This may be a good solution but only due to other limitations of the language. What you are really doing here is implementing the equivalent of a "finally" clause as is available in Java,.Net, and other languages. Indeed if you called your label "finally" instead of "out," it would be pretty clear what you are doing. I'm not saying that the goto here is bad, but rather that the need for it works around a language design issue.
Assuming that the mean and median are approximately the same, this is the expected outcome. Half will be below the median, half above. So these daycare centers seem to be typical.
Look at the eyebrows, not the eyes. More comfortable for Autistics and the other person won't notice the difference. The source for this advice isn't very good, so take it with a grain of salt, but it seems like a great idea to me.
Who is the author if "Influence, the science of persuasion." There are way too many hits on Amazon to know if I'm finding the book that you referenced.
My son is diagnosed as "on the spectrum." You quickly know everybody else in town whose kids have the same diagnosis. The mom's prattle on endlessly about "social skills." But I doubt it's a lack of skills that is really the issue. Rather, a lack of desire. I was never diagnosed when I was a kid but certainly seem to meet the criteria. My kindergarten report card says "does not play with other children."
When I hear the mom's prattle on about "social skills," I still cringe. I don't think that any of the kids lack the skills. They lack the desire. Sitting around and engaging in idle conversation isn't fun for everybody. They'd rather explore their world. Of course there are some things that can't be one by yourself (like play on the see-saw). Suddenly they want to interact with other kids. They can't do it and feel rejected.
The spectrum kids (and me) have a tough time seeing the intrinsic value of the relationships, only the benefits. Of course that doesn't work. Any skills we force them to learn don't really address the underlying desires. The skills aren't hard to learn. I went from being the most anti-social guy in HS and now I'm a salesman spending my day talking to people. But I still wouldn't say I have any 'good' friends. Just know a lot of people. It doesn't actually bother me at all.
I care about things like right and wrong. Man is a species being and that seems to be true even of people on the spectrum. But interacting and maintaining relationships with individuals feels more like a chore.
There's a huge risk here that what we are really teaching the kids is the means of doing an unpleasant task better. Imagine instead of social skills you were teaching them taking out the trash. If you make this substitution in all of the sentences, it's pretty representative of how many people feel.
I'm not saying that kids shouldn't be taught to survive in their world better - they have to learn to clean their rooms, too. But we should understand that it's not necessarily something that they want to do.
Although I would be supportive of this, I doubt it will help. The only people who write "X times less" are people with almost no comprehension of math. It's likely that, even if you fixed this, it's only a symptom of a larger problem with the content.
Unfortunately they seem to think that "over regulation" means anything more than trivial regulation because the free market will handle it. What we would get in practice is essentially no regulation which is even scarier than over-regulation. If the regulation is so little that it is effectively zero, you are right that they aren't saying "no regulation" but the OPs description of their position would still be more accurate than saying they are against "over regulation."
I can't agree with this. There are many academics who would do a paper on this for career ambition alone. And there are a lot of philanthropic organizations (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Howard Hughes foundation that I can think of off the top of my head) who would gladly pay for research to show a health benefit from cheap grocery items. It represents a low-cost way to have a very positive health intervention in developing areas. These things get studied all the time but don't show enough promise for anybody to look into them any more seriously. Find an herb that can reduce the transmission of malaria and you'll have no trouble getting grant money. What we really mean by proving these effective are whether or not they can get an extra 1% out of an already healthy population. For that, I agree, there's no point in studying a compound that won't pay financial benefits. But if they had even 10% of the effectiveness of any medicine on the market, the research papers would be coming out at alarming rates.
If I were going to attach a bomb to a bridge and didn't want anybody to remove it before it exploded, I would just put a note on it saying that it is an art project.
I don't like this line of reasoning. I don't care all that much about whether people see ads or not. But it's the same thinking that leads to applying "collective guilt" in situations that really do matter. The logic simply doesn't work. Some intrusive ads have made me angry but so have people of ethnic and religious minorities.
