No, I was not saying what you claim I said at all (nor its opposite, actually). I was saying, inside a system where a lack of integrity is the assumption, there can be no workability. The system must be founded on a notion of integrity. When people cheat, it doesn't work. Period. I know it sucks, but that's the way it is. You cannot make a system of rules that prevents cheating, by definition! So if the jury is cheating, and the lawyers are cheating, and the defendant and the plaintiff are cheating, and only the judge is expected to not cheat, which is basically what we are moving towards in my view, then how can you say you have a system that works? So you might as well design a straightforward system that all understand, and let a jury sort out who has integrity and who doesn't. The point is, our system of government actually and really depends on the citizens to make it work. If we give up on the idea that we can agree honorably on a set of proper behaviors, then chaos will follow, again by definition. The consequence of utter lack of integrity is utter lack of workability, synonymous with a lack of power. Ironically, the only recourse in that case is a totalitarian leadership to keep us all in line. So as people become less responsible in court, the judge must assume more and more power to keep things workable. Lack of responsibility by individuals leads inexorably to a need for centralized power.
The law might be the pinnacle of reason that you claim, or it might not be. IANAL so I cannot comment on that. But the thing is, human beings are not machines, and there is no system of law that is going to make up for that fact. From where I sit, the law is plainly becoming more and more unjust, and it's plainly because the human element is being squeezed out. You have the viewpoint that my system would involve reading 12 peoples' minds, which it would if it were about gaming the system for marginal benefit. But that's my point. You are assuming that it's all a game to be manipulated cynically. I'm talking about a completely different paradigm, in which the presumption is that men act in accordance with their agreements, and the word "honor" is not laughed out of court. The purpose of the 12 is to judge whether an agreement was broken, nothing more or less. The purpose of the court is not to provide a venue for the plaintiff and defendant to posture and play a game for advantage, although they might and even probably will do so. Laws are just agreements made between human beings, and no system of logic will ever suffice. The law must be understandable to be followed. Men act according to the context they have for their actions. If the context of the court is not to deliver justice according to a clear ruling of one's peers, then the whole point is lost, IMHO.
You could add the ability of the site administrator to add a graphic to the request, just to help get the user's attention. And also add some animation capability, just for fun! Yes, I can see how this will help users block ads! Brilliant. Clearly AdBlock is really helping their customers out here.
The ability to arrive at different conclusions is fine, that's why we have juries. We need to have simpler laws and let the juries have more discretion, all the time utterly respecting the rule of law.
You cannot keep making more rules. In your world, integrity is assumed not to exist, and you rely on the rules to keep order. Consider two options. In the first, we rely on simple, clear rules and citizens with integrity to enforce them. In this system, some people will cheat, yes, but when the rules are clear, then we can deal with the cheaters by executing good-faith judgment in a trial of their peers, and delivering the full punishment when the law is broken, in speedy, reliable fashion. The downside is that the citizens are expected to be men of honor and we all then have a burden to keep our word. Abuses will occur.
In the second option, which is the system you propose, we assume that everyone will cheat, in fact, we expect it. A little cheating is OK, but a lot is "bad." We punish the eggregious cheats, but let the little cheats slide with a wink, since we all do it anyhow, right? How dare some sanctimonious person dare judge our behavior? In this system, you have to keep making more and more rules to cover the edge cases because everyone is looking for a little advantage. Juries are not allowed to exercise as much judgment, instead the rules keep getting "improved". The good thing about such a system is citizens are no longer responsible for their behaviors -- they can blame the rules when things go bad. Or is that such a good thing? Hmm. The down side is that the rules become so twisted that cheating is the NORM.
There is no such thing as 98% integrity. As soon as you accept 98% integrity, then you redefine 98% as 100%, and then you start having 96% integrity, which then becomes the new 100% etc. AT some point, we are going to have to admit that we as individuals are responsible for our entire lives and everything we do and say in them, and really be engaged in our society. It cannot work any other way.
So yes, scrap the system, replace it with something simpler, I say, and then let's start actually FOLLOWING THE RULES.:-)
I don't know why you people keep saying this. Half the numbers end in 1, and half end in 0, I'd say. Anyhow, base 2 is the trivial case. The point is, that in base 3, apparently the number 1 will be the first digit more often than a 2. In base four, same thing but with 3 the least common, etc.
So mathematics is the study of numbers as much as computer science is the study of computers as much as biology is the study of microscopes?
Where did you come up with that? Nobody said mathematics is the study of numbers. Someone just mentioned that the study of the *representation of numbers* is a valid field. Everybody knows that mathematics is really just a long word for the study of math.
I usually think that when the government starts merging with industry, it's called Fascism, which is more an attribute of the right than left, but both parties are moving that direction. Usually the government nationalizes corporations, but if the government is run by the corporations, it will end up being the same thing... the single party bit is true in all but name now -- neither party resists the corporatism.
