Companies are protected from all sorts of investor inanity by the vagueness of the public's view into their business models.
Asking a company to produce a model is asking the company to allow investors to claim that any action outside the model constitutes a violation of the promises made in the prospectus that is the model.
Adding a hold-harmless clause stating that the model is innately inaccurate is the same thing as just not producing the automated model at all.
Corporate finance reporting can't talk about the future because it doesn't know the future. It knows the past, give or take an error bar, and, provided a slight lag, it knows the present. It knows the current state of plans, and the statistics of the company's past experience in executing to plans. It knows the competitive landscape, but only as well as anyone outside knows its own insides.
In the end, the best you can do is to produce a program that allows the investor to choose what elements of the business model to include in a model, and so on, all the way down. Then any errors are the investor's own.
This is different from the criminal justice system exactly how?
Evidence exists before charges are laid. The machines don't create the evidence, they just highlight it; and the machines don't testify as to its accuracy, the teacher does.
If you want the evidence impeached, you have to gut the teacher's credibility and competence. Hint: if the teacher says, "it's evidence because the computer says it's evidence," you win on competence, especially in a CS class.
Obama doesn't use poli-sci. He uses rational thought.
The poli-sci majors are creating right-wing propagandotainment shows for cable TV. Because why not make a buck on advertising while you're poisoning minds?
In order to use a code library, you need to understand what's going on in the library calls.
Plagiarists don't even go that far. They're not just reusing code, they're missing the point of learning.
And within months, if not weeks, what you think of as creative work has been put into a code library somewhere. The stuff that actually needs work done will require original thinking. So if all you do is crib, you're not going to contribute any more.
Fine. They'll get out of school, get a job, be found out as frauds, and have to pay $200K in student loans with whatever's left over from their next job, managing the convenience store at the car wash.
Hint to underclassmen: do NOT simply submit the URL of the paper you are plagiarizing. While URLs are long and difficult to understand, your professor will be able to tell the difference between it and the full text of an original piece of writing.
There are very few times when throwing aces away is the correct move, and if someone has been playing over-aggressively, the chance that it's one of those times hasn't changed, so your chance of doubling-up on your measly bullets goes WAY THE FUCK UP.
If the enemy of my enemy is his enemy for a different reason than mine, then he is still not my friend.
Like the U.S. and the Soviet Union in WW2, we will fight our common enemy from either side, then when we meet in Berlin we will resume fighting each other.
Twitter manages your follower list and performs the fanout of your tweets automatically. And owns the patent on it.
You had SMS before twitter. How many people did you ever contact at once? Do you think Ashton Kutcher typed in 4 million follower addresses on any of his text messages before twitter?
How many "unlimited text" subscriptions do you think there were? I know I had a plan with about 50 texts per month on it. Went unlimited two weeks after following one person. I know I'm not alone. I also know there are a lot of people who can't afford an unlimited plan, but go over the cost compulsively with 15 cent/message fees.
This thing is making $billions for the phone companies. They will share with Twitter, or they will lose 90% of that revenue and be stuck with the old model. The mention of an impending miss on their revenue projections in the press will tank their stock, gutting their annual performance bonus, and open them up to firing by the board.
I'm not a CEO, but I've turned down the job before. If I was the CEO of Twitter, I'd be taking my cut out of the phone companies' income and letting the users continue to get the content for free. No reason the phone co. should be profiting from the value created my invention without paying me for it.
Did you read the new national nuclear defense policy that made the news last week?
It was controversial for reducing our posture in some scenarios, which probably distracted most peopel, but through the noise I noticed that it specifically authorized the use of nukes to counter a cyberattack.
The problem with the weather isn't that it's unpredictable, it's that the parameters that feed the prediction can change significantly in the time it takes you to propagate the prediction to the end users, and many features of the weather are local enough that a central weather forecast is incorrect for a significant portion of the user base.
So no, the general public will not be a better predictor of the weather than the NWS could. And the system using wagers will be even worse, since many of those wagers will be based old data, or data that is measured at a great distance from the point at which the determination of the actual weather is made.
Slashdot Mirror
And they're still right of center.
This is not the solution. Not even close.
Companies are protected from all sorts of investor inanity by the vagueness of the public's view into their business models.
Asking a company to produce a model is asking the company to allow investors to claim that any action outside the model constitutes a violation of the promises made in the prospectus that is the model.
Adding a hold-harmless clause stating that the model is innately inaccurate is the same thing as just not producing the automated model at all.
Corporate finance reporting can't talk about the future because it doesn't know the future. It knows the past, give or take an error bar, and, provided a slight lag, it knows the present. It knows the current state of plans, and the statistics of the company's past experience in executing to plans. It knows the competitive landscape, but only as well as anyone outside knows its own insides.
In the end, the best you can do is to produce a program that allows the investor to choose what elements of the business model to include in a model, and so on, all the way down. Then any errors are the investor's own.
or a curtain
or a box
or a "hey! look over there!"
or a towel...
This is different from the criminal justice system exactly how?