The companies that are now wiling to follow "acceptable ad" policies are not necessarily the "those companies" to which you refer. You can't really lump all companies with an ad-supported model into the same boat. It does seem reasonable to give the user a choice. No adds, "acceptable ads," or all ads (in which case you don't even need AdBlock)
Lots of funny comments here. What I was really hoping for was some informative comments on the state of the world in terms of managing Platform Keys. The last I read was in 2011
http://www.linuxfoundation.org...
The reason we aren't doing as much of this stuff today is that it has already been done. I'm not going to write a tree structure any better than the ones that come with the standard libraries. About 90% of applications are "glue" and about 10% are specific to the problem domain. It doesn't make a lick of sense to spend time on the more generic portions. Get something that can be pressed into service and then work on the high-value area. Much of the domain-specific stuff doesn't turn out to be particularly difficult in the programming aspect as well. The hard part is, as pointed out by the article, the modeling. In the old days we did fairly simple things. Look for numerical solutions to a trajectory problem, as an example. Today we are trying to model things like human behavior that have a lot more inputs. A perfect solution isn't always as desirable as one that can be updated quickly to reflect changes in the real-world environment.
Can we turn it off? If not, they are spending a lot of money on something that would add negative value for guys like me. The reason I don't ride a motorcycle or even keep the convertible top open on the highway is that I can't stand the noise and have no interest in going deaf.
These rules seem appealing. But, sadly, the longer they are in place, the less competitive countries become. Finally, when they can no longer afford the social safety net, things crash pretty hard. I support some level of additional worker protection but certainly not the level that you see in much of western Europe. I've worked in places where you can't fire people. Everybody knows that some people contribute negative value but you just have to tolerate it. It might seem on the surface that what other people do doesn't matter. But it's demoralizing. Why work harder and be better when there is no additional reward.
Which is the reason that software companies want to sell subscriptions. It's hard to employ an army of highly paid developers if you don't know whether you have any future revenue.. If not enough people buy new versions or subscriptions, the company goes bust and then there's nobody to maintain the software you already have. You'll find a way to keep it running Dumpster diving for the necessary hardware cause the app won't run in modern operating systems. And some other creative things. All of which will be more expensive than just paying an annual subscription and/or support/maintenance fee. It's really a question of whether you want to squeeze your suppliers or be successful together in the medium to long term.
The way that this will play out is that the rule will be enforced up until some student/parent is willing to spend an obscene amount of time and resources to fight it in a court. The problem will be that, if the student is guilty, they won't make a very sympathetic defendant. Also remember that if they *have* committed a crime (some types of online harassment may be just that), fighting this could work against them. After refusing to hand over their password and "winning," there is suddenly a criminal charge and a search warrant. My prediction is that this will get shut down, but it will take years.
Most social scientists would kill for an r value in this range. The world, and people, are just too complicated for any one factor - or set of factors that we can realistically measure - to account for more than this.
You can subscribe to groceries at Amazon. I travel regularly for business. Wish they could include two micro-USB cables with my food delivery. Fortunately, they are now for sale in most airports for around $20. Business people end up paying that price now and again. Leisure travelers walk around begging to borrow one.
Shatter resistant glass and the proper cases make our electronics almost completely preschooler proof. However if the thing is plugged into the wall and they want to move it, the charging cable does not come out in any way that could possibly be called gentle. The Qi chargers look great on TV except that they can't charge through the protective cases. Why in the world they don't put a conductive material in the case so that it could, I don't know. Magnetic plugs would seem to go a long way. I've heard rumor that they may get incorporated into the USB standard.
If you are a conference attendee, they have no direct business relationship with you. For those who are exhibitors they already do prohibit this and charge a fortune for their internet service. You may or may not get caught setting up your own, but if you do, there is almost always a penalty in the contract. I've attended shows where I've been penalized (charged a fee) for using my own electric screwdriver and not hiring an electrician.
The could have done this legally if they made the entire building a giant Faraday cage and then setup their own pico-cells inside of the building and charged money for it. But that's not what they did. They instead used technologies that aren't legal. It's pretty hard, actually to do this in the passive way I just described since all hotel rooms are required to have windows (the glass kind, not the operating system) and you coudl probably get a signal standing next to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Try/catch is a great solution. Too bad the designers of the C language didn't include it. Who were those guys again?