This one article is going to get lots and lots of attention, which makes the gp post's point. There is a HUGE market for evidence AGAINST global warming, just as there is a huge market for evidence FOR. How about if we not rush to conclusions from one data point? I would like to know how this fits into global warming, or if it disproves it. It's not like scientists are going to ignore it, don't worry.
How does a glitch explain the replies by Amazon representatives to inquiries that said that this is their official policy? The original blogger asked Amazon and they told him the books are considered adult material. FTFA: Mr. Probst e-mailed Amazon and got a reply that said the company was excluding adult material from appearing in some searches and best-seller lists.
I would go further and suggest this relationship is utterly trivial. Wow, students with more time on their hands spend more time on Facebook. You would likely find a similar correlation between students who have lower grades and who spend less time studying and the number of movies students watch. They just plain have more time to do other stuff if they are not studying.
It's amazing, I thought Heisenberg says you cannot KNOW both values at the same time. Is it true that the precise values don't even EXIST simultaneously?
I have found that the CFL's burn out WAY faster than advertised, at least the way I use them, which is in ordinary light fixtures. So I am not sure I'm saving any money or doing the environment a favor.
IANAEE, but from wikipedia: Due to energy stored in the load and returned to the source, or due to a non-linear load that distorts the wave shape of the current drawn from the source, the apparent power can be greater than the real power.
In an electric power system, a load with low power factor draws more current than a load with a high power factor for the same amount of useful power transferred.
FTFS: the power factor for the CFLs and found they ranged from.45 to.50. Their "real" load was about twice that implied by their wattage.'
But the real power is never greater than the apparent power, so there is something very screwy in the summary. Probably the summary meant the "apparent" load was twice that implied by their wattage. That is, if you actually measured the volts time current flowing, you'd find it to be 28 VA, but for whatever reason, it only "uses" 13 "real watts."
Slashdot Mirror
No, I was not saying what you claim I said at all (nor its opposite, actually). I was saying, inside a system where a lack of integrity is the assumption, there can be no workability. The system must be founded on a notion of integrity. When people cheat, it doesn't work. Period. I know it sucks, but that's the way it is. You cannot make a system of rules that prevents cheating, by definition! So if the jury is cheating, and the lawyers are cheating, and the defendant and the plaintiff are cheating, and only the judge is expected to not cheat, which is basically what we are moving towards in my view, then how can you say you have a system that works? So you might as well design a straightforward system that all understand, and let a jury sort out who has integrity and who doesn't. The point is, our system of government actually and really depends on the citizens to make it work. If we give up on the idea that we can agree honorably on a set of proper behaviors, then chaos will follow, again by definition. The consequence of utter lack of integrity is utter lack of workability, synonymous with a lack of power. Ironically, the only recourse in that case is a totalitarian leadership to keep us all in line. So as people become less responsible in court, the judge must assume more and more power to keep things workable. Lack of responsibility by individuals leads inexorably to a need for centralized power.
The law might be the pinnacle of reason that you claim, or it might not be. IANAL so I cannot comment on that. But the thing is, human beings are not machines, and there is no system of law that is going to make up for that fact. From where I sit, the law is plainly becoming more and more unjust, and it's plainly because the human element is being squeezed out. You have the viewpoint that my system would involve reading 12 peoples' minds, which it would if it were about gaming the system for marginal benefit. But that's my point. You are assuming that it's all a game to be manipulated cynically. I'm talking about a completely different paradigm, in which the presumption is that men act in accordance with their agreements, and the word "honor" is not laughed out of court. The purpose of the 12 is to judge whether an agreement was broken, nothing more or less. The purpose of the court is not to provide a venue for the plaintiff and defendant to posture and play a game for advantage, although they might and even probably will do so. Laws are just agreements made between human beings, and no system of logic will ever suffice. The law must be understandable to be followed. Men act according to the context they have for their actions. If the context of the court is not to deliver justice according to a clear ruling of one's peers, then the whole point is lost, IMHO.
You could add the ability of the site administrator to add a graphic to the request, just to help get the user's attention. And also add some animation capability, just for fun! Yes, I can see how this will help users block ads! Brilliant. Clearly AdBlock is really helping their customers out here.
The ability to arrive at different conclusions is fine, that's why we have juries. We need to have simpler laws and let the juries have more discretion, all the time utterly respecting the rule of law.
