A judge discussing an issue with strong rhetoric would appear impartial with regards to the issue, which would be inappropriate; extreme cases of such impartiality affecting their decisions is often referred to as legislating from the bench.
Ahem . . . I think you meant "partial with regards to the issue" and "partiality affecting their decisions." If you're not careful, your comment will make a Slashdot article and people will send you megs upon megs of hate e-mail saying that they think that judges should be impartial, not partial, and that you should be removed from whatever office you might hold.
If he can't control his temper (as it obviously is the case)
Obviously--based on the article? Or the Slashdot summary? Either way, that seems to be making a large assumption on a third or fourth-hand summary of what happened. In fact, if it had been in a burst of temper, I suspect that it would have been mentioned in the article.
If a judge said that, I think he would be disqualified from ever playing a role in any trial remotely related to these issues. And a judge is "merely" interpreting the laws. What can't we do anything with the people who make the laws ?
A judge discussing an issue with strong rhetoric would appear impartial with regards to the issue, which would be inappropriate; extreme cases of such impartiality affecting their decisions is often referred to as legislating from the bench. Law-makers, on the other hand, are supposed to be partial to a certain side of an issue; that's why they vote one way or another. They're legislating.
This bit of media hype made it through two layers of editors -- Yahoo News, and then Slashdot. It's kind of funny, but shouldn't have been presented seriously. As the article says:
Hatch's provocative remarks were more likely intended to compel technology and music executives to work faster toward ways to protect copyrights online than to signal forthcoming legislation.
Sure, I was an 80's child. Started with BASIC, and before you knew it, I was flinging around (void **)'s like a Yahoo in a pile of filth.
Then I got to the university, and entered the CS department along with every other stinkin' 80's child who did the same thing. Now a CS degree = cheap labor.
I guess the moral of the story is, just leave more tutus and stethoscopes lying around.
I think this issue is likely to divide into two camps:
Some would say that any forum where minors might legitimately participate cannot allow anyone to directly present them with inappropriate material.
Others would say that parents have a responsibility to supervise their children.
I don't think these views are mutually exclusive. For instance, a child should be able to walk down the street without porn vendors showing him their wares, but that doesn't mean parents should turn their five-year-old children loose to frolic and gambol downtown alone, either. Parents and society have responsibility.
I and certainly wouldn't gamble with a 70% payoff minimum, but assuming that there were someone who found the odds adequate after accounting for "entertainment value," the system could still be considered unfair.
Consider the two cherries situation that the article presented. According to the article, the third cherry will show up disproportionately often when he rejects the gamble. His perception will be skewed correspondingly; the presentation suggests that the third wheel's spin is independent of his choice, and believing that the machine is random, he'll more likely estimate that it is a favorable gamble to try for a third cherry when the situation presents itself, although it may not be.
This payoff-fixing method may be able to guarantee a 70% minimum, but it also would tend to reduce the already slim chances for higher payoffs.
That gives a whole new meaning to the term "game theory." The real challenge is to come up with a sim-environment that would encourage a complexity of behaviour closer to the real world. Imagine a sim-President threatening a sim-U.N. with sim-irrelevancy.
Of course, in the language of the actual players it would probably sound more like "d00d if u dont help me im not gona back u wehn u need it!!!!!!11111"
From reading Slashdot, I've come to understand that there are two kinds of people in this world: those who see everything as it might relate to 802.11 antennae, and those who don't.
Show me a poor person and I will show you somebody who watches a lot of cable.
This is absolutely true. I lived in a ghetto in Chile for a while, and people spent all of their discretionary money on alcohol, marijuana, or subscription television services. Dishes littered roofs that could barely support them.
That's right. When seriously considering any educational institution, on-line or otherwise, first contact the administration directly and ask them if their program is proven to improve self-esteem.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahem . . . I think you meant "partial with regards to the issue" and "partiality affecting their decisions." If you're not careful, your comment will make a Slashdot article and people will send you megs upon megs of hate e-mail saying that they think that judges should be impartial, not partial, and that you should be removed from whatever office you might hold.
Obviously--based on the article? Or the Slashdot summary? Either way, that seems to be making a large assumption on a third or fourth-hand summary of what happened. In fact, if it had been in a burst of temper, I suspect that it would have been mentioned in the article.
If a judge said that, I think he would be disqualified from ever playing a role in any trial remotely related to these issues. And a judge is "merely" interpreting the laws. What can't we do anything with the people who make the laws ?A judge discussing an issue with strong rhetoric would appear impartial with regards to the issue, which would be inappropriate; extreme cases of such impartiality affecting their decisions is often referred to as legislating from the bench. Law-makers, on the other hand, are supposed to be partial to a certain side of an issue; that's why they vote one way or another. They're legislating.
Hatch's provocative remarks were more likely intended to compel technology and music executives to work faster toward ways to protect copyrights online than to signal forthcoming legislation.
Then I got to the university, and entered the CS department along with every other stinkin' 80's child who did the same thing. Now a CS degree = cheap labor.
I guess the moral of the story is, just leave more tutus and stethoscopes lying around.
Some would say that any forum where minors might legitimately participate cannot allow anyone to directly present them with inappropriate material.
Others would say that parents have a responsibility to supervise their children.
I don't think these views are mutually exclusive. For instance, a child should be able to walk down the street without porn vendors showing him their wares, but that doesn't mean parents should turn their five-year-old children loose to frolic and gambol downtown alone, either. Parents and society have responsibility.
That's funny. Is the reverse true? Do people that can properly hold pencils mash cell phone keypads, pull keys off keyboards, and gnaw on joysticks?
Maybe they could just call it a "system."
Of course, it might be considered too non-deterministic for that. They could call it "Thing" and try to get exclusive rights to the word.
Anyway, what does it matter?
I and certainly wouldn't gamble with a 70% payoff minimum, but assuming that there were someone who found the odds adequate after accounting for "entertainment value," the system could still be considered unfair.
Consider the two cherries situation that the article presented. According to the article, the third cherry will show up disproportionately often when he rejects the gamble. His perception will be skewed correspondingly; the presentation suggests that the third wheel's spin is independent of his choice, and believing that the machine is random, he'll more likely estimate that it is a favorable gamble to try for a third cherry when the situation presents itself, although it may not be.
This payoff-fixing method may be able to guarantee a 70% minimum, but it also would tend to reduce the already slim chances for higher payoffs.
Of course, in the language of the actual players it would probably sound more like "d00d if u dont help me im not gona back u wehn u need it!!!!!!11111"
From reading Slashdot, I've come to understand that there are two kinds of people in this world: those who see everything as it might relate to 802.11 antennae, and those who don't.
Show me a poor person and I will show you somebody who watches a lot of cable.
This is absolutely true. I lived in a ghetto in Chile for a while, and people spent all of their discretionary money on alcohol, marijuana, or subscription television services. Dishes littered roofs that could barely support them.
What about the couples who spend hours every day together, facing opposite directions, playing Everquest? I guess that's meta-social.
That's right. When seriously considering any educational institution, on-line or otherwise, first contact the administration directly and ask them if their program is proven to improve self-esteem.