This may be a good solution but only due to other limitations of the language. What you are really doing here is implementing the equivalent of a "finally" clause as is available in Java, .Net, and other languages. Indeed if you called your label "finally" instead of "out," it would be pretty clear what you are doing. I'm not saying that the goto here is bad, but rather that the need for it works around a language design issue.
I think that everybody should get to be above average. Otherwise, it's discrimination!
Assuming that the mean and median are approximately the same, this is the expected outcome. Half will be below the median, half above. So these daycare centers seem to be typical.
Look at the eyebrows, not the eyes. More comfortable for Autistics and the other person won't notice the difference. The source for this advice isn't very good, so take it with a grain of salt, but it seems like a great idea to me.
Who is the author if "Influence, the science of persuasion." There are way too many hits on Amazon to know if I'm finding the book that you referenced.
My son is diagnosed as "on the spectrum." You quickly know everybody else in town whose kids have the same diagnosis. The mom's prattle on endlessly about "social skills." But I doubt it's a lack of skills that is really the issue. Rather, a lack of desire. I was never diagnosed when I was a kid but certainly seem to meet the criteria. My kindergarten report card says "does not play with other children." When I hear the mom's prattle on about "social skills," I still cringe. I don't think that any of the kids lack the skills. They lack the desire. Sitting around and engaging in idle conversation isn't fun for everybody. They'd rather explore their world. Of course there are some things that can't be one by yourself (like play on the see-saw). Suddenly they want to interact with other kids. They can't do it and feel rejected. The spectrum kids (and me) have a tough time seeing the intrinsic value of the relationships, only the benefits. Of course that doesn't work. Any skills we force them to learn don't really address the underlying desires. The skills aren't hard to learn. I went from being the most anti-social guy in HS and now I'm a salesman spending my day talking to people. But I still wouldn't say I have any 'good' friends. Just know a lot of people. It doesn't actually bother me at all. I care about things like right and wrong. Man is a species being and that seems to be true even of people on the spectrum. But interacting and maintaining relationships with individuals feels more like a chore. There's a huge risk here that what we are really teaching the kids is the means of doing an unpleasant task better. Imagine instead of social skills you were teaching them taking out the trash. If you make this substitution in all of the sentences, it's pretty representative of how many people feel. I'm not saying that kids shouldn't be taught to survive in their world better - they have to learn to clean their rooms, too. But we should understand that it's not necessarily something that they want to do.
Although I would be supportive of this, I doubt it will help. The only people who write "X times less" are people with almost no comprehension of math. It's likely that, even if you fixed this, it's only a symptom of a larger problem with the content.
I think that accepting these as standard informal but not standard formal *is* a compromise!
Unfortunately they seem to think that "over regulation" means anything more than trivial regulation because the free market will handle it. What we would get in practice is essentially no regulation which is even scarier than over-regulation. If the regulation is so little that it is effectively zero, you are right that they aren't saying "no regulation" but the OPs description of their position would still be more accurate than saying they are against "over regulation."
I can't agree with this. There are many academics who would do a paper on this for career ambition alone. And there are a lot of philanthropic organizations (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Howard Hughes foundation that I can think of off the top of my head) who would gladly pay for research to show a health benefit from cheap grocery items. It represents a low-cost way to have a very positive health intervention in developing areas. These things get studied all the time but don't show enough promise for anybody to look into them any more seriously. Find an herb that can reduce the transmission of malaria and you'll have no trouble getting grant money. What we really mean by proving these effective are whether or not they can get an extra 1% out of an already healthy population. For that, I agree, there's no point in studying a compound that won't pay financial benefits. But if they had even 10% of the effectiveness of any medicine on the market, the research papers would be coming out at alarming rates.
If I were going to attach a bomb to a bridge and didn't want anybody to remove it before it exploded, I would just put a note on it saying that it is an art project.
I don't like this line of reasoning. I don't care all that much about whether people see ads or not. But it's the same thinking that leads to applying "collective guilt" in situations that really do matter. The logic simply doesn't work. Some intrusive ads have made me angry but so have people of ethnic and religious minorities.
