There is also an unwritten "grace" that is given in many areas, where you don't ticket someone until they go 10 mph above the speed limit. To get a ticket for going 34 mph in a 25 mph zone usually means you angered a cop, you were doing it in bad weather or at some other time when it was unsafe, or you wandered into a local town's legal extortion racket--excuse me, speed trap.
It is constitutionally questionable because of vagueness and due process, but it's still how driving works in a good part of the United States.
A 25 mph speed limit is unrealistic on any public road I've ever seen, with the exception of roads made of cobblestone. It's difficult to drive a modern vehicle that slowly--it takes concentration on your speed that frankly makes you have much less attention to pay to obstacles and hazards... like children.
If you have a 25 mph speed limit, it means that the street should not be a public street at all--the most common case is a school speed limit where they are requiring people to drive slowly because of the risk to kids. That's fine, except that when they do that it should either be the driveway for a school or it should be pretty much constant rumble strips or some other physical indicator that makes it problematic to go more than 25 mph.
They already have it. It's called "+1 Underrated."
Close, but not quite. Underrates is a catch-all. A Devil's Advocate moderation hopefully makes another mod more likely to think for a moment before modding down by gut reaction.
Give uses privileges and a reputation count based on experience and total mod points received on answers. This rewards positive contributions to the community.
Also give users one or more labels based on how their comments break down. Maybe pick a couple of titles for each and randomize which one is chosen, but let someone remove a label and earn it again. Or maybe use a series of badges for progressively more insightful points earned. Someone who has contributed 1000 insightful points to the community should have something different on his profile, like a badge showing "Grand Vizier" or "Ridiculously Discerning".
Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates.
Isn't that process up to the democratic party?
Yes, I meant the Democratic party for the state, since it's the Democratic caucus. Technically it would also not be state wide so much as next-step-in-the-hierarchy wide--these were the *local* delegates, so it gets distilled through a couple of layers.
Amazingly, the coin tosses weren't done intelligently. They weren't called in the air, they weren't videotaped closely enough to show which side was up or that the coins were not double-headed, etc...
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy--just that it was a really stupid way to decide an election. Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.
He neither thinks for everyone nor speaks for everyone. The mass of people tend to believe the US government is spying to protect them so they don't care.
They forget that the fastest way to lose civil liberties is by failing to stand up for the rights of the worst people in society--thieves, murderers, investment bankers, terrorists.
You don't just protect the rights of minorities because of egalitarian or meritocratic principles. You do it because so long as you can slice society up into little segments and take the rights away from one group, everyone's rights are at risk.
I didn't say they will. I said there's math for calculating overall failure time/rate. Part of that calculation in a real product will be adjusting that calculation in a reasonable way by changing how much you spend on each part. So inherently the optimization to fail at or around the same time is going to happen anyway, with adjustments to normalize for the cost-to-robustness ratio and discontinuity of each component market and for the varied price of components to come up with the most efficient product possible given the target market.
Components have a mean time to failure. Your design is already optimizing your choices for your market unless you're an idiot. There's some simple math for for calculating the time to failure or likelihood of a combination of components. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I suspect they're more honest about it in the world of cycling... less money on the line. If our current theories of economics are true, then you can expect that the incentive to cheat in other sports is greater than it is in bicycling.
You're assuming the culture of a sport doesn't make a difference. It's not just about the money, it's about access (increases with money), screening (increases with money in a sport), and culture (varies a lot depending on sport and peer group). For cycling, the rumor is that everyone who does well is doping, that if you know a professional cyclist (at least one who practices with others on a team) that they are doping, and that the pressure to dope is tremendous.
Look, nobody's hands are clean when it comes to war crimes in the Israeli-Palestinean conflict, and anybody who says anything different is selling something. But there's so much hatred on both sides after generations of fighting, being the political "other" in domestic politics in both places, terrorist attacks, invasions (excuse me, "settlements,"), etc... that nobody's clearheaded about it either. The sheer vitriol both sides have for anything that disagrees with their own narrative makes it practically impossible to imagine a solution that will take less than a century.
Even as a big supporter of CS in Education I can't see any value for the K-6 range. I think that CS should come before algebra, but it's pretty pointless to come before arithmetic. Middle school is the time to introduce CS/Programming to students.
We had a computer in the corner in my 4th grade classroom. I wrote an IF dungeon game, albeit in BASIC. I had played with it at home before, but there were other kids who had never been exposed to it. As a class, we were working on things including speed multiplying and fractions.
It turns out you can have fun programming before 6th grade, even if it's really simple programming.
Reading through the FCC's summary, I can't tell whether this is a good or a bad thing. In principle it sounds good, but...
If you have ever used a cable set top box, you know it's a bad idea. The set top boxes are so riddled with design problems showing the cable company just doesn't give a shit that competition is good.
