Um, what? Just because you've never heard of us, doesn't mean we're not more respected than the other Miamis (and most schools in general). I don't have the numbers (although I'm sure someone else will quote them), but we're in the 60's as far as rank in the US, and the low twenties as far as rank among only public schools (i.e., schools in our general price range).
(Not that I care, because I don't necessarily agree with those rankings.)
Plus, we just last year had a large strike of Miami Staff, which our student body largely ignored as they rode by in their BMWs; that was one of the last steps that was keeping us from competing with the Ivy Leagues. Expect our rank to increase.
Why must something malicious be possible for release of private information to be bad? I don't want my grades released to anyone without my consent (and minus crap like this, they can't be), and my GPA is very respectable.
I go to MU, and Fall 2002 was my first semester, so I guess if you're interested, take a shot with Google.
From TFA: In 2002 Miami still used Social Security numbers in some cases as an identifier for students, but it abandoned that practice soon thereafter.
That doesn't have much at all to do with eyewitness testimony problems. The eyewitness testimony problems root in a self-overestimation of our memory capacity and how that relates to what we're attending to (which, is admittedly related to this report, but not at all new).
I stopped reading after the third question, as it was apparent to me that it was heavily censored (both in the literal sense, and in the sense where Bill obviously worded things carefully so as not to be censored). Disappointing, to say the least. I wanted to hear responses from Bill, not Microsoft.
That is true only if the digits are output in single and the chance of the digit being a 5 is greater than zero. If the string is output and the chance of it containing a 5 is above zero, it does not have to contain a 5 (unless p=1), whether it is finite or otherwise. I think the problem is that you are assuming a binomial distribution, which really doesn't apply here.
If you are including 'landing on its side' as a possible outcome, then the possible outcomes are NOT 50/50 heads or tails. The 50/50 heads or tails is a simplification of reality, because the chance of it landing on its side are not worth considering in most calculations.
Look, this is simply not true. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to have a 0.00001% (or whatever) chance of occurring. Even something that has a theoretical 99.9999% chance of occurring does not ever have to occur.
Here is where I personally find some of the best evidence for the existence of God, the philosophical first cause argument, as well as the beauty and symmettry of the universe.
This argument has always intrigued me. Can you explain how you get from (a) I notice that the so-called 'first cause' seems inadequately explained, to (b) Therefore God must be the first cause? I'm not trying to be snide or anything. I'm asking sincerely.
It seems to me that lack of scientific explanation offers no evidence for any other theory or explanation.
IM is for conversation, email is for documentation. IM is for temporary messaging, email is for permanent messaging. IM is for instant messaging, email is for persistent messaging.
What about IM logging?
IM is for communication in real-time, email is for communication any time. IM is for communication with someone online, email is for communication with someone online or offline.
What about numerous IM systems that allow for sending "offline messages"?
IM is just the electronic equivalent of hanging out at the mall.
In the last 4 or so years, I have never worked for a company where no employees (pardon the double negative) used IM to communicate intra-office. Sounds more like an equivalent to the phone, and not at all limited to teens.
That's bad logic. What have you to show that your correlation is causal in the direction you perceive it to be (i.e., demographic x -> embrace of Objectivism)? That would be none.
The typical do-gooder isn't doing somethign because it makes him feel good- he's doing it because he thinks he's doing the right thing.
I'm afraid your statement is wholly contradictory. Furthermore, the latter part is completely wrong. He is not doing what he thinks is right. He is doing what he feels others will perceive favourably and will therefore increase his worth in their eyes. This perceived increase in worth in the eyes of others then increases his own feeling of self-worth. It is this feeling that results from his perception of his actions that is rewarding and that is why he exhibit altruism.
This has been proven (to the extent anything can presently be proven in Psychology) by hundreds of Social Psychological and Personality Psychological experiments. We know more about altruism and its motivators than most areas of SocPsy.
So, I suggest we all get over our ridiculous aversion to the truth. Garbage like this exists in Layman World because people don't like the idea of altruism motivated by self interest. And that's a pretty dumb reason to ignore the truth.
Anticipated-Comment Summary for the Casual Slashdot Reader
This is just another reason why MS is bad and trying to destroy blah blah blah et cetera
This isn't news. MS has been doing this blah blah blah et cetera
Windows is SO faulty, when it sits around the house, it sites around the house!
