threatened to quit?
Not to mention that it's an asshole move anyway if you go that route before trying to have a reasonable discussion with your boss. You might be able to get your way a few times if you lord your technical prowess over others, but ultimately you make more progress if you try to understand their concerns and try to get them to understand your concerns.
Doing the right thing doesn't mean dogmatically following some principle you read about on the internet. It's about exploring all of the options, spending the time to understand the trade-offs involved in each one, and making the best decision you can.
I've never heard this term before and I can't find any definitions but I'm guessing that since they say manufacture that this probably has to do with physical production (printing discs etc.).
The production facilities that they own have a limited capacity and this may mean that they want to avoid paying a premium to other companies when their production needs exceed the capacity of their in-house facilities.
Basically I think they're saying that in the face of a recession that they would rather risk not being able to produce enough units to face demand as opposed to the risk of producing more units than they can sell (with a higher unit cost).
"Manufactured on" doesn't mean "manufactured out of" so I think you may be jumping to conclusions. The silicon may just form a working surface for the manufacturing process.
There's something to be said for the idea that everyone should be given the chance to redeem themselves. In support of this argument I present Bertrand Russell's short story, "Josef Stalin's Nightmare", which describes what can probably be said to be the ideal punishment for Stalin, or any dictator.
Re:It's attrition in the target audience.
on
Are Newspapers Doomed?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think the newspapers with wider circulation may survive with local papers dying out completely. It should be possible for the nationally distributed newspapers to cannibalize the local and regional newspapers by offering versions with local news.
On top of that, they could probably also offer additional customization of content such as allowing you to choose which columnists appear in your copy. A service like that, combined with the fact that at least some sentimentality over print is likely to be passed on to the next generation should keep the newspaper around for some time.
Slashdot Mirror
When Castro seized the assets of Cuba's property owners, they fled to the US. Obviously, these people don't care much for Castro and they happen to wield a considerable amount of influence, particularly in Florida, one of the most important swing states in the presidential elections.
On top of this, there are still some old cold war hawks who view Cuba as a lingering threat of communist influence in Latin America. There is a lot of nostalgic fear attached to Castro's name. This may soften if Raul turns out to be Castro Lite.
Don't believe anything ever.
My philosophy is to make your best guess in the face of uncertainty while still recognizing that uncertainty means that you will be wrong at least some of the time (maybe even all the time).
I've found that there is no surer path to error than in believing that you've figured something out.
I've been thinking about this sort of thing lately, except from the end user perspective. Our company uses an in-house developed program which runs code tailored for each case. However, most of the end users are not trained as programmers, but they understand the concepts needed to do their jobs. Since the developers of the software are in another office, I end up being the guy people come to when they can't figure out what the program is trying to do. A few times I've had to solve problems resulting from errors in code the developers emailed because they answered off the top of their heads without testing it first.
I think all developers would benefit from having to walk a mile in their users shoes to see all of the abnormal cases that come up and the messes their users create when they aren't around to hold their hands.
Problems with software can be made worse by the fact that the young people who adapt to the software most quickly are the ones with the least knowledge of when something isn't working properly.
I've been thinking of writing up a description of some common problems users have with understanding our program and making some suggestions. Of course, it could be a bit dangerous to send someone in another office a list of suggestions, even if they are politely worded. So far I haven't known anyone to be unreasonable at my company, so there may be hope.
Pneumonia is inflammation of the lungs caused by an infection.
Asthma is inflammation of the lungs caused by an immune response.
I'm not a doctor, but I'm guessing that if he had pneumonia and they treated him for asthma, he would die. Even though his history probably makes asthma much more likely than pneumonia, if they treated him for asthma without ruling out pneumonia, and he ended up dying, they would be liable for his death.
I've generally found that when people think other people are incompetent, it's because they don't understand the problems they have to deal with. Perhaps you should take the time to think about why a person might have acted a certain way rather than just labeling them stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uberrima_fides
She would have to prove that he had no knowledge of any relevant risk factors that he did not disclose when obtaining the insurance.
Even if he hadn't been tested for Hepatitis C at the time, his drug use alone may be enough to invalidate the claim.
Until you're wrong. In which case, you're wrong in a large volume.
The problem with trying to use logic for a system like this is that you have to start from assumptions. There is no natural method of determining which assumptions you should start from.
This isn't like chemistry where you can try different equations for a reaction rate until you get one that fits the data and if you don't have enough data you can run more trials. Your financial model can only be tested against historical data. The very best you can do is to prove that your model explains the range of observed variation, you have no means of proving that it can explain future variation.
There are no bounds on these financial variables and there is no way of telling how far out the future outliers will be.
It works fine once you run OUT of people who hate their lives. Which if you shoot them, you will, since the number of people willing or able to become pirates is not infinite.
Yeah, but there sure are a lot of them.
As to seizing a gunboat and making away with it, I gather this has been done -- and then along came the navy and blew 'em out of the water.
Yeah, but how much does that cost?
But letting them get away with it because of the drawbacks of fighting them is not a good solution.
There's no such thing as a solution. All you ever do is transform the problem into a different problem that you're willing to live with.
