Rutgers University, New Brunswick. 1995 (or late 1994). The Intersection was River Road and Route 18. they were protesting some racial remarks made by the University President Fran Lawrence (his house was near that corner). The ambulance was carrying a pregnant lady.
Can't find any articles on it. Didn't make huge news. For that matter I can't find an article about the presidents remarks any more, though it was a big deal at the time.
Heh. I was thinking of the hypocrasy of it all. Does making you promise again and again to obey the honor code make you more likely to obey it, or more likely to view your word as something only given a semester at a time?
Does having a person attest to having witnessed you swear to obey the honor code every semester have any more effect than signing a piece of paper at the beginning of enrollment?
Does the massive amount of security focused on making sure that you swore the oath to obey the honor code help anything? Seems foolish. Just say, "We have an honor code. this is what it is. Before you enroll for the first time, swear to uphold it. If we ever find out you've broken it, it's your ass. Until then, however, we're going to treat you like you are honorable, and like your word means something, because that's what an honor code is about."
Most big universities have regulations about the sort of grades you can give. You can get a reprimand, for example, if the peak of your bell distribution is on B instead of C.
Where I went to school, only a certain number of A's per class were allowed, which made competition a little scary sometimes.
There was a big protest at my university during my time there, and during the course of the protest, they blocked a major throughfare to all traffic for an extended period.
It goes without saying this wasn't a liscensed protest.
Turns out there was an ambulance tied up in the traffic jam, and all the ringleaders of the protest got charged with felony obstruction of emergency vehicles.
They went from revolutionaries to crying children in the blink of an eye. The charges were upheld, and they were all convicted. Sentences were light, but a felony on your record isn't pretty.
If you play the game, you have to accept the consequences. And they can be nasty.
That would make the language sound like crap. It would be the death of literature. It would be the death of poetry. I'd say it would be the death of song lyrics, but Brittany Spears already did that.
The flexibility and weirdness of the language is what makes it so popular. It can convey complex ideas in ways that are both odd and profound. If it were rigourously rulebound, a lot fo that flexibility would be gone.
They're making a product. We don't need to see that product. They can keep all that stuff secret in their underground lairs.
However, when they gear up to market that product, and they start showing data on how good a product it is, and how wonderful the things it does are, we have a right to that data, we have a right to see how it was collected, we have a right to see the methods they used to reach their conclusions, and we have a right to have independant agents confirm it.
It only makes sense. Those claims should be verifiable.
The reverse is also true; the "We can't possibly hurt the environment on a gloabl scale" people are just as irrational, and just as religious. Witness the glowing reviews of the last Michael Crichton book by certain anti-green congress members, as if being a novelist who tends to write about sciency stuff makes one a climate expert.
This is why it needs to be open, so people who don't have an agenda can see for themselves.
Seriously. It's one of the things I like about strongly typed languages; the ability to utterly restrict input to what is supposed to be inputted. One of the big weaknesses of.Net in my opinion is how friendly it is to untyped code. A lot of vulnerablities come through allowing someone to give (for example) a chunk of code as an input.
What it should do is ignore it, or treat it as text, or throw an error. What it does is try and execute it, because it recognises that it is code and it thinks that's what it should be doing. IE and microsoft get in trouble with that all the time.
"Large corporation locks local distributers into exclusive contracts"
At which point it is no longer possible to compete on a level field, which means that the large corporation can go on charging whatever it wants, and the price never falls to equilibrium.
Monopolies are the warts of the free market; if they are allowed to grow, they stifle the market and start price fixing.
Competitor comes in, they undercut the prices, take over the company, then sell their products under the name of the supposed competitor for higher prices to give consumers an illusion of choice.
You tend to get a lot more women proportionately in medicine and biology. I don't know why that would be. The math requirement for bio is much higher than that for Comp Sci, yet I personally knew more female bio majors than there were total girls in my whole year for CS.
I think, personally, it's considered more acceptable for women to go into biosciences and medicine, than physics, computers, and engineering, so they end up getting shunted toward one set of sciences and away from the other.
If you could work it out genetically, sure. Figure out all the genetic attributes you need to be successful in science. If you got 'em, you're in. Otherwise, go flip burgers.
But otherwise, how do you know? I say, if they want to try, give them a shot. If they make it, they deserved to make it, they were born to make it, and they had the ability to make it. If they don't they don't. Why try and guess based off percentages?
Hell, most people don't make it in science anyway. I know that just from college. 100 level courses, 10,000 students. 200 level courses 2500. 300 level, 1500. 400? Maybe a thousand.
Why try and guess in advance? If it was decided for you what you could do, Einstein would never have made it to college in science. His math skills were off.
I'm just saying that, regardless of what races and cultures tend to, regardless of genetics, upbringing, whatever, the variation in the human genome is more than broad enough to produce people of excellence in all fields, from all races.
But any research that is specifically about women in science is going to be biased. It's too loaded.