The cable company doesn't like it because they market on the set top box (advertisements in their guide), they charge a shitload if a box gets lost (like $240 for an entry-level $20 model), and they get rental fees for the box.
It is also worth doing some screening for systemic modding. While I haven't tried keeping track of it, I have noticed a trend of particularly disingenuous modding in favor of entities which can afford to have lots and lots of interns or propaganda units. You might set some of your nerds on thinking what kind of techniques you should be implementing to check for this or in response. Remember, aside from the health of the discussion on the site, even catching evidence of it one in a hundred times will probably give you great press from a business POV.
And take a look at some of the social networking developments we've had in the last fifteen years.
Moderation is useful and serves a function, but so does something like a "Like" button or an upvoting system that tallies more than three points off the norm for logged-in users. We are nerds! Free the data!
So, it's a crime to not report evidence of wrong doing to the people who are committing the wrong doing so they can bury the evidence of the wrong doing?
Right, that totally makes fucking sense.
This is why Bush refused to give whistle blower protection to government employees.. so nothing would change.
No. It's an *ethics violation* (you lose the ability to practice law or more likely get reprimanded, but it is not a criminal sanction). You report the unethical conduct to the *bar*, not to the lawyers committing the wrongdoing.
It is probably not enforced much--imagine trying to enforce a rule that cops had to "rat" on each other--but it is an ethics violation.
Computers, may trade faster, smarter, whatever, the question is do they actually add any real value to the economy, or just skim off the top from the actual people that produce the goods and services. I think it is the latter, like human stock brokers, but much better at it. Do we really need a better parasite?
They are fighting to monetize their ability to redeploy capital in response to indicators faster than humans do.
It saves some of the people paying for it money, but has little influence on whether they are willing to invest in the market in the first place. So the purpose of the market--encouraging investment by providing for liquidity invested capital--is not served by allowing high-speed trading. It also costs money and sucks up the top of the labor pool of highly intelligent math people.
So overall, it's definitely a net drain on the economy and should be prohibited by law.
The only problem is you would shift some of that drain on the economy to another country that still allows it. But even so, I think you'd get a net gain because the drag on our economy would be reduced.
Actually, it reminds me of the stories of utility companies in the Northeast pulling out random cables from other companies whenever they are doing an install if it makes their install easier.
If you compile information into huge databases, this is what you can expect. Personally, I want all my medical records on paper charts stored in my doctor's office. Unless you agree to have your information published on the internet, don't accept electronic records. I assume that in this specific case the ssd's were lost. Even if they end up on eBay, the new owners will most likely clear the old data.
That policy choice would kill a lot of people because it would prevent data mining to learn how to generate better health outcomes.
1. That is accurate. See Smith v. Maryland (U.S. 1979)
2. The quote is about location data, not warrantless wiretapping. Big difference. Location data is more analogous to a pen register device under Smith v. Maryland.
No, he's making a legal argument. Your ability to come up with a persuasive metaphor does not mean your metaphor will be legally useful--you also have to understand the law as it applies to the facts.
Under existing Fourth Amendment law, you are sharing the location information with the cell company and therefore have no legitimate expectation of privacy in it.
Under *Existing* law. There is a reason why SCOTUS is pushing back a little against Orwellian surveillance, and eventually stingray cases will get to them. Hopefully the case will be brought to them because of a good defense attorney *rather than* because it is the case of choice for the Department of Justice.
This comparison is not hipster-specific. Almost everyone makes it. The truth is comparisons are useful when looking for ways to innovate and when making to sure that you are doing *comparatively* well, but they are not useful when looking for ways to see if you are doing *what you should be doing*. This is because a field as a whole can be taking the wrong approach. For example, a school can have students with better standardized test scores than everybody else and still not be teaching the students well.
You've committed the Hipster Comparison Misdirection Fallacy.
This is a fallacy we typically see employed by hipsters/Millennials in discussions like this.
Here's how it works:
1. Somebody points out a real problem with an idea, a product, a person, etc.
2. Some hipster comes along, ignores the actual problem being discussed, and instead says, "But is $SOME_OTHER_IRRELEVANT_THING any better?"
3. The comparison is totally irrelevant, because we aren't talking about $SOME_OTHER_IRRELEVANT_THING.
4. Discussion of the actual problem at hand is derailed because now other people feel the need to point out that $SOME_OTHER_IRRELEVANT_THING is in fact better.
Slashdot Mirror
There is also an unwritten "grace" that is given in many areas, where you don't ticket someone until they go 10 mph above the speed limit. To get a ticket for going 34 mph in a 25 mph zone usually means you angered a cop, you were doing it in bad weather or at some other time when it was unsafe, or you wandered into a local town's legal extortion racket--excuse me, speed trap.
