Since they're going to use the electronic vote tallies anyway, random sampling a proportion of the votes and verifying them against the paper tallies should be a practical means of verification. Since the sampling is random, there is no predictable pattern the voting machines could exploit. And no letting them write special routines for sampling; the output should be read as if from a mini-election and the sampling performed *after* the data is acquired. The counts should have to match exactly, or at least very closely.
If they don't consistently match, the results should be invalidated, the company that creates the machine should be banned from providing machines in future elections, and they should be required to pay the government back for the machines they already bought, for the cost of the rerun election, and with a punitive damage added on. That should provide sufficient economic incentive for them to make sure they do it right, if the internal motivation to conduct a fair election is not enough.
I never took a programming course in my life to that point, yet I had been programming for 10 years by the time I entered college. It wasn't luck - it was directed introspection. The only element of luck was that my family was fortunate enough to own a computer (otherwise I probably would have gravitated towards pure mathematics instead, having no medium to explore programming).
I didn't wish for high school to expose me to more - that was my own responsibility. I just wish it had stayed out of the way once I found something worthwhile to do with my time.
So find something else that pays well and is tolerable (or even better, that you also like), and learn both.
Don't buy into the "you can only be good at one thing" paradigm that society currently likes to shove down people's throats. I didn't, and I think I'm far better off for it.
Before claiming these results, this should be tested on more vehicles and the drivers blinded to the presence or absence of the device. The concept is going to be met with incredulity, so the research needs to rely on the strength of its methods and results.
*I am a Temple graduate student and, after being steeped in the research methods this school teaches and employs, consider anything coming out of Temple suspect. You have no idea what goes on in there.
This is the most important reason why IT workers should learn the "business side" of things as well: not to please your current boss so much as to have something to fall back on should you decide you want to go into business for yourself.
Yes and no. They are disregarding formal enforcement, but most are either bowing into peer pressure ("it's cool to drink") or do so because they physically enjoy the feeling of being inebriated. Neither of these expressed a particularly developed personality. To borrow a page from Dabrowski, they are both still "primal" behaviors (first factor of physical wants, second factor of social norms). You're breaking a social norm of a certain peer group in exchange for obeying the social norm of a different group.
It is pointless to rebel unless you have a truly different, developed system of values to rebel with. Dabrowski calls this set of values the third factor ("self-determination"), and the only way I can see resistance being a positive trait is if you could somehow construct a value system that featured drinking as the way the world should truly be and were so convinced of its righteousness that you were willing to spend a significant portion of your life attempting to make it a universal value.
I know you're using the example of Hypatia as a way of demonstrating a general principle (which I agree with), but I'm not sure that it would be a good analogy to use with the specific example of drinking. Hypatia was burned for transgressing a norm held by peers as well as enforced by society. Her transgression did not yield any physical gratification and was not considered normal, and thus must have been an expression of a value.
Do you think that they'd be drinking with their parents vs. their friends even if it were legalized? Most people in that age group don't consider parents to be cool people to hang out with, especially in front of friends. In fact, I suspect that much of this is because most parents do exhibit good judgment (relative to their children, anyway)... and discouraging risky yet "fun" behaviors is what causes them to be uncool to begin with.
It almost seems as if the mindset of the average adolescent is antithetical to careful consideration and avoidance of harmful behaviors. It was when I was in this age group, anyway, and that was only 5 years ago.
Normally, I'd say "let them deal with the consequences of their own actions", but drunk driving in particular can also involve harm to innocent people.
Should it be the only deciding factor? Of course not. But what the students actually think about a school is an extremely important factor to consider when looking to attend yourself.
I agree that this site is not up to par, however. There are better student review sites already.
Claiming copyright on a work you had nothing to do with isn't "protection", and if a judgment were awarded, I doubt the author would receive any of the damages.
That seems to be the direction it's going in. The open access movement in general is still somewhat young and is hitting opposition from more entrenched closed models, however.
