In fact, in two of the countries in Eastern Europe I've resided in (Ukraine and Romania), I've heard British English, its orthography, lexicon, and Received Pronunciation, referred to as outright passe, and would only harm students, since what they need in the global economy is American English, i.e. it's orthography, lexicon, and General American pronunciation.
Interesting and weird. I've never been confused by extra 'u's or reversed 'er's, and I find it amazing that they would stress about British English when the real threat to being taken seriously is a tendency to lapse into 1337-speak: u cmg 2 sk001 2dy?
In which case, air marshals are not a good source for the story, which was my point. If they aren't trustworthy doing their job, they are compromised as a source of information about their job.
The GAO is not like the FBI. The FBI has interdepartmental squabbles with CIA and NSA which lead to a large amount of secrecy. The purpose of the GAO is to bring sunshine to bear on other agencies, and it has a culture that accords with that practice.
Also, the FBI operates on guesswork -- taking this piece of info and coordinating it with that piece. If you're an FBI field agent and your superior doesn't agree with the way you are connecting the dots, well, too bad for your theory.
In the GAO, there is a process for dealing with complaints. If a complaint comes up, it is documented and investigated. There is no "quashing", unless that comes from the Inspector General or something. You'll notice that the article alleged that this was a regional practice (Marshal Strange indicated he didn't encounter it in Atlanta), so it's not possible that this would receive some kind of departmental cover.
Further, the other option I mentioned is always possible: resign under protest and take it to a repuatable paper -- NYTimes, Wash Post, or (likely in Nevada) the LATimes.
(Aside) And the <P> tag is *still* broken; I can't get a decent paragraph break after the first paragraph.
Ya know, I don't like the trend in government these days, either... libertarian streak and all that.
But this article is bogus. You have anonymous sources, who are supposedly federal air marshals, who are supposedly under pressure to file one report per month, come rain or shine. Notice that these "sources" are complaining about the quota system while still participating in it. That's some integrity for ya.
Do you know what a *trustworthy* air marshal would do in this situation? He (gender-neutrally speaking) has at least two options:
He could resign under protest and take his story to the NYTimes or Washington Post. Even if he's worried about losing his job, a book deal would take care of him for life. Denver Channel 7? Please.
He could appeal to the General Accounting Office, which has oversight over all federal programs and runs accountability audits for each of them. There are even Whistleblower Laws to protect sources who call foul. There is *no way* that a quota system could be hidden, because an audit would pick it up. A memo like the one alleged in the article is a smoking gun.
"I would like to see an investigation -- a real investigation conducted into the ways things are done here," the air marshal in Las Vegas said.
I never did understand the part about Job being okay with getting a new wife after God killed off his old one, but maybe Job was a swinger or something.
It doesn't actually occur in the book of Job. He loses his kids, but the wife lives. Ironically, she is one of his sources of stress (Job 2.7 - 10).
Who knows? Maybe the universe was created by a Book of Job God who likes to punish us to teach us to be good.
That part doesn't happen, either. Job never finds out why he has been singled out for smackery. In fact, his friends articulate the view that suffering is either punishment for your past sins (Job 18) or else a way to teach you a lesson (Job 22). They are positive that Job must have done something to deserve it all. But in the end, God is angry at them for their blasphemy and (more irony) makes them ask Job to pray on their behalf so that God won't smack *them* (Job 42.7 - 9).
I was wondering that, too. The examples provided by your respondents are unconvincing... printf() is resolved by a call to (gasp!) printf(), and calls are just one instruction.
Similarly, if you are doing 64-bit multiplication on an 8-bit system (and why?! for crying out loud, 16-bit Atmel chips are certainly cheap enough!), you will not have enough memory to "inline" every multiplication -- it'll be a function call, which means that you'll have something like 18 instructions pushing the operands to the stack, one instruction for the call, and 9 instructions popping the result.
Like anyone really does 64-bit arithmetic on an 8-bit system anyways...
Yeah, but did you see how they died? 5 people, one after the other, rushed in to try to save the previous entrants. Surprisingly, they all met the same fate. What're the chances of that happening every year?
I'm not sure where your figures come from. According to this, the average American uses about 6,000kWh per year. At that rate, an extra $.04/kWh is $240 per year. Not great, but it's competitive for those with the "green" bug.
Re:Too recent & controversial for an encyclope
on
When Wikipedia Fails
·
· Score: 1
I've worked on some of the religion articles, and the quality is mixed. Some of the contributors are really sharp, knowledgeable, and effective writers. Others are agenda-pushers. It's really hard to do a good NPOV job on something as volatile as religion. Nevertheless, I agree that over time, the articles do improve.
Well, of course there's no complaint. The EB and WP fill different niches. I expect narrow, schooled peer-review in the EB, which means that I expect that all articles in the EB will have roughly the same POV, which includes a desire for factual accuracy. Hence: EB can legitimately claim some authority. However, I also keep in mind that "argument from authority" is technically a fallacy. Therefore, I don't place absolute faith in the EB, but treat it as a launching point for directing my research.
OTOH, I expect broad, only possibly schooled peer-review in the WP, which means that I expect -- and find -- a marked difference in quality and POV amongst the articles in WP. However, I also keep in mind that WP will be able to bring in info from a very large bevy of contributors. Therefore, taking what I read with a grain of salt, I seek out the External Links section of each article as a launching point for further research.
In short, EB and WP are very different tools which, in the end, should be used in about the same way. They both provide stimulus for further research.
The one difference between them is that I would feel comfortable citing EB in a paper (of low scholarly weight), but not the WP, for the simple reason that WP may not say tomorrow what I quoted as saying today!