It is constitutionally questionable because of vagueness and due process, but it's still how driving works in a good part of the United States.
A 25 mph speed limit is unrealistic on any public road I've ever seen, with the exception of roads made of cobblestone. It's difficult to drive a modern vehicle that slowly--it takes concentration on your speed that frankly makes you have much less attention to pay to obstacles and hazards... like children.
If you have a 25 mph speed limit, it means that the street should not be a public street at all--the most common case is a school speed limit where they are requiring people to drive slowly because of the risk to kids. That's fine, except that when they do that it should either be the driveway for a school or it should be pretty much constant rumble strips or some other physical indicator that makes it problematic to go more than 25 mph.
They already have it. It's called "+1 Underrated."
Close, but not quite. Underrates is a catch-all. A Devil's Advocate moderation hopefully makes another mod more likely to think for a moment before modding down by gut reaction.
Give uses privileges and a reputation count based on experience and total mod points received on answers. This rewards positive contributions to the community.
Also give users one or more labels based on how their comments break down. Maybe pick a couple of titles for each and randomize which one is chosen, but let someone remove a label and earn it again. Or maybe use a series of badges for progressively more insightful points earned. Someone who has contributed 1000 insightful points to the community should have something different on his profile, like a badge showing "Grand Vizier" or "Ridiculously Discerning".
It's not uncommon for comments to be moderated down not because they're not sensible, but because they're unpopular.
I would consider creating a "Devil's Advocate +1" moderation. Possibly also a Devil's Advocate badge for people with enough Devil's Advocate points.
Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates.
Isn't that process up to the democratic party?
Yes, I meant the Democratic party for the state, since it's the Democratic caucus. Technically it would also not be state wide so much as next-step-in-the-hierarchy wide--these were the *local* delegates, so it gets distilled through a couple of layers.
Amazingly, the coin tosses weren't done intelligently. They weren't called in the air, they weren't videotaped closely enough to show which side was up or that the coins were not double-headed, etc...
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy--just that it was a really stupid way to decide an election. Obviously the state should count all of the coin-toss delegates and split them between the tied candidates. They can't do that retroactively for this election but should change the rules for the next one.
He doesn't think?
He neither thinks for everyone nor speaks for everyone. The mass of people tend to believe the US government is spying to protect them so they don't care.
They forget that the fastest way to lose civil liberties is by failing to stand up for the rights of the worst people in society--thieves, murderers, investment bankers, terrorists.
You don't just protect the rights of minorities because of egalitarian or meritocratic principles. You do it because so long as you can slice society up into little segments and take the rights away from one group, everyone's rights are at risk.
I didn't say they will. I said there's math for calculating overall failure time/rate. Part of that calculation in a real product will be adjusting that calculation in a reasonable way by changing how much you spend on each part. So inherently the optimization to fail at or around the same time is going to happen anyway, with adjustments to normalize for the cost-to-robustness ratio and discontinuity of each component market and for the varied price of components to come up with the most efficient product possible given the target market.
Components have a mean time to failure. Your design is already optimizing your choices for your market unless you're an idiot. There's some simple math for for calculating the time to failure or likelihood of a combination of components. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I suspect they're more honest about it in the world of cycling ... less money on the line. If our current theories of economics are true, then you can expect that the incentive to cheat in other sports is greater than it is in bicycling.
You're assuming the culture of a sport doesn't make a difference. It's not just about the money, it's about access (increases with money), screening (increases with money in a sport), and culture (varies a lot depending on sport and peer group). For cycling, the rumor is that everyone who does well is doping, that if you know a professional cyclist (at least one who practices with others on a team) that they are doping, and that the pressure to dope is tremendous.
It's only a war crime if you lose.
Said everyone who ever committed a war crime.
Look, nobody's hands are clean when it comes to war crimes in the Israeli-Palestinean conflict, and anybody who says anything different is selling something. But there's so much hatred on both sides after generations of fighting, being the political "other" in domestic politics in both places, terrorist attacks, invasions (excuse me, "settlements,"), etc... that nobody's clearheaded about it either. The sheer vitriol both sides have for anything that disagrees with their own narrative makes it practically impossible to imagine a solution that will take less than a century.
Even as a big supporter of CS in Education I can't see any value for the K-6 range. I think that CS should come before algebra, but it's pretty pointless to come before arithmetic. Middle school is the time to introduce CS/Programming to students.
We had a computer in the corner in my 4th grade classroom. I wrote an IF dungeon game, albeit in BASIC. I had played with it at home before, but there were other kids who had never been exposed to it. As a class, we were working on things including speed multiplying and fractions.
It turns out you can have fun programming before 6th grade, even if it's really simple programming.
" So write your Congressman if you support it. "
Also, write your Congressman if you don't support it.