I think you'll see what you mentioned within the next decade or so.
I do see the point of charging for credits, however. A university has to charge for something to remain financially solvent, unless it receives very large amounts of income from other sources (such as a huge endowment).
Very much like life, there is a default purpose and a self-determined purpose to a university experience.
Going to a university solely for the degree is like living solely for the purpose of having kids: you'd fulfill the purpose the system set out for you, but you'd miss out on any chance at developing and expressing your own goals.
One way to assess the truth of information on a site is to measure whether it's consistent with information from other sites. As long as you could avoid a variant of link farming, this would work to prevent all but the most systematic vandalism.
It would even work with Wikipedia, because a vandal isn't going to know (and thus won't edit) every article that may contain information overlapping with a target article. The inconsistency between the vandalized article and others would give it away.
It should be no surprise that a version of the Pareto principle applies to Internet usage. It isn't allocation of "wealth", per se, but bandwidth is still a (more or less) finite resource.
I thought the music in Ocarina of Time did a great job at enhancing the quality of the game because the music for each area really fit the mood the rest of the game created; e.g. Hyrule Field's theme made it seem like a "wide open" place to explore.
None of the other Zelda games have really managed to do that. TP came sort of close at times.
I think there are people who would take a lower wage in exchange for a telecommute.
I would, anyway. It would probably save me about two hours a day, if not more.
Slashdot Mirror
Since they're going to use the electronic vote tallies anyway, random sampling a proportion of the votes and verifying them against the paper tallies should be a practical means of verification. Since the sampling is random, there is no predictable pattern the voting machines could exploit. And no letting them write special routines for sampling; the output should be read as if from a mini-election and the sampling performed *after* the data is acquired. The counts should have to match exactly, or at least very closely.
If they don't consistently match, the results should be invalidated, the company that creates the machine should be banned from providing machines in future elections, and they should be required to pay the government back for the machines they already bought, for the cost of the rerun election, and with a punitive damage added on. That should provide sufficient economic incentive for them to make sure they do it right, if the internal motivation to conduct a fair election is not enough.
Searching for "DJIA" is interesting. 7 years ago, the average was just a bit under 200 points less than what it is now.
It's interesting what "Web 2.0" was considered then as well (some sort of 3D virtual reality thing?), compared to what it has become.
Searching for "Y2K Bug" is interesting, as you still have remnants of the doomsayers' sites in the search results.
I never took a programming course in my life to that point, yet I had been programming for 10 years by the time I entered college. It wasn't luck - it was directed introspection. The only element of luck was that my family was fortunate enough to own a computer (otherwise I probably would have gravitated towards pure mathematics instead, having no medium to explore programming).
I didn't wish for high school to expose me to more - that was my own responsibility. I just wish it had stayed out of the way once I found something worthwhile to do with my time.
So find something else that pays well and is tolerable (or even better, that you also like), and learn both.
Don't buy into the "you can only be good at one thing" paradigm that society currently likes to shove down people's throats. I didn't, and I think I'm far better off for it.
Before claiming these results, this should be tested on more vehicles and the drivers blinded to the presence or absence of the device. The concept is going to be met with incredulity, so the research needs to rely on the strength of its methods and results.
*I am a Temple graduate student and, after being steeped in the research methods this school teaches and employs, consider anything coming out of Temple suspect. You have no idea what goes on in there.
This is the most important reason why IT workers should learn the "business side" of things as well: not to please your current boss so much as to have something to fall back on should you decide you want to go into business for yourself.
Yes and no. They are disregarding formal enforcement, but most are either bowing into peer pressure ("it's cool to drink") or do so because they physically enjoy the feeling of being inebriated. Neither of these expressed a particularly developed personality. To borrow a page from Dabrowski, they are both still "primal" behaviors (first factor of physical wants, second factor of social norms). You're breaking a social norm of a certain peer group in exchange for obeying the social norm of a different group.