Do a gender blind study about all people in science, and study the quality of their work and comparitive grades and test scores, etc, etc, etc. And then when you're done with that, go back and divide the groups by sexes, and then you may have some real data.
What if women are 3% more likely to be bad at science than men. Hell, what if they're 50% more likely? Many studies link Left brain (logic) with men and Right brain (creativity) with women, so it's sorta plausible.
What do you do with that knowledge? Do you dissuade women from trying to go into science even more than now? Such a small percentage of people go for science anyway, why not let the work weed out the good from the bad? It's not like we don't know which of our coworkers are just kinda squeaking by.
I just don't think it matters. We all know that individual women are good at science. They win a Nobel every now and then, which is usually a good sign. A lot of women are bad at science though.
We also know that a lot of men are bad at science, but that some men are good at science.
So, what it boils down to is that, some men and some women are good at science, and most men and most women are bad at science.
Why do we need a study for that? If you're doing science, hire people who are good at science. Speaking as a science guy, I'd love to have more women around. Unlike science guys, many of them bathe.
I once saw a documentary about turn of the century basketball.
Apparently, around the turn of the century, Jews dominated Basketball. Seriously. Not making this up. And in the press, and in the common opinion of the time, it was held that Jews had certain attributes, which were (not lying) quickness and sneakyness. which made them unbeatable on the court.
Today that seems totally ridiculous to us. We don't hold those stereotypes anymore.
Now we believe that black people have this huge innate physical sports advantage. It's not that they're statistically poorer than white people, and have few ways of going to college besides sports scholarships. It's not that, culturally, they see the easiest routes to success coming from entertainment and athletics.
It's just that black people tend to be athletic, funny, and rappers. It's genetic. No really. It is. Really.
Slashdot Mirror
Rutgers University, New Brunswick. 1995 (or late 1994). The Intersection was River Road and Route 18. they were protesting some racial remarks made by the University President Fran Lawrence (his house was near that corner). The ambulance was carrying a pregnant lady.
Can't find any articles on it. Didn't make huge news. For that matter I can't find an article about the presidents remarks any more, though it was a big deal at the time.
Heh. I was thinking of the hypocrasy of it all. Does making you promise again and again to obey the honor code make you more likely to obey it, or more likely to view your word as something only given a semester at a time?
Does having a person attest to having witnessed you swear to obey the honor code every semester have any more effect than signing a piece of paper at the beginning of enrollment?
Does the massive amount of security focused on making sure that you swore the oath to obey the honor code help anything? Seems foolish. Just say, "We have an honor code. this is what it is. Before you enroll for the first time, swear to uphold it. If we ever find out you've broken it, it's your ass. Until then, however, we're going to treat you like you are honorable, and like your word means something, because that's what an honor code is about."
Just my opinion.
Most big universities have regulations about the sort of grades you can give. You can get a reprimand, for example, if the peak of your bell distribution is on B instead of C.
Where I went to school, only a certain number of A's per class were allowed, which made competition a little scary sometimes.
It's always the way of it.
There was a big protest at my university during my time there, and during the course of the protest, they blocked a major throughfare to all traffic for an extended period.
It goes without saying this wasn't a liscensed protest.
Turns out there was an ambulance tied up in the traffic jam, and all the ringleaders of the protest got charged with felony obstruction of emergency vehicles.
They went from revolutionaries to crying children in the blink of an eye. The charges were upheld, and they were all convicted. Sentences were light, but a felony on your record isn't pretty.
If you play the game, you have to accept the consequences. And they can be nasty.
I hate to be the one to bring it up, but this issue was a personl crusade of Tipper Gore's, back in the day.
That would make the language sound like crap. It would be the death of literature. It would be the death of poetry. I'd say it would be the death of song lyrics, but Brittany Spears already did that.
The flexibility and weirdness of the language is what makes it so popular. It can convey complex ideas in ways that are both odd and profound. If it were rigourously rulebound, a lot fo that flexibility would be gone.
Answer? They guess the password like everyone else.
Nothing to see here, move along.
*imagines the sound of his midsized corporate mailserver melting into goo*
They're making a product. We don't need to see that product. They can keep all that stuff secret in their underground lairs.
However, when they gear up to market that product, and they start showing data on how good a product it is, and how wonderful the things it does are, we have a right to that data, we have a right to see how it was collected, we have a right to see the methods they used to reach their conclusions, and we have a right to have independant agents confirm it.
It only makes sense. Those claims should be verifiable.
The whole issue is that the community doesn't have access to their data and methods.
The only thing they can have that qualifies as a trade secret is the fuzzy math on which they based their conclusions.
The reverse is also true; the "We can't possibly hurt the environment on a gloabl scale" people are just as irrational, and just as religious. Witness the glowing reviews of the last Michael Crichton book by certain anti-green congress members, as if being a novelist who tends to write about sciency stuff makes one a climate expert.
