I would say that. I would say it's not the government's business to tell me what should give me concern. Would you employee an accountant that had been previously convicted for stealing money from clients? Would you want the government to hide that record so they have a second chance? No.
Which is why there are provisions to remove someone's right to practice for crimes affecting their profession. And it's the government's business to ensure that happens. If you think that in your jurisdiction the government isn't doing enough to disqualify fraudulent accountants, campaign for changes in the law.
I agree society isn't quick enough to grant second chance, but I also understand why many people (even those who preach second chances) aren't so quick to give them when it's their kids/money/property etc. in danger.
... which is where the government comes in. Acting on an individual level, emotions override logic, and we need someone to take a detached overview to prevent a descent into mob justice.
Public records are useless if you can't find them.
You can find them if you want. The point of "right to be forgotten" is that in the pre-Google days, you had to go to the library and actively hunt down historical information. It is still easier to go to the BBC website and search their news archives from the comfort of your own home than it ever was to check the 1960s archives of The Times --the information is still very easy to find if you're specifically looking for it. It just makes it harder to stumble across by accident.
Maybe you believe that no good person ever has anything to hide... but then why post AC....?
His post also uses illegal, and Uber is de facto illegal almost everywhere, because there are laws regulating transport for hire that Uber doesn't respect. The other poster was saying that libertarians view the moral argument as overriding the legal one.
They already had legislated -- as I understand it, the demonstration was against the fact that the law wasn't being applied. Regulation may not be your preferred free market solution, but where regulation exists, it's only fair that it's applied equally.
Modern France is not 18th century France! You might as well be disappointed that they have no emoire any more.... France regulates it's industry very successfuly, and while it's not the world's strongest economy, it has been remarkably stable. One of their strengths is that thte regulation has prevented competition becoming a race to the bottom, so when markets change, there's more give-and-take in the system.
The main difference in my eyes in why Uber is cheaper is because taxis are set up so people have a career as a taxi driver, but uber is set up for temporary work. So with uber people don't worry about job longevity, or living wage, or health insurance.
...which is surely a problem for everyone...?
Labour laws exist to serve the principle of an honesty day's pay for an honest day's work. If we allow certain parties to engage in commercial activity but excuse them from labour laws nased on "it's not their main source of income", then we're back on the race to the bottom, even as we're just finally getting rid of unpaid internships.
The difference in resistances in conjunction with the eddy currents that were being caused by the pylon set in boggy pasture caused small electric shocks.
Do electrosensitives react differently to recieving electric shocks than other people? If not, induced electric shocks are irrelevant to the question at hand.
The atmospheric charge that builds up before a thunderstorm also feels distinctive.
The atmospheric conditions feel distinctive, but it's a stretch to state categorically that what you are feeling is the charge. What you're detecting could be the combination of fairly particular heat, humidity and air-pressure.
no serious scientific study has been able to establish that electrosensitivity exists
How come nobody had the common courtesy of a "simple" double blind experiment?
It's ridiculous to think for even a second that this hasn't happened. Of course there are such studies.
The two key words here are 'serious'. -A qualifier which isn't applied to any study which doesn't support the party line.
No, it refers to controlled experiments run and managed in accordance with established best practice. On the other hand, you ARE guilty of dismissing studies based on conclusions, rather than methodology.
-And specifying "electrosensitivity". -Which means tests demonstrating, (for one example), that the blood/brain barrier becomes permeable under exposure to certain low-power frequencies, regardless of its repeatability or implications, is not relevant if the study doesn't specifically look at somebody claiming "electrosensitivity".
Some of the studies have focused on self-identified electrosensitives.
Now let me talk about MY electro-sensitivity. There is a high-voltage power line that crosses the motorway on the route between my childhood home and where my grandparents used to live. When we went under it, I used to get a funny feeling in the top of my head -- every time, without fail. So someone if my family (I can't remember who) suggested that I shut my eyes and tell them when I felt it. For a year or two, I kept opening my eyes too early and seeing the powerlines before we went under them. So one year I got determined to do it properly. I closed my eyes as soon as we reached the first bend on the motorway and kept them shut for ten minutes or more. No sensation. Ever since then, I have felt nothing whatsoever when passing under the lines. I couldn't even make myself conjure up or relive the sensation.
