> >Some of the things that jurors have to consider are: is this story realistic? Is this guy telling the truth or lying? > >Actually no, that's not what jurors are supposed to be doing
Actually it is. Otherwise why even bother having a trial, each side could submit their case in written form. Why bother having a law that you must tell the truth in court if it doesn't really matter what people say?
Last time I was on a jury the judge even mentioned that it basically came down to whether or not we believed the prosecution witness. When were you last a juror?
> - what jurors have to consider is: has the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish beyong reasonable doubt that >this person committed a crime.
The comments of the witnesses are taken into account in this process. (Otherwise, why bother calling witnesses?)
> Considering things like "he looks shifty to me" as reason for finding someone guilty is stupidity.
Multiple, complex factors go into the decision-making process.
You were not being rational, you were jumping to conclusions based on your preconceived notions.
That is being rational. He has premises, applies logic, and draws conclusions.
Now there could well be errors in his premises and/or logic, but that doesn't make him irrational.
Your failing to consider any possibility for his discussing violent games other than his being guilty is not being rational
He's not failing to consider any other possibilities. He's saying that Reiser acted like a guilty person would. Of course innocent people could act this way too, as you point out. But many people would find Reiser's behaviour suspicious.
I too think you are a fucking idiot
When logic doesn't work, we can call people names!
not only for jumping to a conclusion (a conclusion which, in a real jury, could be life destroying) based on something so trivial it's hard to even consider it circumstantial evidence,
Obviously you've never actually been on a jury. Juries consist of 12 people and a guilty verdict isn't pronounced until they all agree on it (or most of them, in some jurisdictions).
Real life isn't like CSI. Usually what happens is that some jurors initially think "guilty", some think "innocent" , and some think "not sure". Then they debate the details of the case amongst each other and present arguments, this can take hours or days. This includes discussing things such as why somebody would evade police, or rip the front seat out of their car, or be obsessed with video game violence, and each juror would give their opinion on what this strange behaviour meant.
Also note that any obviously spurious conclusions could be overturned on appeal.
Finally, you don't need a mathematical quality proof to find someone guilty. Hypothetical situation: a man is found with a bloody knife in his hand, standing over the dead body of his enemy. Man says someone else did it and ran off and he just pulled the knife out. Now you might say that there is no way to disprove this theory, but most juries will find the man guilty anyway unless evidence shows up such as footprints running away from the scene. Motive, weapon, body.
There really ought to be an IQ requirement for jury duty (and voting).
What elitist rubbish. The idea is that you're judged by a fair cross-section of society. That includes thickoes as well as geniuses. Further, having experience in the real world would be a more valuable asset for a jury member than IQ, IMHO. Some of the things that jurors have to consider are: is this story realistic? Is this guy telling the truth or lying? IQ isn't a measure of how good you are at those skills.
I suppose so; there are two common and quite different pronunciations of the name! In my area "tootin' carmen" is usual but I often hear "tut anchor min"
Blizzard itself now has a WoW Database online. It has a lot of functionality and unique aspects.. the only thing it's missing is exact percentage of drop rates.
Well, thottbot drop rates are not very accurate either, for quest items.
Also, sometimes even the drop rate for non-quest items just seems to be wrong, leading me to suspect that the rate has changed at some point but Thottbot is using all historical data to calculate the percentage. It should include the option to limit drop info to say the last month.
So, I have no idea how he can sell his WoW character reliably.
Selling an account violates the terms and conditions of playing the game in the first place (as does buying gold). So I wouldn't hold your breath looking for a reliable way.
As an outsider, to me the WoW community looks like a den of thieves and scammers.
Well you are dealing with a section of it that runs scams (i.e. T&C violations). So that isn't surprising.
BTW, how can you stand to use a 'payment' provider that just takes back money that is in your account already, after the sale has already been accepted?
Liberalism is repackaged Fabian Socialism. Just say "No" to Socialism.