It is pointless to rebel unless you have a truly different, developed system of values to rebel with. Dabrowski calls this set of values the third factor ("self-determination"), and the only way I can see resistance being a positive trait is if you could somehow construct a value system that featured drinking as the way the world should truly be and were so convinced of its righteousness that you were willing to spend a significant portion of your life attempting to make it a universal value.
I know you're using the example of Hypatia as a way of demonstrating a general principle (which I agree with), but I'm not sure that it would be a good analogy to use with the specific example of drinking. Hypatia was burned for transgressing a norm held by peers as well as enforced by society. Her transgression did not yield any physical gratification and was not considered normal, and thus must have been an expression of a value.
I am really looking forward to what this does to Presidential elections, BTW.
Do you think that they'd be drinking with their parents vs. their friends even if it were legalized? Most people in that age group don't consider parents to be cool people to hang out with, especially in front of friends. In fact, I suspect that much of this is because most parents do exhibit good judgment (relative to their children, anyway)... and discouraging risky yet "fun" behaviors is what causes them to be uncool to begin with.
It almost seems as if the mindset of the average adolescent is antithetical to careful consideration and avoidance of harmful behaviors. It was when I was in this age group, anyway, and that was only 5 years ago.
Normally, I'd say "let them deal with the consequences of their own actions", but drunk driving in particular can also involve harm to innocent people.
Should it be the only deciding factor? Of course not. But what the students actually think about a school is an extremely important factor to consider when looking to attend yourself.
I agree that this site is not up to par, however. There are better student review sites already.
s/protect/appropriate/ig
Claiming copyright on a work you had nothing to do with isn't "protection", and if a judgment were awarded, I doubt the author would receive any of the damages.
No! Don't you see!? This is quantum immortality at work! The universe in which the LHC works is the one in which WE ALL DIE!
</paranoid>
And there never was.
He had a good idea. He did research on that idea. He came up with a design based on that idea and supported by that research.
What aspect of this requires a college education?
That seems to be the direction it's going in. The open access movement in general is still somewhat young and is hitting opposition from more entrenched closed models, however.
I think you'll see what you mentioned within the next decade or so.
I do see the point of charging for credits, however. A university has to charge for something to remain financially solvent, unless it receives very large amounts of income from other sources (such as a huge endowment).
Very much like life, there is a default purpose and a self-determined purpose to a university experience.
Going to a university solely for the degree is like living solely for the purpose of having kids: you'd fulfill the purpose the system set out for you, but you'd miss out on any chance at developing and expressing your own goals.
One way to assess the truth of information on a site is to measure whether it's consistent with information from other sites. As long as you could avoid a variant of link farming, this would work to prevent all but the most systematic vandalism.
It would even work with Wikipedia, because a vandal isn't going to know (and thus won't edit) every article that may contain information overlapping with a target article. The inconsistency between the vandalized article and others would give it away.
No, that one was using 32 bit variables for Unix timestamps.
Perhaps calling it "electronic DNA" was a bad idea if you're going to claim people can't clone it.
Great! I bet she has the answer key.
It should be no surprise that a version of the Pareto principle applies to Internet usage. It isn't allocation of "wealth", per se, but bandwidth is still a (more or less) finite resource.
I thought the music in Ocarina of Time did a great job at enhancing the quality of the game because the music for each area really fit the mood the rest of the game created; e.g. Hyrule Field's theme made it seem like a "wide open" place to explore.
None of the other Zelda games have really managed to do that. TP came sort of close at times.
I sometimes feel like that, but the voices have reassured me that it's perfectly normal.
I was going to ask what the root of the word "nice" had to do with the study of insects, but I guess that proves your point. :)
I'm sure I'm not the only one pointing out that the 21st century is only 7-8 years old (depending on which definition you want to use).
I think there are people who would take a lower wage in exchange for a telecommute. I would, anyway. It would probably save me about two hours a day, if not more.