This is why it needs to be open, so people who don't have an agenda can see for themselves.
I wasn't sure about the usage myself, I admit. However Dictionary.com agrees with me, which argues for common usage at the very least.
Interpreting broken code is a security weakness.
.Net in my opinion is how friendly it is to untyped code. A lot of vulnerablities come through allowing someone to give (for example) a chunk of code as an input.
Seriously. It's one of the things I like about strongly typed languages; the ability to utterly restrict input to what is supposed to be inputted. One of the big weaknesses of
What it should do is ignore it, or treat it as text, or throw an error. What it does is try and execute it, because it recognises that it is code and it thinks that's what it should be doing. IE and microsoft get in trouble with that all the time.
I've never heard of this sort of test being called anything other than a torture test. I'd say it's industry standard.
I doubt it will dilute the meaning all that much, however. Any test in which 10% of the participants exploded could hardly be considered light.
The step you're missing is the crucial one.
"Large corporation locks local distributers into exclusive contracts"
At which point it is no longer possible to compete on a level field, which means that the large corporation can go on charging whatever it wants, and the price never falls to equilibrium.
Monopolies are the warts of the free market; if they are allowed to grow, they stifle the market and start price fixing.
Competitor comes in, they undercut the prices, take over the company, then sell their products under the name of the supposed competitor for higher prices to give consumers an illusion of choice.
The conclusion is: sterotypes are meaningless, and the enemy of rational discourse.
I'm sorry I didn't spell it out at your level. Do you see how it follows now?
You tend to get a lot more women proportionately in medicine and biology. I don't know why that would be. The math requirement for bio is much higher than that for Comp Sci, yet I personally knew more female bio majors than there were total girls in my whole year for CS.
I think, personally, it's considered more acceptable for women to go into biosciences and medicine, than physics, computers, and engineering, so they end up getting shunted toward one set of sciences and away from the other.
I'm still not sure.
A negro? Who the hell uses that terminology anymore?
Gotta be a spoof.
Oh yea, on the off chance it's not: Marilyn Vos Savant...IQ 218. Smartest person alive. Woman. You sir, are full of it.
If you could work it out genetically, sure. Figure out all the genetic attributes you need to be successful in science. If you got 'em, you're in. Otherwise, go flip burgers.
But otherwise, how do you know? I say, if they want to try, give them a shot. If they make it, they deserved to make it, they were born to make it, and they had the ability to make it. If they don't they don't. Why try and guess based off percentages?
Hell, most people don't make it in science anyway. I know that just from college. 100 level courses, 10,000 students. 200 level courses 2500. 300 level, 1500. 400? Maybe a thousand.
Why try and guess in advance? If it was decided for you what you could do, Einstein would never have made it to college in science. His math skills were off.
I agree mostly.
I'm just saying that, regardless of what races and cultures tend to, regardless of genetics, upbringing, whatever, the variation in the human genome is more than broad enough to produce people of excellence in all fields, from all races.
I can't decide if this is a sarcastic spoof or a real Southern Baptist nutjob. Either way, it's perfect.
Thank you sir, for making my point.
But any research that is specifically about women in science is going to be biased. It's too loaded.
Do a gender blind study about all people in science, and study the quality of their work and comparitive grades and test scores, etc, etc, etc. And then when you're done with that, go back and divide the groups by sexes, and then you may have some real data.
What if women are 3% more likely to be bad at science than men. Hell, what if they're 50% more likely? Many studies link Left brain (logic) with men and Right brain (creativity) with women, so it's sorta plausible.
What do you do with that knowledge? Do you dissuade women from trying to go into science even more than now? Such a small percentage of people go for science anyway, why not let the work weed out the good from the bad? It's not like we don't know which of our coworkers are just kinda squeaking by.
I just don't think it matters. We all know that individual women are good at science. They win a Nobel every now and then, which is usually a good sign. A lot of women are bad at science though.
We also know that a lot of men are bad at science, but that some men are good at science.
So, what it boils down to is that, some men and some women are good at science, and most men and most women are bad at science.
Why do we need a study for that? If you're doing science, hire people who are good at science. Speaking as a science guy, I'd love to have more women around. Unlike science guys, many of them bathe.
I once saw a documentary about turn of the century basketball.
Apparently, around the turn of the century, Jews dominated Basketball. Seriously. Not making this up. And in the press, and in the common opinion of the time, it was held that Jews had certain attributes, which were (not lying) quickness and sneakyness. which made them unbeatable on the court.
Today that seems totally ridiculous to us. We don't hold those stereotypes anymore.
Now we believe that black people have this huge innate physical sports advantage. It's not that they're statistically poorer than white people, and have few ways of going to college besides sports scholarships. It's not that, culturally, they see the easiest routes to success coming from entertainment and athletics.
It's just that black people tend to be athletic, funny, and rappers. It's genetic. No really. It is. Really.
Don't you see how stupid that is?