IMHO they are entirely different. The only association is that people like to divide politics into two wings. Conservatism is on the right. Liberalism and Socialism are both different, so we tend to lump them in the same boat.
For me, socialism is an antithesis of liberalism. Socialism is where the government controls everything that happens, right down to the last detail; liberalism is where people are free to run their own life.
From TFA, studying its decay helps to learn about the properties of the strong nuclear force, the force that binds quarks together to form protons and neutrons (and other things). The mechanics of it are not well understood; there are theories but more experimental evidence to confirm them and refine them is needed. A new particle provides new angles on strong-force interactions.
Re:I find Mr. Feldzamen's post hard to believe.
on
The Fallacy of Hard Tests
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Did you actually read the article? His whole point was that the multi-choice test is invalid because it is too hard.
My question: can the game be played in Australia and New Zealand? None of my local games have it on the shelf, and I'm hesitant to buy online in case it arrives but says I can't play because of where I live.
I hope you don't want to claim that it's considerably harder to find an implementation of operator+ than of a normally named function. Hint: The implementation always contains "operator" followed by "+".
However there may or may not be whitespace between those two tokens, so a simple text-search may not be able to find it without great rigmarole (you'd have to have a search capable of finding tokens separated by any amount of whitespace, such as a regex).
Also, it is of course harder to find calls to that operator by using a text search:)
The article misses the main point. Microsoft wanted the state to pay a licence fee for EVERY Mac computer in a state school, even those without MS Office on it. The state refused, and said it was only willing to pay the fee for those computers that did have MS Office on it. Microsoft didn't accept this, so the state had no option but to stop using the Microsoft software on all of the Macs.
Don't get me wrong, I love C, but there is absolutely no reason to _still_ be using C in the _21st century_ when you could be using Embedded C++
Embedded C++ is the worst of both worlds, IMO. It is more like C with some syntactic sugar. It removes all of the good features of C++ such as namespaces and templates.
to get rid of the stupid "typedef struct" type declarations,
You don't have to write "typedef struct" in C. Simply 'struct X {...... };' works just fine.
and other C idioms such as implicit int, no proper bool support, limited variable declarations, etc.
Those things were all corrected by ISO/IEC 9899:1999, which came out just a few months after the C++ standard (and long before EC++).
Depending on your real-time nature constraints, you'll want to turn off RTTI, Exceptions, Virtual Funcs, and Multiple Inheritance and use C++ as a better C to _at least _ get some better compile time type safety.
People often say that, but I've yet to see any code example of how C++ has better compile-time type safety (assuming you are not talking about the use of templates for generic programming). The only thing that comes to mind is that in C++ you can not implicitly convert from (void *) to some other pointer type, but in C++ you would almost never use a (void *) anyway so it seems rather moot.
It is "freeze, flight, fight", in that order. The first instinctive reaction is to freeze, so as to not draw attention to yourself and to not appear as a threat. If you are in a room with a gunman and 32 frozen people, moving is likely to get yourself shot!
If freezing doesn't work -- i.e. the threat continues to mount against you, the next response is to back off, or even run away. If you have no other option left, then you fight (brutally).
However, I agree completely that the best way to learn how to keep your head in a pressure situation, is to actually be in a pressure situation -- or a good simulation of one. Of course, the events descriped in TFA are despicable. The correct approach would have first been to teach kids what to do, and then to have a simulation **that they knew about in advance**. Only after several such simulations *MIGHT* you try to fake a real attack, and even then, probably still a bad idea.
She was sitting at the controls of the car. Barring mechanical failure of the car to obey her controls, she's responsible for everything that it does, and that responsibility extends to judging whether she's fit to operate it or not.
Not even barring that. Plenty of people remove themselves from the gene pool by assuming that turning the steering wheel equates to the car changing direction -- an equation that breaks down when the desired lateral force exceeds what the front tyre rubber can handle on that piece of road. I wouldn't call this a mechanical failure.