You start killing pirates and making it really risky to be a pirate and there won't be any more pirates willing to take the risk. Kinda like the old saying, "There are old pirates and there are bold pirates, but there are no old bold pirates".
That logic doesn't work on someone who hates his life.
A heavily armed ship would be an even more desirable target than an unarmed one. If you put more armed ships out there, then at some point, some clever pirate is going to figure out a way to seize one by stealth or trickery.
A weapon that can't be carried by a small maneuverable ship avoids this problem.
As I see it, a signature is a sort of signifier that a person recognizes they are agreeing to something that they can't trivially disavow later. It's basically evidence that someone entered into an agreement or issued a statement under their name willingly. It doesn't prove who actually did the signing, but as you said other evidence can corroborate that.
It's not something you can claim you did accidentally. If you sign something without reading it, then you're willingly trusting the person who asked you to sign it.
Your mother probably wouldn't like it if you used a sample of grandma's ashes to test your carbon dating system.
Everyone attaches sentimental significance to different things. There are a lot of people who think that both the origins and destined state of all people should be treated with a certain level of gravitas.
Just because you don't understand why someone feels a certain way doesn't mean it's productive to ignore their feelings. Whether you like it or not, you have to live with other people and you can get more done by keeping calm and trying to come to a compromise with the ones who are willing to listen than you can by just getting indignant and alienating everyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Still, there is some potential for deeper insight here.
Quantum mechanics allows you to use the same formalism for abstract descriptions of systems (|psi>=a*|cat dead>+b*|cat alive>) as you do for more concrete descriptions (position, momentum, etc.).
If describe decision theory in quantum mechanical terms, and make falsifiable predictions from it, that would be evidence that superpositions of distinct psychological states exist. Not proof, but at the least some more fuel for some old debates.
Some players want it. In my experience, most hate it.
http://vodpod.com/watch/1456331-mr-show-we%E2%80%99re-gonna-blow-up-the-moon
On top of that this method of distribution allows targeted advertising and instant ratings feedback.
What if Google and other online advertising providers could allow for a linker and a linkee to exchange some fraction of their advertising revenue? This would acknowledge that some portion of the aggregator's revenue is the result of the linked content and that some portion of the content creator's revenue is the result of being linked by the aggregator.
If the system were set up right, an aggregator that produces a great deal of additional traffic for the content provider receives a net payment while an aggregator that doesn't produce many hits pays the content creator (not to exceed their revenue from the page or pages with the link).
You could have a bidding system where content creators establish required revenue sharing rates for a link and offered revenue sharing rates for a click-through. Content providers that offer good content for a competitive price would benefit and aggregators that generate a lot of traffic for the content providers would also benefit.
Of course this would probably kill Slashdot since no one reads the articles around here.
I'd prefer to see funds for infrastructure improvements allocated to the states for general categories of projects rather than the current situation which allows debates over the merits of individual projects to bog down congressional debate (and media coverage of congressional debate).
In the current economic climate, do you think that any boss in the US would take you seriously if you threatened to quit?
Not to mention that it's an asshole move anyway if you go that route before trying to have a reasonable discussion with your boss. You might be able to get your way a few times if you lord your technical prowess over others, but ultimately you make more progress if you try to understand their concerns and try to get them to understand your concerns.
Doing the right thing doesn't mean dogmatically following some principle you read about on the internet. It's about exploring all of the options, spending the time to understand the trade-offs involved in each one, and making the best decision you can.
Wasn't Adrian Veidt working on marketing the Watchmen in exactly this sort of way?
IBM Files Patent For Bullet-Dodging Bionic Armor
Reading that title, I got a mental image of body armor sensing incoming bullets and dodging them by jumping off of the wearer.
Well of course it does! The armor is vastly more expensive than the wearer.
I've never heard this term before and I can't find any definitions but I'm guessing that since they say manufacture that this probably has to do with physical production (printing discs etc.).
The production facilities that they own have a limited capacity and this may mean that they want to avoid paying a premium to other companies when their production needs exceed the capacity of their in-house facilities.
Basically I think they're saying that in the face of a recession that they would rather risk not being able to produce enough units to face demand as opposed to the risk of producing more units than they can sell (with a higher unit cost).
God have mercy on our souls.
"Manufactured on" doesn't mean "manufactured out of" so I think you may be jumping to conclusions. The silicon may just form a working surface for the manufacturing process.
There's something to be said for the idea that everyone should be given the chance to redeem themselves. In support of this argument I present Bertrand Russell's short story, "Josef Stalin's Nightmare", which describes what can probably be said to be the ideal punishment for Stalin, or any dictator.
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/stalin/stalin-nightmare.html
I think the newspapers with wider circulation may survive with local papers dying out completely. It should be possible for the nationally distributed newspapers to cannibalize the local and regional newspapers by offering versions with local news.
On top of that, they could probably also offer additional customization of content such as allowing you to choose which columnists appear in your copy. A service like that, combined with the fact that at least some sentimentality over print is likely to be passed on to the next generation should keep the newspaper around for some time.