Absolutely. Knowing you had been taught programming, I figured you could supply the not operator if you wanted to. :)
Reading through the FCC's summary, I can't tell whether this is a good or a bad thing. In principle it sounds good, but ...
If you have ever used a cable set top box, you know it's a bad idea. The set top boxes are so riddled with design problems showing the cable company just doesn't give a shit that competition is good.
The cable company doesn't like it because they market on the set top box (advertisements in their guide), they charge a shitload if a box gets lost (like $240 for an entry-level $20 model), and they get rental fees for the box.
It is also worth doing some screening for systemic modding. While I haven't tried keeping track of it, I have noticed a trend of particularly disingenuous modding in favor of entities which can afford to have lots and lots of interns or propaganda units. You might set some of your nerds on thinking what kind of techniques you should be implementing to check for this or in response. Remember, aside from the health of the discussion on the site, even catching evidence of it one in a hundred times will probably give you great press from a business POV.
And take a look at some of the social networking developments we've had in the last fifteen years.
Moderation is useful and serves a function, but so does something like a "Like" button or an upvoting system that tallies more than three points off the norm for logged-in users. We are nerds! Free the data!
So, it's a crime to not report evidence of wrong doing to the people who are committing the wrong doing so they can bury the evidence of the wrong doing?
Right, that totally makes fucking sense.
This is why Bush refused to give whistle blower protection to government employees .. so nothing would change.
No. It's an *ethics violation* (you lose the ability to practice law or more likely get reprimanded, but it is not a criminal sanction). You report the unethical conduct to the *bar*, not to the lawyers committing the wrongdoing.
It is probably not enforced much--imagine trying to enforce a rule that cops had to "rat" on each other--but it is an ethics violation.
Computers, may trade faster, smarter, whatever, the question is do they actually add any real value to the economy, or just skim off the top from the actual people that produce the goods and services. I think it is the latter, like human stock brokers, but much better at it. Do we really need a better parasite?
They are fighting to monetize their ability to redeploy capital in response to indicators faster than humans do.
It saves some of the people paying for it money, but has little influence on whether they are willing to invest in the market in the first place. So the purpose of the market--encouraging investment by providing for liquidity invested capital--is not served by allowing high-speed trading. It also costs money and sucks up the top of the labor pool of highly intelligent math people.
So overall, it's definitely a net drain on the economy and should be prohibited by law.
The only problem is you would shift some of that drain on the economy to another country that still allows it. But even so, I think you'd get a net gain because the drag on our economy would be reduced.
Actually, it reminds me of the stories of utility companies in the Northeast pulling out random cables from other companies whenever they are doing an install if it makes their install easier.
If you compile information into huge databases, this is what you can expect. Personally, I want all my medical records on paper charts stored in my doctor's office. Unless you agree to have your information published on the internet, don't accept electronic records. I assume that in this specific case the ssd's were lost. Even if they end up on eBay, the new owners will most likely clear the old data.
That policy choice would kill a lot of people because it would prevent data mining to learn how to generate better health outcomes.
Trade offs.
1. That is accurate. See Smith v. Maryland (U.S. 1979)
2. The quote is about location data, not warrantless wiretapping. Big difference. Location data is more analogous to a pen register device under Smith v. Maryland.
He's missing the point.
No, he's making a legal argument. Your ability to come up with a persuasive metaphor does not mean your metaphor will be legally useful--you also have to understand the law as it applies to the facts.
Under existing Fourth Amendment law, you are sharing the location information with the cell company and therefore have no legitimate expectation of privacy in it.
Under *Existing* law. There is a reason why SCOTUS is pushing back a little against Orwellian surveillance, and eventually stingray cases will get to them. Hopefully the case will be brought to them because of a good defense attorney *rather than* because it is the case of choice for the Department of Justice.
This comparison is not hipster-specific. Almost everyone makes it. The truth is comparisons are useful when looking for ways to innovate and when making to sure that you are doing *comparatively* well, but they are not useful when looking for ways to see if you are doing *what you should be doing*. This is because a field as a whole can be taking the wrong approach. For example, a school can have students with better standardized test scores than everybody else and still not be teaching the students well.
You've committed the Hipster Comparison Misdirection Fallacy.
This is a fallacy we typically see employed by hipsters/Millennials in discussions like this.
Here's how it works:
1. Somebody points out a real problem with an idea, a product, a person, etc.
2. Some hipster comes along, ignores the actual problem being discussed, and instead says, "But is $SOME_OTHER_IRRELEVANT_THING any better?"
3. The comparison is totally irrelevant, because we aren't talking about $SOME_OTHER_IRRELEVANT_THING.
4. Discussion of the actual problem at hand is derailed because now other people feel the need to point out that $SOME_OTHER_IRRELEVANT_THING is in fact better.