In this particular case, the problem is that it is a two-step process:
1. Turning the steering wheel causes the front wheels to turn
2. Friction between the tyres and the road causes the car's direction to change
It's the nature of the human brain to mentally abstract out 'unimportant' details, even though they probably could describe these 2 steps if you put it to them. These people 'forget' about the condition of the tyre rubber, until it is too late.
If everyone drove intelligently, we would have more efficient roads.
Of course. My point is that intelligent driving is not at all the same as the "intelligent" cars being proposed by this article.
Instead, we have asshats like you who decide that the road should drive on their requirement, which just causes more annoyance than anything else.
Wow, people don't like being told what to do. Who'da thunk it. Let's just all keep doing our own thing and keep having traffic jams every day. Why care about anyone else? Great!
The Autobahn has situational speed limits to eliminate congestion. Slow down everyone 5 mph for ten miles before some congestion, and you won't have any congestion at all. A few years ago on the LIE, however, I had the pleasant experience of sitting through a TEN MILE spat of congestion, after some fifty miles of crazy-Long-Island speeding.
Do you think any of those 'crazy speeders' would have saved anything on their trip time by driving more slowly? If there's a bottleneck then you are just going to have to wait for the X number of cars in front of you to get through it, there's no option.
(And a modern car should turn its engine off when stopped -- meaning that the gas-per-second drops to zero.)
Should, but it doesn't. Note that this also would need traffic lights to give an indication shortly before they go green, so that people can start their engine again.
Slashdot Mirror
> >Some of the things that jurors have to consider are: is this story realistic? Is this guy telling the truth or lying?
>
>Actually no, that's not what jurors are supposed to be doing
Actually it is. Otherwise why even bother having a trial, each side could submit their case in written form. Why bother having a law that you must tell the truth in court if it doesn't really matter what people say?
Last time I was on a jury the judge even mentioned that it basically came down to whether or not we believed the prosecution witness. When were you last a juror?
> - what jurors have to consider is: has the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to establish beyong reasonable doubt that
>this person committed a crime.
The comments of the witnesses are taken into account in this process. (Otherwise, why bother calling witnesses?)
> Considering things like "he looks shifty to me" as reason for finding someone guilty is stupidity.
Multiple, complex factors go into the decision-making process.
You were not being rational, you were jumping to conclusions based on your preconceived notions.
That is being rational. He has premises, applies logic, and draws conclusions.
Now there could well be errors in his premises and/or logic, but that doesn't make him irrational.
Your failing to consider any possibility for his discussing violent games other than his being guilty is not being rational
He's not failing to consider any other possibilities. He's saying that Reiser acted like a guilty person would. Of course innocent people could act this way too, as you point out. But many people would find Reiser's behaviour suspicious.
I too think you are a fucking idiot
When logic doesn't work, we can call people names!
not only for jumping to a conclusion (a conclusion which, in a real jury, could be life destroying) based on something so trivial it's hard to even consider it circumstantial evidence,
Obviously you've never actually been on a jury. Juries consist of 12 people and a guilty verdict isn't pronounced until they all agree on it (or most of them, in some jurisdictions).
Real life isn't like CSI. Usually what happens is that some jurors initially think "guilty", some think "innocent" , and some think "not sure". Then they debate the details of the case amongst each other and present arguments, this can take hours or days. This includes discussing things such as why somebody would evade police, or rip the front seat out of their car, or be obsessed with video game violence, and each juror would give their opinion on what this strange behaviour meant.
Also note that any obviously spurious conclusions could be overturned on appeal.
Finally, you don't need a mathematical quality proof to find someone guilty. Hypothetical situation: a man is found with a bloody knife in his hand, standing over the dead body of his enemy. Man says someone else did it and ran off and he just pulled the knife out. Now you might say that there is no way to disprove this theory, but most juries will find the man guilty anyway unless evidence shows up such as footprints running away from the scene. Motive, weapon, body.
There really ought to be an IQ requirement for jury duty (and voting).