Yes, but it gets messy and it's often beyond the creator's ability. There's lots of MOOCs out there full of ugly patched over words, or a subtitle annotation saying "Oops! I'm talking nonsense." Editing the videos would be easier if they had been planned and filmed in segments and edited tigether in the first place, but most of them just appear to be video-blogger style pieces to camera wie the visuals/slides/code-sessions recorded live with the content.
The courses shouldn't be designed for idealized setups like multiple monitors.
They're not -- they're just designed for a very specific course style: the one used in Andrew Ng's Machine Learning course. It works quite well for that partly because he's dealing with a complex subject that means students need a lot of input and explanation before attempting tasks, and partly because of Ng's exemplary skills as a lecturer.
Most programming courses, on the other hand, involve lots of tiny incremental tasks that need minimal explanation, followed by several practise tasks to internalise the logic. Programming MOOCs that I've tried tend to fall into one of two camps: either they give you lots and lots of input in the videos so that you end up forgetting it all before you get to the practise tasks, or they stop the video with a message telling you to go away and try out the exercise in another window and then come back. Neither of these are efficient workflows, but the main platforms in general, and Coursera in particular, all push things in that direction.
I'm not a huge fan of MOOCs, and prefer the model used by w3schools -- webpages with links to tasks in a live coding environment as a pop-up. I wouldn't mind videos being embedded into such pages where it makes sen to do so, but most MOOCs overuse and underprepare their videos.
When someone makes a written mistake in a slidecast/pencast-type video, there's no going back to correct it. To me that renders a lot of MOOCs frustratingly confusing. It also means that all their talk about gathering data "to improve the courses" is nonsense, because it means they've got no way to A/B test individual small changes to the course, so they have no proper comparisons whatsoever.
No, I'm pretty sure you're the only one with that particular brain issue.
The entire history of human semiotics is one of multiple redundancy. Look at numbers: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight... we still haven't repeated any vowel sounds, and we've had a fair mix of consonants too. The differences are bigger than necessary for conveying unique information, even taking into account every single part of information theory. why? Because the brain isn't pure maths, and redundant information can often speed things up as two inputs can reinforce each other.
I never could understand how so many people don't recognise that colon is a start-block token. "It's the end of a command that takes a block" is semantic wriggling.
When I started reading, I thought it might be about the way the manufacturers keep releasing new cards to rebalance the game. An episode of Extra Credits on YouTube talked about how they constantly fiddled with the game so that there was always a new potential super-tactic to learn, but after a while it would no longer be quite so super, hence the need yo keep playing and keep learning. The way the guy was waxing lyrical about it, I'm assuming no-one else has an algorithm anywhere near capable of copying them. If you made an AI that copied that part of what they do, there would be several major customers for it -- not just the niche card makers, but also the major MMO makers.
As a native English speaker, I couldn't tell you the difference between a street and a road. The simplest distinction is pavements for pedestrians, but some roads have them too. What I'm saying is that all these sorts of categorisations are ambiguous.
It's probably down to the way opcodes exploit common functionality between opcodes and use parts of the opcode to trigger certain logical blocks in the chip. That means a lot of the glue logic will have to be the same, if you want the chip to run efficiently.
For my money he was "cheating" by not writing his own tests to begin with. His student merely used publicly available information to enhance their studying. It's not like they knew which of the 500 questions he was going to use on his 120 question test.
I agree completely - as I said, test banks are supposed to be databases of the teachers' own questions.
On a similar topic, I'm pretty appalled at the lack of time and attention given to numerical values in a lot of modern maths texts. My lecturers at uni always went out of their way to construct problems that has numbers manageable by mental arithmetic, right up to final step of solving for x -- and typically we weren't asked to do that final step. They took pride in making sure that the task tested our knowledge of specific mathematical concepts, and not on managing to keep all the significant digits throughout. No 3.753579x, but plenty of 5x/4 etc. This was questions just for their classes,mincluding test questions only ever answered by 50-150 students, and yet people writing books to be used by thousands of students across the world year after year can't be bothered to do it properly.