You cannot keep making more rules. In your world, integrity is assumed not to exist, and you rely on the rules to keep order. Consider two options. In the first, we rely on simple, clear rules and citizens with integrity to enforce them. In this system, some people will cheat, yes, but when the rules are clear, then we can deal with the cheaters by executing good-faith judgment in a trial of their peers, and delivering the full punishment when the law is broken, in speedy, reliable fashion. The downside is that the citizens are expected to be men of honor and we all then have a burden to keep our word. Abuses will occur. In the second option, which is the system you propose, we assume that everyone will cheat, in fact, we expect it. A little cheating is OK, but a lot is "bad." We punish the eggregious cheats, but let the little cheats slide with a wink, since we all do it anyhow, right? How dare some sanctimonious person dare judge our behavior? In this system, you have to keep making more and more rules to cover the edge cases because everyone is looking for a little advantage. Juries are not allowed to exercise as much judgment, instead the rules keep getting "improved". The good thing about such a system is citizens are no longer responsible for their behaviors -- they can blame the rules when things go bad. Or is that such a good thing? Hmm. The down side is that the rules become so twisted that cheating is the NORM. There is no such thing as 98% integrity. As soon as you accept 98% integrity, then you redefine 98% as 100%, and then you start having 96% integrity, which then becomes the new 100% etc. AT some point, we are going to have to admit that we as individuals are responsible for our entire lives and everything we do and say in them, and really be engaged in our society. It cannot work any other way. So yes, scrap the system, replace it with something simpler, I say, and then let's start actually FOLLOWING THE RULES. :-)
I don't know why you people keep saying this. Half the numbers end in 1, and half end in 0, I'd say. Anyhow, base 2 is the trivial case. The point is, that in base 3, apparently the number 1 will be the first digit more often than a 2. In base four, same thing but with 3 the least common, etc.
Where did you come up with that? Nobody said mathematics is the study of numbers. Someone just mentioned that the study of the *representation of numbers* is a valid field. Everybody knows that mathematics is really just a long word for the study of math.
That starts with an "N", which is not a number.
Or, maybe we just need to put some thought into writing and grading papers. God forbid we have to do some work to generate new ideas. :-)
Well, sort of. It's not the killing of kudzu that spreads it. It's the trampling on it, which spreads its seeds. Try buying a goat. :-)
I usually think that when the government starts merging with industry, it's called Fascism, which is more an attribute of the right than left, but both parties are moving that direction. Usually the government nationalizes corporations, but if the government is run by the corporations, it will end up being the same thing... the single party bit is true in all but name now -- neither party resists the corporatism.
.
Um, that is not how weeds act. When you kill a weed, it dies. You kill more of them, you have less of them.
This one article is going to get lots and lots of attention, which makes the gp post's point. There is a HUGE market for evidence AGAINST global warming, just as there is a huge market for evidence FOR. How about if we not rush to conclusions from one data point? I would like to know how this fits into global warming, or if it disproves it. It's not like scientists are going to ignore it, don't worry.
ECMA script, Java The Next Generation, JSon, WTF? Whatever happened to version numbers?
I am a scientist, and I agree.
How does a glitch explain the replies by Amazon representatives to inquiries that said that this is their official policy? The original blogger asked Amazon and they told him the books are considered adult material. FTFA: Mr. Probst e-mailed Amazon and got a reply that said the company was excluding adult material from appearing in some searches and best-seller lists.
I'm not saying I think the plan will work, just that not all Islamic groups are violent and hateful.
I would go further and suggest this relationship is utterly trivial. Wow, students with more time on their hands spend more time on Facebook. You would likely find a similar correlation between students who have lower grades and who spend less time studying and the number of movies students watch. They just plain have more time to do other stuff if they are not studying.
I can see how that is really helpful for the environment. I think CFL's are still not ready for real world use.
Not every Islamic group is violent and repressive. If you even read the summary, you'd know it refers to "pro-west" Islamic groups.
When Christina Aguilera gives Jessica Alba an infection.
It's amazing, I thought Heisenberg says you cannot KNOW both values at the same time. Is it true that the precise values don't even EXIST simultaneously?
I have found that the CFL's burn out WAY faster than advertised, at least the way I use them, which is in ordinary light fixtures. So I am not sure I'm saving any money or doing the environment a favor.
Due to energy stored in the load and returned to the source, or due to a non-linear load that distorts the wave shape of the current drawn from the source, the apparent power can be greater than the real power. In an electric power system, a load with low power factor draws more current than a load with a high power factor for the same amount of useful power transferred.
FTFS: .45 to .50. Their "real" load was about twice that implied by their wattage.'
the power factor for the CFLs and found they ranged from
But the real power is never greater than the apparent power, so there is something very screwy in the summary. Probably the summary meant the "apparent" load was twice that implied by their wattage. That is, if you actually measured the volts time current flowing, you'd find it to be 28 VA, but for whatever reason, it only "uses" 13 "real watts."
That's weird, I have a TiVo and am not forced to see any advertisements. Is that a Series 3 "feature"?