The companies that are now wiling to follow "acceptable ad" policies are not necessarily the "those companies" to which you refer. You can't really lump all companies with an ad-supported model into the same boat. It does seem reasonable to give the user a choice. No adds, "acceptable ads," or all ads (in which case you don't even need AdBlock)
Lots of funny comments here. What I was really hoping for was some informative comments on the state of the world in terms of managing Platform Keys. The last I read was in 2011 http://www.linuxfoundation.org...
The reason we aren't doing as much of this stuff today is that it has already been done. I'm not going to write a tree structure any better than the ones that come with the standard libraries. About 90% of applications are "glue" and about 10% are specific to the problem domain. It doesn't make a lick of sense to spend time on the more generic portions. Get something that can be pressed into service and then work on the high-value area. Much of the domain-specific stuff doesn't turn out to be particularly difficult in the programming aspect as well. The hard part is, as pointed out by the article, the modeling. In the old days we did fairly simple things. Look for numerical solutions to a trajectory problem, as an example. Today we are trying to model things like human behavior that have a lot more inputs. A perfect solution isn't always as desirable as one that can be updated quickly to reflect changes in the real-world environment.
Can we turn it off? If not, they are spending a lot of money on something that would add negative value for guys like me. The reason I don't ride a motorcycle or even keep the convertible top open on the highway is that I can't stand the noise and have no interest in going deaf.
These rules seem appealing. But, sadly, the longer they are in place, the less competitive countries become. Finally, when they can no longer afford the social safety net, things crash pretty hard. I support some level of additional worker protection but certainly not the level that you see in much of western Europe. I've worked in places where you can't fire people. Everybody knows that some people contribute negative value but you just have to tolerate it. It might seem on the surface that what other people do doesn't matter. But it's demoralizing. Why work harder and be better when there is no additional reward.
Which is the reason that software companies want to sell subscriptions. It's hard to employ an army of highly paid developers if you don't know whether you have any future revenue.. If not enough people buy new versions or subscriptions, the company goes bust and then there's nobody to maintain the software you already have. You'll find a way to keep it running Dumpster diving for the necessary hardware cause the app won't run in modern operating systems. And some other creative things. All of which will be more expensive than just paying an annual subscription and/or support/maintenance fee. It's really a question of whether you want to squeeze your suppliers or be successful together in the medium to long term.
The way that this will play out is that the rule will be enforced up until some student/parent is willing to spend an obscene amount of time and resources to fight it in a court. The problem will be that, if the student is guilty, they won't make a very sympathetic defendant. Also remember that if they *have* committed a crime (some types of online harassment may be just that), fighting this could work against them. After refusing to hand over their password and "winning," there is suddenly a criminal charge and a search warrant. My prediction is that this will get shut down, but it will take years.
Most social scientists would kill for an r value in this range. The world, and people, are just too complicated for any one factor - or set of factors that we can realistically measure - to account for more than this.
You can subscribe to groceries at Amazon. I travel regularly for business. Wish they could include two micro-USB cables with my food delivery. Fortunately, they are now for sale in most airports for around $20. Business people end up paying that price now and again. Leisure travelers walk around begging to borrow one.
Shatter resistant glass and the proper cases make our electronics almost completely preschooler proof. However if the thing is plugged into the wall and they want to move it, the charging cable does not come out in any way that could possibly be called gentle. The Qi chargers look great on TV except that they can't charge through the protective cases. Why in the world they don't put a conductive material in the case so that it could, I don't know. Magnetic plugs would seem to go a long way. I've heard rumor that they may get incorporated into the USB standard.
If you are a conference attendee, they have no direct business relationship with you. For those who are exhibitors they already do prohibit this and charge a fortune for their internet service. You may or may not get caught setting up your own, but if you do, there is almost always a penalty in the contract. I've attended shows where I've been penalized (charged a fee) for using my own electric screwdriver and not hiring an electrician.
The could have done this legally if they made the entire building a giant Faraday cage and then setup their own pico-cells inside of the building and charged money for it. But that's not what they did. They instead used technologies that aren't legal. It's pretty hard, actually to do this in the passive way I just described since all hotel rooms are required to have windows (the glass kind, not the operating system) and you coudl probably get a signal standing next to them.