Maybe the summary does. The article itself states pretty revealing numbers 96 in a million vs 10 in a million. These are hardly scandalous. But they are indicative of poorly managed incentives. Examining incentives is well within the purview of ethicists. The article is solid. Slashdot summary is what it is.
Most papers are too esoteric. The group of peers who have enough expertise to examine validity of the papers is usually very small (no more than a dozen in the world). In fact, many papers are so full of cross references that understanding them is akin to understanding inside jokes (too much history for anyone outside to follow). Anything that is stated vaguely enough will probably be skimmed over and not challenged by the reviewers. And unless the paper claims any far-reaching discoveries, it is likely to never be examined again.
As a matter of fact, it calculates linearly two trends. One could, in fact, say that it measures how aligned two trends are. It's calculation actually measures the cosine of the angle between two vectors represented by the two data sets. It's just that being aligned does not mean that one of the occurances caused the other.
Easy way to tell if the invoker of the phrase does not have a clue is if they state it as "correlation is not causation." This is a truism and, as such, never carries any information. Correlation does not imply causation actually states something entirely different -- that the argument is reaching (rather than that it is false).
In this particular case, the difference is zilch, natta, nothing, none. Because in the American system of government POTUS is both the head of state and the head of the administrative (aka "executive") branch of the government. So both ambassadors and consuls serve at the pleasure of The President (their boss). As such, both ambassadors and consuls are his agents. The distinction is only relevant for other government systems -- in which administrative branch and head of state have separate powers. Technically speaking, consuls work for the Secretary of State. But Secretary of State also works at The President's pleasure. She is confirmed by the Congress as The President's adviser because Congress has the power of advice and consent according to The Constitution.
Oh, and now that this is done with, let me borrow an apropos formal British expression: fuck off, you stupid cunt!
An ambassador is already an agent of the President... by definition. That's just the job. Even if he were "taking orders from CIA", that both still have the same boss -- POTUS. I call bull shit on the whole story. Sounds like an attempt to attribute a stupid right wing conspiracy in order to divert attention from the actual screw of the administration (failure to protect a US embassy and the subsequent attempt at covering up that failure by blaming attacks on an unrelated movie).
Would you prefer them to ignore the law that requires him to be arrested just so that US doesn't "look weak"?
Why not? This administration ignores plenty of other laws openly and brazenly. It ignores immigration laws. Supposedly this is done to support compelling state interests. Well, showing support for free speech is a compelling state interest. Why not ignore the law for reason? Unless, of course, they don't think that the right to offend Muslims is as important as the right to live in the country illegally.
No justice SHOULD be blind. But to suggest that this administration has not advocated and practiced selective enforcement openly and brazenly would be laughable.
No, it's not incitement. It's also been proven that the violence was not caused by the film. It was planned before the film was known and coincided with the anniversary of 9-11. So if the premise of the argument is that it was incitement because it incited, then that argument is false because it's based on a false premise. But even if the violence was triggered by the film (which it wasn't), it would not be incitement. Insulting could rise to the level of goading. But goading is not incitement. Basically, in order for it to be enticement, one has to be agreeing with the position taken by the mob. Insulting someone, while it may be irresponsible, is a protected right.
That's an awful analogy. This administration is often accused of kowtowing to the Muslim world. And then it violates this man's 1st amendment rights in order to throw some red meat to the Muslim world? The overwhelming force used in his arrest (20 police officers for a non-violent suspect) is a clear indication that it was show business more than it was law enforcement.
If that's true, who ordered the arrest? Obama? Why would he do that?
No. The Ceaser must be above reproach. Also known as "plausible deniability". But there is 0% chance that state department did not put pressure on the local police (now that states and municipalities get a lot of federal money it's easy to apply pressure).
he local PD felt pressure from the people and local government to arrest the guy for said parole violations.
There is 0% chance of that. No one gives a damn about parole violations unless the person is actively violent. Exercising free speech is not considered an act of violence, regard of how offensive the speech is.
There is 0% chance that your are correct. He was definitely, without a doubt, arrested because he made a video offensive to Muslims. This President is unquestionably quashing 1st amendment rights of this man. 20 (TWENTY) police officers arrived to arrest him on probation violation. He has no history of violence. This overwhelming show of force could have only been applied because of an order from above.
I am actually pretty sure that there is no federal guidelines on privacy after death in real life either. I am not a lawyer, but it seem like personal information which is privileged (legal, medical, etc.) can only be sealed with a court order. Which means that, by default, it does not survive an individual. Why would digital information be more privileged than, for example, psychiatric records?