You can't refer to open source OS's as 'linux' because there is so much more diversity and blah blah blah et cetera
Wow, $quote from the article is so dumb. I can't believe $dude said that. It's so telling of how $dude misunderstands the whole blah blah blah et cetera
Linux is so much better than Windows because blah blah blah et cetera.
Linux is so much better than Windows because blah blah blah et cetera.
He's right. Windows is better than Linux.
Mod parent down!!!
Mod parent down!!!
Mod parent down!!!
Linux is so much better than Windows because blah blah blah et cetera.
FUD! FUD! FUD!
[A long comment about why the OSS philosophy will eventually kill Microsoft. No one will ever read this comment in its entirety.]
Not to mention that telephones can now reach OTHER COUNTRIES! Better to just aggregate all countries into one and have a single set of laws. I mean, we're all the same, right? We all have the same opinions. They don't differ by geographical location. Hell, that's why we only have one political party, too. And, while we're at it, to hell with democracy in general. Who needs a bunch of opinions? Better to have just a single opinion set.
I didn't read all of your comment, because you divulge an assumption early: namely, that I said the document would be served with a content-type header indicating that it is HTML or XHTML. I have never said this, nor can I even parse out why you would have this assumption. I have said numerous times that the point is to have a valid XML document. Why you would think the content-type would be anything other than one indicating XML is beyond me.
you'll see that there is already working code in place, and the solution of a custom DTD is solving the "problem" that it doesn't validate
Oh, so then by 'working' you didn't mean 'valid'. Okay.
The "problem" isn't that it doesn't validate. The problem is that it isn't valid. It isn't just the validator that can't figure out if the document is well-formed.
If it doesn't conform to the XHTML specification and DTD, then it's not XHTML, is it?
Wow, that's pedantic, even for/. I'm not sure what else you would use to describe markup that is XHTML save for a few attributes that I note, in a dependent clause, are not valid XHTML.
Conforming to a DTD doesn't imbue your documents with magical interoperability goodness. Conforming to a DTD that lots of people know and use and which has an open specification aids interoperability.
That's excellent logic. So, as you say, there's no reason to have a custom DTD because you don't need a custom DTD to have this markup parsed as XML (um, even though the XML would otherwise not fit the DTD declared in its own DOCTYPE, but whatever). And there's no problem because there's working code already. But, somehow, other client types are going to have ridiculous amounts of trouble accessing the "XHTML" document because of a couple of extra attributes in the DTD and this will seriously harm interoperability. Does this sound contradictory to you at all? Maybe I am processing your logic with the wrong DOCTYPE?
Slashdot Mirror
The town was supposedly modeled after Oxford, England at the time.
Um, what? Just because you've never heard of us, doesn't mean we're not more respected than the other Miamis (and most schools in general). I don't have the numbers (although I'm sure someone else will quote them), but we're in the 60's as far as rank in the US, and the low twenties as far as rank among only public schools (i.e., schools in our general price range).
(Not that I care, because I don't necessarily agree with those rankings.)
Plus, we just last year had a large strike of Miami Staff, which our student body largely ignored as they rode by in their BMWs; that was one of the last steps that was keeping us from competing with the Ivy Leagues. Expect our rank to increase.
Why must something malicious be possible for release of private information to be bad? I don't want my grades released to anyone without my consent (and minus crap like this, they can't be), and my GPA is very respectable.
I go to MU, and Fall 2002 was my first semester, so I guess if you're interested, take a shot with Google.
From TFA: In 2002 Miami still used Social Security numbers in some cases as an identifier for students, but it abandoned that practice soon thereafter.
Isn't one tragedy enough?
4) Servers crash.
If I know Google, they'll beta it for a while.
GMail was unusable in early beta. I had reports of my emails bouncing all the time. Thankfully, it's much, much, much (etc.) better now.
That doesn't have much at all to do with eyewitness testimony problems. The eyewitness testimony problems root in a self-overestimation of our memory capacity and how that relates to what we're attending to (which, is admittedly related to this report, but not at all new).
From what I've seen in the comments so far, all one has to do for a karma boost is not finish their comm
I stopped reading after the third question, as it was apparent to me that it was heavily censored (both in the literal sense, and in the sense where Bill obviously worded things carefully so as not to be censored). Disappointing, to say the least. I wanted to hear responses from Bill, not Microsoft.
