It's entirely possible that "hookem" and "psudo-science" describe what an expert witness is saying.
Yes but they are brought in because they supposedly understand a field well. If they aren't suitable expert witnesses the lawyers should be objecting.
It's the job of the lawyers to ensure that witnesses are properly cross-examined. It is also the job of the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means. If a juror thinks the "evidence" is incomplete they should just ignore it.
And that is the problem. Human beings are use to making decisions on incomplete data. It's against our nature not to. In evolutionary terms those who froze were eaten, squashed, or otherwise killed. Asking a juror to disengage their curiosity but still engage their ability to think critically is ridiculous.
'I'm not a group of hacker, I'm single hacker with experience of 1,000 hackers.'
Sounds just like the Iraqi Information Minister or Kim Jong Il. "Oh no no no! I not a group or government no! I am super skilled hacker with skill of 1000 men. I can play 18 rounds of golf in 18 shots by getting 18 hole in one. Yes! I just that good!"
Actually my first thought was Charlie Sheen...winning with the power of his mind once again....I know, I know, that was last week's meme.
Now I understand the problem with jurors going out on their own and seeking evidence - I don't want an unqualified juror looking up hokem on a pseudo-science site and making their mind up on specialized evidence any more than the next guy. But one problem with the legal system is that the jurors are can't ask questions and have them answered. They can only go on the evidence presented which is sometimes (maddeningly to them) incomplete. There should be a structured and guided way to do this rather than just relying on what a prosecutor serving the interests of the state and a defendant serving the interests of the accused disclose. Not every question would have to be answered - sometimes the answer could be "that information isn't admissible" but the fact that there's no way for a juror to satisfy themselves on an issue they feel is important is what has them running to uncle Google. You're telling them they have to decide on a man's freedom or life and then putting up intolerable roadblocks.
I’d also like to note, that I dislike TDD in general (yeah, I know, another flame war)! In my experience, most bugs I find are from running through some kind of manual procedure and noticing something ”odd” that an automated system wouldn’t have picked up.
TDD is a cult/religion, just like most methodologies. I'm sorry but I just won't get religious. I find TDD sounds good and gets people caught up in it, but it fails in 2 very specific ways:
1) It assumes that your design can be so good up front and in advance that the tests can be written first. In practice the specs are always changing and the designs respond by changing both in technical and business contexts. Worse, the frameworks are moving targets and often are so rigid that you must do things their way or end up in a mess. So developers don't have the experience to design with the framework up front without having to tweak for their misconceptions about how their particular frameworks in their current incarnation work. The result is a lot of rework both in the system and in the unit tests.Without a LOT of discipline (unncessary because it provides no tangible benefit) the tests end up being written afterwards anyway. So all you get out of TDD is a mountain of rework of the unit tests - several iterations for each iteration of code instead of just one if you write the test after making the change. This very much makes TDD a case of putting the cart before the hourse.
2) People do become way too reliant on the unit tests giving 100% coverage. In practice this can't be achieved in a timely manner so your coverage even for basic cases (let alone corner cases and complex combinations) tends to be poor. The automated tests lead people to be overconfident and do less manual testings and so quality goes down not up.
Unit tests are better than not having unit tests, so you should be wanting to do that at least. Becoming overly reliant on them however is a silly trap that too many experienced intelligent devs fall into.
If the NY Times want to make themselves pay only I'm not going to go to the effort of bypassing anything or breaking any laws to read their content. I just don't care that much. Let them fade into insignificance as people get their news elsewhere.
Re:He's a photographer now....I'm even more of a f
on
Leonard Nimoy Turns 80
·
· Score: 1
As a semi-professional photographer I find it interesting that nimoy took up photography and directing.
As a professional photographer, I find the "semi-professional" title offensive. It's like all the "engineering technicians" who claim to be engineers, college "professors" that don't have their PhDs, and garbagemen claiming to be "sanitation engineers". Actually, it's worse. It's like the kids who have changed a battery in their iphone and now claim to be computer repair specialists.
Honestly. I *hate* how society has come to a point where everyone believes themselves to be super-special.
Well all I can say is Albert Einstein was a professional patent clerk.