I am currently forced to use perfoce.. It's over-engineering with a huge feature bloat. Most people end up avoiding incremental check ins that are the staple of a good version control system. Honestly, I've seen better performance from a LARGER group of people with simple use of CVS than I do from this small group with p4.
Because this administration does not, at all, care to enforce the law other than as a means to reach this administrations' ulterior ends. Which brings up the question "why does suppressing free speech appear to be within the desired ends of this administration?"
Every version control system which is free is better than every control system which isn't. NOT BECAUSE it's free, or because it's open source. But because it is. There is plenty of examples of bad open source projects. Version control just happens to be better implemented in the open source projects. Some will, undoubtedly argue it is because of the the philosophy itself, I will reserve the judgement of the philosophy for myself (in this case) and let everyone be their own judge of the open source philosophy. But, in this particular category of software, every single particular example happens to be better than every commercial one. So if you trying to imply otherwise with a slashdot post, you are either looking for ideas on how to market a turd commercial version control, or you are hoping to get people to take a look around and notice what you are selling. Not going to happen.
This post smells like a Hollywood sponsored campaign to plant seeds of good will towards the next attempt to have some treaty to enforce US copyright laws globe-wide. You even picked the targets that you think the slashdot crowd would be sympathetic towards: good guy=independent science film maker; bad guy=religious group. Personalize the issue, because that's how people forget their principles.
Blah blah blah. Translation: my party is better than your party. Reality: there is a vector space of issues with weights assigned to each dimension of the space. "Policy" is a recursive function on this space. Every political argument ever made: correlation (ie, linear projection of one variable in the space on one other variable in that space) between 2 variables, among over a hundred variables, is all that matters.
You mean supply of diamonds could effect their prices? But according to the Communist economic theory it's the labor that goes into producing the goods that acts as the deciding factor on the prices. Don't we all know now that "hard working" is the same as "most useful"? Oh, wait, that's not a Soviet mantra... anymore. Everything new is a well-forgotten old.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the summary does. The article itself states pretty revealing numbers 96 in a million vs 10 in a million. These are hardly scandalous. But they are indicative of poorly managed incentives. Examining incentives is well within the purview of ethicists. The article is solid. Slashdot summary is what it is.
Most papers are too esoteric. The group of peers who have enough expertise to examine validity of the papers is usually very small (no more than a dozen in the world). In fact, many papers are so full of cross references that understanding them is akin to understanding inside jokes (too much history for anyone outside to follow). Anything that is stated vaguely enough will probably be skimmed over and not challenged by the reviewers. And unless the paper claims any far-reaching discoveries, it is likely to never be examined again.
But good teaching is not a good metric of quality of research. The goal of research is discovery rather than dissemination of information.
As a matter of fact, it calculates linearly two trends. One could, in fact, say that it measures how aligned two trends are. It's calculation actually measures the cosine of the angle between two vectors represented by the two data sets. It's just that being aligned does not mean that one of the occurances caused the other.
Easy way to tell if the invoker of the phrase does not have a clue is if they state it as "correlation is not causation." This is a truism and, as such, never carries any information. Correlation does not imply causation actually states something entirely different -- that the argument is reaching (rather than that it is false).
In this particular case, the difference is zilch, natta, nothing, none. Because in the American system of government POTUS is both the head of state and the head of the administrative (aka "executive") branch of the government. So both ambassadors and consuls serve at the pleasure of The President (their boss). As such, both ambassadors and consuls are his agents. The distinction is only relevant for other government systems -- in which administrative branch and head of state have separate powers. Technically speaking, consuls work for the Secretary of State. But Secretary of State also works at The President's pleasure. She is confirmed by the Congress as The President's adviser because Congress has the power of advice and consent according to The Constitution.
Oh, and now that this is done with, let me borrow an apropos formal British expression: fuck off, you stupid cunt!
An ambassador is already an agent of the President... by definition. That's just the job. Even if he were "taking orders from CIA", that both still have the same boss -- POTUS. I call bull shit on the whole story. Sounds like an attempt to attribute a stupid right wing conspiracy in order to divert attention from the actual screw of the administration (failure to protect a US embassy and the subsequent attempt at covering up that failure by blaming attacks on an unrelated movie).
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of back-up tapes moving on a highway at 60 mph.
Would you prefer them to ignore the law that requires him to be arrested just so that US doesn't "look weak"?
