Fascinating. I have to say it's rare to see a lecturer with a data-driven approach to their teaching. I wish their were more like you.
Personally (3/4 through a maths intensive course) I think it is really really obvious that those courses where notes are pre-prepared are the courses that people do less well in. But trying to get a professor to change his behaviour is like hitting a jellyfish with a hammer.
Reclaiming and tidying up can't hope to keep up with the rate of new allocation being demanded. Every man-hour spent on it would be waste of a man-hour that could be spent implementing 6.
Or it might just be that the prosecutor is doing their job according to their understanding of the law and is taking it to court so that the issue can be clarified. Don't apply your blinkered view of the opposite sex to every situation you encounter; it's not pretty.
I would say that far too many people go to study for a degree with no clear picture of what it will do for them and what they want to achieve from it. I believe there is a lot to be said for spending a few years after leaving school working at the bottom. Speaking from experience, not much motivates you at uni like the memory of processing salmon at 6AM every day.
You are wrong because most soldiers don't really give a damn about what gender you prefer to roll in the hay with. Sure, some do, and there are bigots to be found in all walks of life, but I can assure you that those concerns become very petty after contact.
It is lawyers that flip out at "jury nullification" jurors, not judges. Neither side wants a juror that thinks he can ignore the court and come up with whatever answer he chooses.
The bigger problem is that economics is a curious science in which the act of observation alters the thing being observed. One person using 2007's financial models back in the 1970s would have done very well; part of the problem was that everyone was using them, just as the capital asset pricing model became outdated in the 70s.
The main difficulty, as I understand it, is two-fold. The first is philosophical; those in charge of policy do not wish to move to such a system, and they are not really influencable. So there is no traction there. The second is that apparently such fragmentation of the IP space would make routing incredibly difficult, as in it would cause routing tables to grow exponentially. The first problem is potentially attackable, the second is more difficult.
We knew it was getting eaten - it's quite common in the right conditions. The interesting things are (a) the evolution of specialised nomming bacteria and (b) the rate of nomming.
I seriously doubt it. Mastercard barely *needs* a front page; their job is shuffling money between bank accounts and as long as they do that they are making money. Their regular traffic is unlikely to be tenth of a percent of Amazon's. It's not like people don't try taking down site like Amazon relatively frequently.
Not to be trite, but just giving away money doesn't really help. Trillions have been pumped into Africa as Western aid over the years, and there is diddly-squat to show for it. Using money intelligently is not a bad thing to do: a malaria cure is more use than a malaria net, even if everyone gets one.
Hello. If you don't know anything about explosives, could you do us all a favour and not talk utter bollocks about the subject? I'm glad you feel that picking up and carrying explosives made by an amateur lunatic is a sensible thing to do, but frankly, no, it's not. Put your conspiracy theories to bed. The federal government does not pull out the black helicopters for the sake of a few mislaid grenades.
Lastly, evidence is not really the issue. You don't accumulate that much material without leaving a trail, however innocuous it might have seemed at the time.
Murky is not the right word. It is a very important area of law, for obvious reasons, and it depends (in common law systems) on several hundred years of case law. So it is complex, but also very well-studied. The main issue in a case like this is that it is not likely to be interpreted the same everywhere. So it's a damned stupid thing for them to do, but then decisions like that probably explain why they're in the situation they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally (3/4 through a maths intensive course) I think it is really really obvious that those courses where notes are pre-prepared are the courses that people do less well in. But trying to get a professor to change his behaviour is like hitting a jellyfish with a hammer.
Reclaiming and tidying up can't hope to keep up with the rate of new allocation being demanded. Every man-hour spent on it would be waste of a man-hour that could be spent implementing 6.
Or it might just be that the prosecutor is doing their job according to their understanding of the law and is taking it to court so that the issue can be clarified. Don't apply your blinkered view of the opposite sex to every situation you encounter; it's not pretty.
And how was I meant to find this article without reading his blog?
I would say that far too many people go to study for a degree with no clear picture of what it will do for them and what they want to achieve from it. I believe there is a lot to be said for spending a few years after leaving school working at the bottom. Speaking from experience, not much motivates you at uni like the memory of processing salmon at 6AM every day.
I suspect your problem is that you're a dick, because you certainly sound like one. Stop blaming other people.
It's OK. Lady Chatterly's Lover still doesn't make sense, except I can confirm it contains some mild sex.
You are wrong because most soldiers don't really give a damn about what gender you prefer to roll in the hay with. Sure, some do, and there are bigots to be found in all walks of life, but I can assure you that those concerns become very petty after contact.
Hardly a new idea. Most big sports clubs are clothing companies with a nice sideline in football.
It is lawyers that flip out at "jury nullification" jurors, not judges. Neither side wants a juror that thinks he can ignore the court and come up with whatever answer he chooses.
Excuse me, trainee actuary here. What do we have to do with this?
ROFL. I posted a link to that very paper elsewhere in this thread (well, to Shalizi's blog post on it). Show you how carefully I read summaries.
You mean clippy also uses porn? Ugh.
Indeed. I'd bet good money that the data is actually drawn from some relative of a log-normal distribution, which makes a lot more sense.
No doubt the terrorists will have read this.
The bigger problem is that economics is a curious science in which the act of observation alters the thing being observed. One person using 2007's financial models back in the 1970s would have done very well; part of the problem was that everyone was using them, just as the capital asset pricing model became outdated in the 70s.
The main difficulty, as I understand it, is two-fold. The first is philosophical; those in charge of policy do not wish to move to such a system, and they are not really influencable. So there is no traction there. The second is that apparently such fragmentation of the IP space would make routing incredibly difficult, as in it would cause routing tables to grow exponentially. The first problem is potentially attackable, the second is more difficult.
We knew it was getting eaten - it's quite common in the right conditions. The interesting things are (a) the evolution of specialised nomming bacteria and (b) the rate of nomming.
I seriously doubt it. Mastercard barely *needs* a front page; their job is shuffling money between bank accounts and as long as they do that they are making money. Their regular traffic is unlikely to be tenth of a percent of Amazon's. It's not like people don't try taking down site like Amazon relatively frequently.
Not to be trite, but just giving away money doesn't really help. Trillions have been pumped into Africa as Western aid over the years, and there is diddly-squat to show for it. Using money intelligently is not a bad thing to do: a malaria cure is more use than a malaria net, even if everyone gets one.
Lastly, evidence is not really the issue. You don't accumulate that much material without leaving a trail, however innocuous it might have seemed at the time.
Here, I made this "whoosh" just for you.
Presuming that they took a simple random sample, which I doubt.
That's better than continuous delivery.
Murky is not the right word. It is a very important area of law, for obvious reasons, and it depends (in common law systems) on several hundred years of case law. So it is complex, but also very well-studied. The main issue in a case like this is that it is not likely to be interpreted the same everywhere. So it's a damned stupid thing for them to do, but then decisions like that probably explain why they're in the situation they are.