Yes because employees would never think to browse other web sites, read the newspaper, daydream or just zone out. If you've got an unproductive employee you need to work out why they're not motivated and find a way to motivate them. Nothing else will work.
Okay, I have to ask. What's the deal with this Bieber kid and why do people hate him so much?
Jealousy. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with his music (which is drivel). It's that he's got more girls and women lined up wanting a piece of him than most adults and some adults can't stand that. Plus he's an easy target with his sickly sweet little clean cut kid image.
I don't have a position on the issue one way or the other. I just don't like linguistic dishonesty.
There's nothing dishonest about calling it pollution. It is just that.
Personally I'd like to see people light their environments sensibly with lights reflecting down not up. I hate that it seems it'll require legislation to fix this (or more likely it just won't be fixed) because people just don't care or are ignorant.
Whether you like the fact that we have lots of artificial light at night or not, it's silly to refer to it as "pollution." For some people -- astronomers and those who have a serious desire to look up and see the stars -- it's a problem. For others, it's no more a problem than the smell of honeysuckle is pollution. Framing something you don't like as "pollution" is a dishonest way to get people to quickly agree with you about something without giving it serious thought, but it's not terribly useful for promoting honest discussion.
You want honesty?
When's the last time the smell of honeysuckle contributed to the demise of a species of animal?
When's the last time the smell of honeysuckle prevented kids from knowing about the sky they live under? There are kids (and adults) who not only don't know the constellations, but their jaws drop open when they see a non-light-polluted sky for the first time.
Why don't you just admit that you like the light, and don't like being told how to light the places you live and work?
If examining sludge in a 50-year old flask can give clues to the origin of life, just imagine what scientists could learn by examining the inside of my fridge!
But they already know how to avoid adult responsibility and any possibility of mating.
How well people deal with emergency situations varies hugely. This system would prioritise a 5 year old ringing about a huge splinter she just got over a military veteran reporting a 3 car pileup with limbs everywhere.
Can't beat human judgement in a job as important as this.
"I'm sorry sir, we're going to let your loved one die now because you kept calm in your emergency. Have a nice day."
Believe it or not The Hobbit was written as a kid's book and LOTR was written for adults.
(LOTR has plenty of plot holes, you're supposed to enjoy the prose...)
Adults on drugs maybe. Don't care if it's unpopular to say this here: I HATED LOTR. One of two fiction book series I have ever intentionally put down after starting.
Likewise, I really enjoyed The Hobbit. When I attempted LOTR I got bored near the end of the second book
I KNEW I couldn't be the only one. I don't remember how far I got - pretty sure it was second book also - but the only other book I've given up on like that because I realised I truly wasn't enjoying that was Homer's Illiad. I was bored out of my brain and just fatigued trying to visualise things. Every time I read a new page I found I had to construct a complete new vision or at least severely adjust the old one. It just wasn't fun getting things in huge amounts of detail but without an overview at the start.
Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;
You have got to be effen kidding me. That's a patent? Who was the bonehead that thought something like that is innovation?
That's nothing. The really innovative patents are: - Crashing web browser when background image finally loads - Freezing device until USB device wakes up - Dropping calls when most likely to jeopardise life or career - Shutting down at most inopportune moment.
Some of these are particularly stealthy aircraft, Rafale, F/A-18 E/F/G aren't stealth, but they are stealthy compared to F-15E, F-18C and Tornado.
B-2 bombers spoofed the ATC watchers by using a tanker/transport call sign on the transponder the entire trip over and back, those are really stealthy.
Think of stealthy this way MiG-21 through MiG-29, F-16, F-15, F-18 A/B/C, Tornado, Mirage F-1, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard - really not stealthy
I prefer to think of it this way: MiG-21 through MiG-29, F-16, F-15, F-18 A/B/C, Tornado, Mirage F-1, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
Su-27-33, Rafale, F-18 E/F/G, B-1B, Tomahawk cruise missile - getting stealthy - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
B-2 - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
Your suggested course of action is not merely infeasible, it is supremely irresponsible. Not sending in workers to contain damage at the plant may mean we lose half the country to radioactive fallouts. Deaths due to THAT can go in to hundreds of thousands, if not more.