Evidence exists before charges are laid. The machines don't create the evidence, they just highlight it; and the machines don't testify as to its accuracy, the teacher does.
If you want the evidence impeached, you have to gut the teacher's credibility and competence. Hint: if the teacher says, "it's evidence because the computer says it's evidence," you win on competence, especially in a CS class.
You want to speak to the Law School.
In CS, we just throw exceptions. If someone has written an intelligent handler, fine. If not, there's always a default.
Obama doesn't use poli-sci. He uses rational thought.
The poli-sci majors are creating right-wing propagandotainment shows for cable TV. Because why not make a buck on advertising while you're poisoning minds?
In order to use a code library, you need to understand what's going on in the library calls.
Plagiarists don't even go that far. They're not just reusing code, they're missing the point of learning.
And within months, if not weeks, what you think of as creative work has been put into a code library somewhere. The stuff that actually needs work done will require original thinking. So if all you do is crib, you're not going to contribute any more.
Fine. They'll get out of school, get a job, be found out as frauds, and have to pay $200K in student loans with whatever's left over from their next job, managing the convenience store at the car wash.
Hint to underclassmen: do NOT simply submit the URL of the paper you are plagiarizing. While URLs are long and difficult to understand, your professor will be able to tell the difference between it and the full text of an original piece of writing.
Now they do.
C is nearly 40 years old, and the microprocessors of today have been evolved to make common software constructs more efficient.
So things like `=' may be optimized down to single instructions, if your compiler is savvy to the CPU's advantages.
There are very few times when throwing aces away is the correct move, and if someone has been playing over-aggressively, the chance that it's one of those times hasn't changed, so your chance of doubling-up on your measly bullets goes WAY THE FUCK UP.
So the solution is simple. Call up Jon Pos---er, ICANN, and report the fraud.
Contact the former customers of the website and have any who've been hit-up for fake billings report it as well.
Much simpler than the Jack Bauer defense.
Correct. Legally, he's not the one with a complaint. It's his old customers who are being defrauded. This is neither his fault nor his fight.
So baseball is gambling, otherwise every 3-game series would come out 3-0 to the team with more skill.
And all those teams that got beat by lower seeds in the NCAA tournament this year? They should sue the NCAA for running a casino?
Having more skill means you have a better CHANCE of winning. Not that you will always win.
The best games, the ones that turn spectators into fanatics and leagues into industries, include a component of randomization to go with the skill.
The WSP old-hands know full well how to handle aggressive betting. They're setting it up by pretending they don't.
It would be ironic but not illogical.
If the enemy of my enemy is his enemy for a different reason than mine, then he is still not my friend.
Like the U.S. and the Soviet Union in WW2, we will fight our common enemy from either side, then when we meet in Berlin we will resume fighting each other.
slashfarkoverload
Twitter manages your follower list and performs the fanout of your tweets automatically. And owns the patent on it.
You had SMS before twitter. How many people did you ever contact at once? Do you think Ashton Kutcher typed in 4 million follower addresses on any of his text messages before twitter?
How many "unlimited text" subscriptions do you think there were? I know I had a plan with about 50 texts per month on it. Went unlimited two weeks after following one person. I know I'm not alone. I also know there are a lot of people who can't afford an unlimited plan, but go over the cost compulsively with 15 cent/message fees.
This thing is making $billions for the phone companies. They will share with Twitter, or they will lose 90% of that revenue and be stuck with the old model. The mention of an impending miss on their revenue projections in the press will tank their stock, gutting their annual performance bonus, and open them up to firing by the board.
I'm not a CEO, but I've turned down the job before. If I was the CEO of Twitter, I'd be taking my cut out of the phone companies' income and letting the users continue to get the content for free. No reason the phone co. should be profiting from the value created my invention without paying me for it.
Hamstrung as in made 90% use hard-to-use passwords while leaving the other 10% free of encumbrance.
They should have enforced it 100%. Then it would have worked. Cybersneaks need just one hole.
Not really. Indentured servitude involves a debt that won't be paid unless the work is performed.
Interns can quit any time and owe the employer nothing.
Internship is more like a barter transaction. The intern barters work and the employer barters experience and education.
The actual value of both is debatable.
Did you read the new national nuclear defense policy that made the news last week?
It was controversial for reducing our posture in some scenarios, which probably distracted most peopel, but through the noise I noticed that it specifically authorized the use of nukes to counter a cyberattack.
You know what's entertaining?
Watching people argue for rights they don't have against people enforcing rights they don't have.
It puts the zeitgeist in the machine.
Crowds elected George W. Bush. Twice.
Plural voting is not a reliable system of determining facts. It's better than asking one half-informed person, but not by much.
The problem with the weather isn't that it's unpredictable, it's that the parameters that feed the prediction can change significantly in the time it takes you to propagate the prediction to the end users, and many features of the weather are local enough that a central weather forecast is incorrect for a significant portion of the user base.
So no, the general public will not be a better predictor of the weather than the NWS could. And the system using wagers will be even worse, since many of those wagers will be based old data, or data that is measured at a great distance from the point at which the determination of the actual weather is made.