That's hilarious coming from a Mormon. If I want to buy alcohol on Sunday, how does that affect you? If I want to marry a person of the same sex, how does that affect you? If my girlfriend needs/wants an abortion, how does that affect you? If I want to have sex before marriage, how does that affect you?
Split this one out: "If my girlfriend needs/wants an abortion, how does that affect you?"
It doesn't affect me, but it affects the aborted child. We pass laws to prevent people from harming others; abortion restrictions are intended for that purpose.
Think of landmines as the modern version of a 3' fence a la Gettysburg...; its purpose is to slow his advance to a crawl while he tries to clear the mines or avoid them. And while he does that, your artillery and tanks blow him up.
Yes but isn't that already achieved if you keep the minefield secret?
No. Think in terms of deterrence -- the larger strategic purpose is to cause the enemy to *not want to go that way*.
Honestly, once you know the boundaires of the minefield, just drive a herd of cattle over it.
We're talking about anti-tank mines here. Cows don't have enough weight or enough metal content to activate a anti-tank mine. AND, have you ever driven a herd of cows? You can't exactly say "Now see that field over there? Walk on every inch of it!" They clump when you don't want them to, and scatter when you want them not to.
Think of landmines as the modern version of a 3' fence a la Gettysburg. The field doesn't keep the enemy out or surprise him and blow him up; its purpose is to slow his advance to a crawl while he tries to clear the mines or avoid them.
And while he does that, your artillery and tanks blow him up.
Slashdot Mirror
You probably already know this, but morning-after pills don't work on women who are testing positive for pregnancy.
In which case, air marshals are not a good source for the story, which was my point. If they aren't trustworthy doing their job, they are compromised as a source of information about their job.
Also, the FBI operates on guesswork -- taking this piece of info and coordinating it with that piece. If you're an FBI field agent and your superior doesn't agree with the way you are connecting the dots, well, too bad for your theory.
In the GAO, there is a process for dealing with complaints. If a complaint comes up, it is documented and investigated. There is no "quashing", unless that comes from the Inspector General or something. You'll notice that the article alleged that this was a regional practice (Marshal Strange indicated he didn't encounter it in Atlanta), so it's not possible that this would receive some kind of departmental cover.
Further, the other option I mentioned is always possible: resign under protest and take it to a repuatable paper -- NYTimes, Wash Post, or (likely in Nevada) the LATimes.
(Aside) And the <P> tag is *still* broken; I can't get a decent paragraph break after the first paragraph.
But this article is bogus. You have anonymous sources, who are supposedly federal air marshals, who are supposedly under pressure to file one report per month, come rain or shine. Notice that these "sources" are complaining about the quota system while still participating in it. That's some integrity for ya.
Do you know what a *trustworthy* air marshal would do in this situation? He (gender-neutrally speaking) has at least two options:
- He could resign under protest and take his story to the NYTimes or Washington Post. Even if he's worried about losing his job, a book deal would take care of him for life. Denver Channel 7? Please.
- He could appeal to the General Accounting Office, which has oversight over all federal programs and runs accountability audits for each of them. There are even Whistleblower Laws to protect sources who call foul. There is *no way* that a quota system could be hidden, because an audit would pick it up. A memo like the one alleged in the article is a smoking gun.
It's just a phone call away, buddy.Similarly, if you are doing 64-bit multiplication on an 8-bit system (and why?! for crying out loud, 16-bit Atmel chips are certainly cheap enough!), you will not have enough memory to "inline" every multiplication -- it'll be a function call, which means that you'll have something like 18 instructions pushing the operands to the stack, one instruction for the call, and 9 instructions popping the result.
Like anyone really does 64-bit arithmetic on an 8-bit system anyways...
I guess a good source is impossible to find.
--Gurthang
Since when are scientists more moral than other humans?!
Yeah, but did you see how they died? 5 people, one after the other, rushed in to try to save the previous entrants. Surprisingly, they all met the same fate. What're the chances of that happening every year?
I'm not sure where your figures come from. According to this, the average American uses about 6,000kWh per year. At that rate, an extra $.04/kWh is $240 per year. Not great, but it's competitive for those with the "green" bug.
I've worked on some of the religion articles, and the quality is mixed. Some of the contributors are really sharp, knowledgeable, and effective writers. Others are agenda-pushers. It's really hard to do a good NPOV job on something as volatile as religion. Nevertheless, I agree that over time, the articles do improve.
OTOH, I expect broad, only possibly schooled peer-review in the WP, which means that I expect -- and find -- a marked difference in quality and POV amongst the articles in WP. However, I also keep in mind that WP will be able to bring in info from a very large bevy of contributors. Therefore, taking what I read with a grain of salt, I seek out the External Links section of each article as a launching point for further research.
In short, EB and WP are very different tools which, in the end, should be used in about the same way. They both provide stimulus for further research.
The one difference between them is that I would feel comfortable citing EB in a paper (of low scholarly weight), but not the WP, for the simple reason that WP may not say tomorrow what I quoted as saying today!
Done. Every page has an edit history, and you can place any page you want on a "watchlist" for fresh contributions.
Done, with policy. See the "3R" rule.
Done. Any article that is in question can be flagged as possibly factually inaccurate, possibly POV, etc.
Done, in reverse. Particularly problematic accounts are banned for a day, or longer.
Hmmm...looks like they got a win32 port since I looked last. Thanks!
Good review, BTW.
It doesn't affect me, but it affects the aborted child. We pass laws to prevent people from harming others; abortion restrictions are intended for that purpose.
The rest of your post, I agree with.
A link for those too young to remember!
And while he does that, your artillery and tanks blow him up.
Mod grandparent funny and parent even funnier. :-)
Reagan's speech after Challenger
Bush's speech after Columbia.
*whacks self on hand.*