The thing is you're almost certainly going to face that anyway. Sending people in there to die now due to unrealistic hopes that you'll avert a disaster that can no longer be averted just means more die.
Anyway, there is no possible way to evacuate half the country in anything resembling orderly manner, to a large part because this is a landlocked country and there is no place for that many of us to go. I for one am very glad you are nowhere near the chain of command in Japan; Kan many have done many things wrong, but unlike you, at least he is interested in saving the country instead of throwing his hands up and running like a beheaded chicken.
It's a brave man that can send others in to die. Especially when it's his own mess.
So they bribed some Korean officials? Who gives a flying f**ck, that's how they do business outside the United States.
So they bribed some US officials to let migrant workers do the job at half the price and fired all their staff? So what!? It's an at will state. Those greedy rich Americans can apply at subsistance wages like I did.
See, it cuts both ways. You allow bribery to thrive to suit a corporation, and they'll turn on you. If you allow bribery justice is never carried out and people suffer - anything from death and injury to virtual slavery. I'm alright screw everyone else is a destructive unenlightened attitude.
Slashdot Mirror
It's entirely possible that "hookem" and "psudo-science" describe what an expert witness is saying.
Yes but they are brought in because they supposedly understand a field well. If they aren't suitable expert witnesses the lawyers should be objecting.
It's the job of the lawyers to ensure that witnesses are properly cross-examined.
It is also the job of the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means. If a juror thinks the "evidence" is incomplete they should just ignore it.
And that is the problem. Human beings are use to making decisions on incomplete data. It's against our nature not to. In evolutionary terms those who froze were eaten, squashed, or otherwise killed. Asking a juror to disengage their curiosity but still engage their ability to think critically is ridiculous.
'I'm not a group of hacker, I'm single hacker with experience of 1,000 hackers.'
Sounds just like the Iraqi Information Minister or Kim Jong Il. "Oh no no no! I not a group or government no! I am super skilled hacker with skill of 1000 men. I can play 18 rounds of golf in 18 shots by getting 18 hole in one. Yes! I just that good!"
Actually my first thought was Charlie Sheen...winning with the power of his mind once again....I know, I know, that was last week's meme.
Now I understand the problem with jurors going out on their own and seeking evidence - I don't want an unqualified juror looking up hokem on a pseudo-science site and making their mind up on specialized evidence any more than the next guy. But one problem with the legal system is that the jurors are can't ask questions and have them answered. They can only go on the evidence presented which is sometimes (maddeningly to them) incomplete. There should be a structured and guided way to do this rather than just relying on what a prosecutor serving the interests of the state and a defendant serving the interests of the accused disclose. Not every question would have to be answered - sometimes the answer could be "that information isn't admissible" but the fact that there's no way for a juror to satisfy themselves on an issue they feel is important is what has them running to uncle Google. You're telling them they have to decide on a man's freedom or life and then putting up intolerable roadblocks.
I think it must be a reference to a TV show that only screens in the US.
I wish it only screened in the US.
It was conceived as a "porous wall". You can still read it as a casual user without bypassing anything.
Oh you mean a sieve...as in leaks like a....well in that case mission accomplished as this story proves.
I’d also like to note, that I dislike TDD in general (yeah, I know, another flame war)! In my experience, most bugs I find are from running through some kind of manual procedure and noticing something ”odd” that an automated system wouldn’t have picked up.
TDD is a cult/religion, just like most methodologies. I'm sorry but I just won't get religious. I find TDD sounds good and gets people caught up in it, but it fails in 2 very specific ways:
1) It assumes that your design can be so good up front and in advance that the tests can be written first. In practice the specs are always changing and the designs respond by changing both in technical and business contexts. Worse, the frameworks are moving targets and often are so rigid that you must do things their way or end up in a mess. So developers don't have the experience to design with the framework up front without having to tweak for their misconceptions about how their particular frameworks in their current incarnation work. The result is a lot of rework both in the system and in the unit tests.Without a LOT of discipline (unncessary because it provides no tangible benefit) the tests end up being written afterwards anyway. So all you get out of TDD is a mountain of rework of the unit tests - several iterations for each iteration of code instead of just one if you write the test after making the change. This very much makes TDD a case of putting the cart before the hourse.