Why not? This administration ignores plenty of other laws openly and brazenly. It ignores immigration laws. Supposedly this is done to support compelling state interests. Well, showing support for free speech is a compelling state interest. Why not ignore the law for reason? Unless, of course, they don't think that the right to offend Muslims is as important as the right to live in the country illegally.
No justice SHOULD be blind. But to suggest that this administration has not advocated and practiced selective enforcement openly and brazenly would be laughable.
No, it's not incitement. It's also been proven that the violence was not caused by the film. It was planned before the film was known and coincided with the anniversary of 9-11. So if the premise of the argument is that it was incitement because it incited, then that argument is false because it's based on a false premise. But even if the violence was triggered by the film (which it wasn't), it would not be incitement. Insulting could rise to the level of goading. But goading is not incitement. Basically, in order for it to be enticement, one has to be agreeing with the position taken by the mob. Insulting someone, while it may be irresponsible, is a protected right.
That's an awful analogy. This administration is often accused of kowtowing to the Muslim world. And then it violates this man's 1st amendment rights in order to throw some red meat to the Muslim world? The overwhelming force used in his arrest (20 police officers for a non-violent suspect) is a clear indication that it was show business more than it was law enforcement.
If that's true, who ordered the arrest? Obama? Why would he do that?
No. The Ceaser must be above reproach. Also known as "plausible deniability". But there is 0% chance that state department did not put pressure on the local police (now that states and municipalities get a lot of federal money it's easy to apply pressure).
he local PD felt pressure from the people and local government to arrest the guy for said parole violations.
There is 0% chance of that. No one gives a damn about parole violations unless the person is actively violent. Exercising free speech is not considered an act of violence, regard of how offensive the speech is.
There is 0% chance that your are correct. He was definitely, without a doubt, arrested because he made a video offensive to Muslims. This President is unquestionably quashing 1st amendment rights of this man. 20 (TWENTY) police officers arrived to arrest him on probation violation. He has no history of violence. This overwhelming show of force could have only been applied because of an order from above.
I am actually pretty sure that there is no federal guidelines on privacy after death in real life either. I am not a lawyer, but it seem like personal information which is privileged (legal, medical, etc.) can only be sealed with a court order. Which means that, by default, it does not survive an individual. Why would digital information be more privileged than, for example, psychiatric records?
All this general OSS RULEZ stuff is disingenuous.
Way to attack a point which I EXPLICITLY did not make.
I am currently forced to use perfoce.. It's over-engineering with a huge feature bloat. Most people end up avoiding incremental check ins that are the staple of a good version control system. Honestly, I've seen better performance from a LARGER group of people with simple use of CVS than I do from this small group with p4.
Because this administration does not, at all, care to enforce the law other than as a means to reach this administrations' ulterior ends. Which brings up the question "why does suppressing free speech appear to be within the desired ends of this administration?"
Every version control system which is free is better than every control system which isn't. NOT BECAUSE it's free, or because it's open source. But because it is. There is plenty of examples of bad open source projects. Version control just happens to be better implemented in the open source projects. Some will, undoubtedly argue it is because of the the philosophy itself, I will reserve the judgement of the philosophy for myself (in this case) and let everyone be their own judge of the open source philosophy. But, in this particular category of software, every single particular example happens to be better than every commercial one. So if you trying to imply otherwise with a slashdot post, you are either looking for ideas on how to market a turd commercial version control, or you are hoping to get people to take a look around and notice what you are selling. Not going to happen.
This post smells like a Hollywood sponsored campaign to plant seeds of good will towards the next attempt to have some treaty to enforce US copyright laws globe-wide. You even picked the targets that you think the slashdot crowd would be sympathetic towards: good guy=independent science film maker; bad guy=religious group. Personalize the issue, because that's how people forget their principles.
Mitt agrees.
Let me fix that for you: Obama lies...
Blah blah blah. Translation: my party is better than your party. Reality: there is a vector space of issues with weights assigned to each dimension of the space. "Policy" is a recursive function on this space. Every political argument ever made: correlation (ie, linear projection of one variable in the space on one other variable in that space) between 2 variables, among over a hundred variables, is all that matters.
You are confusing poor attention span with stupidity. Poor attention span can also lead to more creative thinking and thus more innovative ideas.
You mean supply of diamonds could effect their prices? But according to the Communist economic theory it's the labor that goes into producing the goods that acts as the deciding factor on the prices. Don't we all know now that "hard working" is the same as "most useful"? Oh, wait, that's not a Soviet mantra... anymore. Everything new is a well-forgotten old.
Brilliant people doing useless things.
But enough about chess.