What elitist rubbish. The idea is that you're judged by a fair cross-section of society. That includes thickoes as well as geniuses. Further, having experience in the real world would be a more valuable asset for a jury member than IQ, IMHO. Some of the things that jurors have to consider are: is this story realistic? Is this guy telling the truth or lying? IQ isn't a measure of how good you are at those skills.
DRUMS ????
It's cannon, my boy.
I suppose so; there are two common and quite different pronunciations of the name!
In my area "tootin' carmen" is usual but I often hear "tut anchor min"
Tunguska is big, really big..
Further away than the chemist in the morning?
>>I have a BS degree from the University of Bologna and...
>
>Conversation? No.
>Job interview? Yes.
Perhaps he would be an expert in fixing spaghetti code...
"Need money for 36000 mile high pot and hookers... hey at least we're not bullshitting you"
Blizzard itself now has a WoW Database online. It has a lot of functionality and unique aspects.. the only thing it's missing is exact percentage of drop rates.
Well, thottbot drop rates are not very accurate either, for quest items.
Also, sometimes even the drop rate for non-quest items just seems to be wrong, leading me to suspect that the rate has changed at some point but Thottbot is using all historical data to calculate the percentage. It should include the option to limit drop info to say the last month.
So, I have no idea how he can sell his WoW character reliably.
Selling an account violates the terms and conditions of playing the game in the first place (as does buying gold). So I wouldn't hold your breath looking for a reliable way.
As an outsider, to me the WoW community looks like a den of thieves and scammers.
Well you are dealing with a section of it that runs scams (i.e. T&C violations). So that isn't surprising.
BTW, how can you stand to use a 'payment' provider that just takes back money that is in your account already, after the sale has already been accepted?
why don't they play online poker?
getting a winrate better than 1.25/hour is trivial.
Rubbish. True numbers are hard to come by but informal reports place it at about 90-95% of online players being money-losers.
Did you start this post just to brag that you're ahead for the month?
Liberalism is repackaged Fabian Socialism. Just say "No" to Socialism.
IMHO they are entirely different. The only association is that people like to divide politics into two wings. Conservatism is on the right. Liberalism and Socialism are both different, so we tend to lump them in the same boat.
For me, socialism is an antithesis of liberalism. Socialism is where the government controls everything that happens, right down to the last detail; liberalism is where people are free to run their own life.
From TFA, studying its decay helps to learn about the properties of the strong nuclear force, the force that binds quarks together to form protons and neutrons (and other things). The mechanics of it are not well understood; there are theories but more experimental evidence to confirm them and refine them is needed. A new particle provides new angles on strong-force interactions.
Did you actually read the article? His whole point was that the multi-choice test is invalid because it is too hard.
They paint the walls of the pool blue (duh).
I used to live in a house with a pool that was painted white; the water looked bluish-green. (Not due to algae!)
Lakes and oceans look blue on earth mostly because they reflect our blue sky.
That's crap; they're blue because they scatter blue light more, same reason the sky is blue in the first place.
Orkut is a social networking site
Shiv Sena is a Hindu fundamentalist group
Canard presumably means a deliberately false story, in this context.
My question: can the game be played in Australia and New Zealand? None of my local games have it on the shelf, and I'm hesitant to buy online in case it arrives but says I can't play because of where I live.
I hope you don't want to claim that it's considerably harder to find an implementation of operator+ than of a normally named function. Hint: The implementation always contains "operator" followed by "+".
:)
However there may or may not be whitespace between those two tokens, so a simple text-search may not be able to find it without great rigmarole (you'd have to have a search capable of finding tokens separated by any amount of whitespace, such as a regex).
Also, it is of course harder to find calls to that operator by using a text search
The article misses the main point. Microsoft wanted the state to pay a licence fee for EVERY Mac computer in a state school, even those without MS Office on it. The state refused, and said it was only willing to pay the fee for those computers that did have MS Office on it. Microsoft didn't accept this, so the state had no option but to stop using the Microsoft software on all of the Macs.