2) People do become way too reliant on the unit tests giving 100% coverage. In practice this can't be achieved in a timely manner so your coverage even for basic cases (let alone corner cases and complex combinations) tends to be poor. The automated tests lead people to be overconfident and do less manual testings and so quality goes down not up.
Unit tests are better than not having unit tests, so you should be wanting to do that at least. Becoming overly reliant on them however is a silly trap that too many experienced intelligent devs fall into.
If the NY Times want to make themselves pay only I'm not going to go to the effort of bypassing anything or breaking any laws to read their content. I just don't care that much. Let them fade into insignificance as people get their news elsewhere.
As a semi-professional photographer I find it interesting that nimoy took up photography and directing.
As a professional photographer, I find the "semi-professional" title offensive. It's like all the "engineering technicians" who claim to be engineers, college "professors" that don't have their PhDs, and garbagemen claiming to be "sanitation engineers". Actually, it's worse. It's like the kids who have changed a battery in their iphone and now claim to be computer repair specialists.
Honestly. I *hate* how society has come to a point where everyone believes themselves to be super-special.
Well all I can say is Albert Einstein was a professional patent clerk.
Jules Verne Likes This.
I didn't know he had a Facebook account.
I was nodding my head agreeing with you, then you lost me on Babylon 5.
#1 improvement to productivity) Closing Slashdot!
Yes because employees would never think to browse other web sites, read the newspaper, daydream or just zone out. If you've got an unproductive employee you need to work out why they're not motivated and find a way to motivate them. Nothing else will work.
Ghosthunters don't need gadgets. The only thing they need is the desire and ability to separate idiots from their money.
There's a gadget for that! It's called a "deed for a bridge".
Intel is obligated to continue developing Itanium, or HP sues them. Itanium isn't going anywhere, and Oracle is spreading FUD.
Really? Do you think someone using an Oracle database on IA-64 is going to convert to a different DB? I don't think so.
Okay, I have to ask. What's the deal with this Bieber kid and why do people hate him so much?
Jealousy. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with his music (which is drivel). It's that he's got more girls and women lined up wanting a piece of him than most adults and some adults can't stand that. Plus he's an easy target with his sickly sweet little clean cut kid image.
I don't have a position on the issue one way or the other. I just don't like linguistic dishonesty.
There's nothing dishonest about calling it pollution. It is just that.
Personally I'd like to see people light their environments sensibly with lights reflecting down not up. I hate that it seems it'll require legislation to fix this (or more likely it just won't be fixed) because people just don't care or are ignorant.
Whether you like the fact that we have lots of artificial light at night or not, it's silly to refer to it as "pollution." For some people -- astronomers and those who have a serious desire to look up and see the stars -- it's a problem. For others, it's no more a problem than the smell of honeysuckle is pollution. Framing something you don't like as "pollution" is a dishonest way to get people to quickly agree with you about something without giving it serious thought, but it's not terribly useful for promoting honest discussion.
You want honesty?
When's the last time the smell of honeysuckle contributed to the demise of a species of animal?
When's the last time the smell of honeysuckle prevented kids from knowing about the sky they live under? There are kids (and adults) who not only don't know the constellations, but their jaws drop open when they see a non-light-polluted sky for the first time.
Why don't you just admit that you like the light, and don't like being told how to light the places you live and work?
There's honesty for you.
If examining sludge in a 50-year old flask can give clues to the origin of life, just imagine what scientists could learn by examining the inside of my fridge!
But they already know how to avoid adult responsibility and any possibility of mating.
How well people deal with emergency situations varies hugely. This system would prioritise a 5 year old ringing about a huge splinter she just got over a military veteran reporting a 3 car pileup with limbs everywhere.
Can't beat human judgement in a job as important as this.
"I'm sorry sir, we're going to let your loved one die now because you kept calm in your emergency. Have a nice day."
Believe it or not The Hobbit was written as a kid's book and LOTR was written for adults.
(LOTR has plenty of plot holes, you're supposed to enjoy the prose...)
Adults on drugs maybe. Don't care if it's unpopular to say this here: I HATED LOTR. One of two fiction book series I have ever intentionally put down after starting.