Am I wrong, or did you just use a discrete probability distribution to model time? (sincere question)
That is true only if the digits are output in single and the chance of the digit being a 5 is greater than zero. If the string is output and the chance of it containing a 5 is above zero, it does not have to contain a 5 (unless p=1), whether it is finite or otherwise. I think the problem is that you are assuming a binomial distribution, which really doesn't apply here.
If you are including 'landing on its side' as a possible outcome, then the possible outcomes are NOT 50/50 heads or tails. The 50/50 heads or tails is a simplification of reality, because the chance of it landing on its side are not worth considering in most calculations.
Look, this is simply not true. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to have a 0.00001% (or whatever) chance of occurring. Even something that has a theoretical 99.9999% chance of occurring does not ever have to occur.
This argument has always intrigued me. Can you explain how you get from (a) I notice that the so-called 'first cause' seems inadequately explained, to (b) Therefore God must be the first cause? I'm not trying to be snide or anything. I'm asking sincerely.
It seems to me that lack of scientific explanation offers no evidence for any other theory or explanation.
This is a bit of an oversimplification.
IM is for conversation, email is for documentation.
IM is for temporary messaging, email is for permanent messaging.
IM is for instant messaging, email is for persistent messaging.
What about IM logging?
IM is for communication in real-time, email is for communication any time.
IM is for communication with someone online, email is for communication with someone online or offline.
What about numerous IM systems that allow for sending "offline messages"?
IM is just the electronic equivalent of hanging out at the mall.
In the last 4 or so years, I have never worked for a company where no employees (pardon the double negative) used IM to communicate intra-office. Sounds more like an equivalent to the phone, and not at all limited to teens.
That's bad logic. What have you to show that your correlation is causal in the direction you perceive it to be (i.e., demographic x -> embrace of Objectivism)? That would be none.
History proves you wrong.
Because of the abolitionist movement, you say?
Please look up the definition of 'movement', lest you think it it was conceived by one man in one day with no dependent events.
Anything else 'prove' me wrong, my good sir?
The typical do-gooder isn't doing somethign because it makes him feel good- he's doing it because he thinks he's doing the right thing.
I'm afraid your statement is wholly contradictory. Furthermore, the latter part is completely wrong. He is not doing what he thinks is right. He is doing what he feels others will perceive favourably and will therefore increase his worth in their eyes. This perceived increase in worth in the eyes of others then increases his own feeling of self-worth. It is this feeling that results from his perception of his actions that is rewarding and that is why he exhibit altruism.
This has been proven (to the extent anything can presently be proven in Psychology) by hundreds of Social Psychological and Personality Psychological experiments. We know more about altruism and its motivators than most areas of SocPsy.
So, I suggest we all get over our ridiculous aversion to the truth. Garbage like this exists in Layman World because people don't like the idea of altruism motivated by self interest. And that's a pretty dumb reason to ignore the truth.
the book is US$4 cheaper at Amazon.com.
Anticipated-Comment Summary for the Casual Slashdot Reader
Not to mention that telephones can now reach OTHER COUNTRIES! Better to just aggregate all countries into one and have a single set of laws. I mean, we're all the same, right? We all have the same opinions. They don't differ by geographical location. Hell, that's why we only have one political party, too. And, while we're at it, to hell with democracy in general. Who needs a bunch of opinions? Better to have just a single opinion set.
and Dump?
I didn't read all of your comment, because you divulge an assumption early: namely, that I said the document would be served with a content-type header indicating that it is HTML or XHTML. I have never said this, nor can I even parse out why you would have this assumption. I have said numerous times that the point is to have a valid XML document. Why you would think the content-type would be anything other than one indicating XML is beyond me.
Oh, so then by 'working' you didn't mean 'valid'. Okay.
The "problem" isn't that it doesn't validate. The problem is that it isn't valid. It isn't just the validator that can't figure out if the document is well-formed.
Wow, that's pedantic, even for /. I'm not sure what else you would use to describe markup that is XHTML save for a few attributes that I note, in a dependent clause, are not valid XHTML.
That's excellent logic. So, as you say, there's no reason to have a custom DTD because you don't need a custom DTD to have this markup parsed as XML (um, even though the XML would otherwise not fit the DTD declared in its own DOCTYPE, but whatever). And there's no problem because there's working code already. But, somehow, other client types are going to have ridiculous amounts of trouble accessing the "XHTML" document because of a couple of extra attributes in the DTD and this will seriously harm interoperability. Does this sound contradictory to you at all? Maybe I am processing your logic with the wrong DOCTYPE?