I hereby declare ... that the author of the article is the sweat of baboon's ass.
Priceless!!!!!!
Don't get me wrong, I love C, but there is absolutely no reason to _still_ be using C in the _21st century_ when you could be using Embedded C++
...... };' works just fine.
Embedded C++ is the worst of both worlds, IMO. It is more like C with some syntactic sugar. It removes all of the good features of C++ such as namespaces and templates.
to get rid of the stupid "typedef struct" type declarations,
You don't have to write "typedef struct" in C. Simply 'struct X {
and other C idioms such as implicit int, no proper bool support, limited variable declarations, etc.
Those things were all corrected by ISO/IEC 9899:1999, which came out just a few months after the C++ standard (and long before EC++).
Depending on your real-time nature constraints, you'll want to turn off RTTI, Exceptions, Virtual Funcs, and Multiple Inheritance and use C++ as a better C to _at least _ get some better compile time type safety.
People often say that, but I've yet to see any code example of how C++ has better compile-time type safety (assuming you are not talking about the use of templates for generic programming). The only thing that comes to mind is that in C++ you can not implicitly convert from (void *) to some other pointer type, but in C++ you would almost never use a (void *) anyway so it seems rather moot.
It is "freeze, flight, fight", in that order. The first instinctive reaction is to freeze, so as to not draw attention to yourself and to not appear as a threat. If you are in a room with a gunman and 32 frozen people, moving is likely to get yourself shot!
If freezing doesn't work -- i.e. the threat continues to mount against you, the next response is to back off, or even run away. If you have no other option left, then you fight (brutally).
However, I agree completely that the best way to learn how to keep your head in a pressure situation, is to actually be in a pressure situation -- or a good simulation of one. Of course, the events descriped in TFA are despicable. The correct approach would have first been to teach kids what to do, and then to have a simulation **that they knew about in advance**. Only after several such simulations *MIGHT* you try to fake a real attack, and even then, probably still a bad idea.
She was sitting at the controls of the car. Barring mechanical failure of the car to obey her controls, she's responsible for everything that it does, and that responsibility extends to judging whether she's fit to operate it or not.
Not even barring that. Plenty of people remove themselves from the gene pool by assuming that turning the steering wheel equates to the car changing direction -- an equation that breaks down when the desired lateral force exceeds what the front tyre rubber can handle on that piece of road. I wouldn't call this a mechanical failure.
In this particular case, the problem is that it is a two-step process:
1. Turning the steering wheel causes the front wheels to turn
2. Friction between the tyres and the road causes the car's direction to change
It's the nature of the human brain to mentally abstract out 'unimportant' details, even though they probably could describe these 2 steps if you put it to them. These people 'forget' about the condition of the tyre rubber, until it is too late.
If everyone drove intelligently, we would have more efficient roads.
Of course. My point is that intelligent driving is not at all the same as the "intelligent" cars being proposed by this article.
Instead, we have asshats like you who decide that the road should drive on their requirement, which just causes more annoyance than anything else.
Wow, people don't like being told what to do. Who'da thunk it. Let's just all keep doing our own thing and keep having traffic jams every day. Why care about anyone else? Great!
The Autobahn has situational speed limits to eliminate congestion. Slow down everyone 5 mph for ten miles before some congestion, and you won't have any congestion at all. A few years ago on the LIE, however, I had the pleasant experience of sitting through a TEN MILE spat of congestion, after some fifty miles of crazy-Long-Island speeding.
Do you think any of those 'crazy speeders' would have saved anything on their trip time by driving more slowly? If there's a bottleneck then you are just going to have to wait for the X number of cars in front of you to get through it, there's no option.
(And a modern car should turn its engine off when stopped -- meaning that the gas-per-second drops to zero.)
Should, but it doesn't. Note that this also would need traffic lights to give an indication shortly before they go green, so that people can start their engine again.