Likewise, I really enjoyed The Hobbit. When I attempted LOTR I got bored near the end of the second book
I KNEW I couldn't be the only one. I don't remember how far I got - pretty sure it was second book also - but the only other book I've given up on like that because I realised I truly wasn't enjoying that was Homer's Illiad. I was bored out of my brain and just fatigued trying to visualise things. Every time I read a new page I found I had to construct a complete new vision or at least severely adjust the old one. It just wasn't fun getting things in huge amounts of detail but without an overview at the start.
Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;
You have got to be effen kidding me. That's a patent? Who was the bonehead that thought something like that is innovation?
That's nothing. The really innovative patents are:
- Crashing web browser when background image finally loads
- Freezing device until USB device wakes up
- Dropping calls when most likely to jeopardise life or career
- Shutting down at most inopportune moment.
Some of these are particularly stealthy aircraft, Rafale, F/A-18 E/F/G aren't stealth, but they are stealthy compared to F-15E, F-18C and Tornado.
B-2 bombers spoofed the ATC watchers by using a tanker/transport call sign on the transponder the entire trip over and back, those are really stealthy.
Think of stealthy this way
MiG-21 through MiG-29, F-16, F-15, F-18 A/B/C, Tornado, Mirage F-1, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard - really not stealthy
Su-27-33, Rafale, F-18 E/F/G, B-1B, Tomahawk cruise missile - getting stealthy
F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon - pretty stealthy
B-2 - really stealthy
I prefer to think of it this way:
MiG-21 through MiG-29, F-16, F-15, F-18 A/B/C, Tornado, Mirage F-1, Mirage 2000, Super Etendard - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
Su-27-33, Rafale, F-18 E/F/G, B-1B, Tomahawk cruise missile - getting stealthy - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
B-2 - Oh fuck I'm going to be killed by a barrage of explosives!
Your suggested course of action is not merely infeasible, it is supremely irresponsible. Not sending in workers to contain damage at the plant may mean we lose half the country to radioactive fallouts. Deaths due to THAT can go in to hundreds of thousands, if not more.
The thing is you're almost certainly going to face that anyway. Sending people in there to die now due to unrealistic hopes that you'll avert a disaster that can no longer be averted just means more die.
Anyway, there is no possible way to evacuate half the country in anything resembling orderly manner, to a large part because this is a landlocked country and there is no place for that many of us to go. I for one am very glad you are nowhere near the chain of command in Japan; Kan many have done many things wrong, but unlike you, at least he is interested in saving the country instead of throwing his hands up and running like a beheaded chicken.
It's a brave man that can send others in to die. Especially when it's his own mess.
So they bribed some Korean officials? Who gives a flying f**ck, that's how they do business outside the United States.
So they bribed some US officials to let migrant workers do the job at half the price and fired all their staff? So what!? It's an at will state. Those greedy rich Americans can apply at subsistance wages like I did.
See, it cuts both ways. You allow bribery to thrive to suit a corporation, and they'll turn on you. If you allow bribery justice is never carried out and people suffer - anything from death and injury to virtual slavery. I'm alright screw everyone else is a destructive unenlightened attitude.
Don't forget these:
http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~marschal/clea/CLEAhome.html - If you have smart 8th graders, they can do simulated astronomy and learn how we know some of the things we know
Stellarium and Skycharts (Cartes du Ceil) are among the best sky simulation and mapping software and well worth a look along with Stellarium. Or try Kstars on Linux
http://www.stellarium.org/
http://www.ap-i.net/skychart/en/download (newer more comprehensive
http://www.stargazing.net/astropc/oldversion/index.html - Version 2 (older, easier on the PC)
NASA World Wind
http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/java/
Hubble for pretty pictures and the stories behind them
http://hubblesite.org/
If they don't mind math try a gravity simulator
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/what.html
Various Roller Coaster Simulators
Rasmol Molecule simulator
http://rasmol.org/
http://www.umass.edu/microbio/rasmol/
Scorched Earth style artillery games may get their imagination fired (but be careful as political correctness may mean you're fired)
Much more. No time to post right now though.
http://www.umass.edu/microbio/rasmol/