Sorry, but infomation is useless if you don't know how to handle it.
I could give you the information to help you see your way out of the fallacy you have constructed for yourself, but I'm sure you wouldn't know how to handle it. Therefore, I won't even bother. It is, after all, for your own good.
Woo. AC responds to a post discussing education theory with no substantive information. I must be wrong, patronising AC says so!
Slashdot Mirror
I would say that. I would say it's not the government's business to tell me what should give me concern. Would you employee an accountant that had been previously convicted for stealing money from clients? Would you want the government to hide that record so they have a second chance? No.
Which is why there are provisions to remove someone's right to practice for crimes affecting their profession. And it's the government's business to ensure that happens. If you think that in your jurisdiction the government isn't doing enough to disqualify fraudulent accountants, campaign for changes in the law.
I agree society isn't quick enough to grant second chance, but I also understand why many people (even those who preach second chances) aren't so quick to give them when it's their kids/money/property etc. in danger.
... which is where the government comes in. Acting on an individual level, emotions override logic, and we need someone to take a detached overview to prevent a descent into mob justice.
Public records are useless if you can't find them.
You can find them if you want. The point of "right to be forgotten" is that in the pre-Google days, you had to go to the library and actively hunt down historical information. It is still easier to go to the BBC website and search their news archives from the comfort of your own home than it ever was to check the 1960s archives of The Times --the information is still very easy to find if you're specifically looking for it. It just makes it harder to stumble across by accident.
Maybe you believe that no good person ever has anything to hide... but then why post AC....?
His post also uses illegal, and Uber is de facto illegal almost everywhere, because there are laws regulating transport for hire that Uber doesn't respect. The other poster was saying that libertarians view the moral argument as overriding the legal one.
They already had legislated -- as I understand it, the demonstration was against the fact that the law wasn't being applied. Regulation may not be your preferred free market solution, but where regulation exists, it's only fair that it's applied equally.
Modern France is not 18th century France! You might as well be disappointed that they have no emoire any more.... France regulates it's industry very successfuly, and while it's not the world's strongest economy, it has been remarkably stable. One of their strengths is that thte regulation has prevented competition becoming a race to the bottom, so when markets change, there's more give-and-take in the system.
The main difference in my eyes in why Uber is cheaper is because taxis are set up so people have a career as a taxi driver, but uber is set up for temporary work. So with uber people don't worry about job longevity, or living wage, or health insurance.
...which is surely a problem for everyone...?
Labour laws exist to serve the principle of an honesty day's pay for an honest day's work. If we allow certain parties to engage in commercial activity but excuse them from labour laws nased on "it's not their main source of income", then we're back on the race to the bottom, even as we're just finally getting rid of unpaid internships.
It's just French for "big launcher".
The difference in resistances in conjunction with the eddy currents that were being caused by the pylon set in boggy pasture caused small electric shocks.
Do electrosensitives react differently to recieving electric shocks than other people? If not, induced electric shocks are irrelevant to the question at hand.
The atmospheric charge that builds up before a thunderstorm also feels distinctive.
The atmospheric conditions feel distinctive, but it's a stretch to state categorically that what you are feeling is the charge. What you're detecting could be the combination of fairly particular heat, humidity and air-pressure.
no serious scientific study has been able to establish that electrosensitivity exists How come nobody had the common courtesy of a "simple" double blind experiment?
It's ridiculous to think for even a second that this hasn't happened. Of course there are such studies.
The two key words here are 'serious'. -A qualifier which isn't applied to any study which doesn't support the party line.
No, it refers to controlled experiments run and managed in accordance with established best practice. On the other hand, you ARE guilty of dismissing studies based on conclusions, rather than methodology.
-And specifying "electrosensitivity". -Which means tests demonstrating, (for one example), that the blood/brain barrier becomes permeable under exposure to certain low-power frequencies, regardless of its repeatability or implications, is not relevant if the study doesn't specifically look at somebody claiming "electrosensitivity".
Some of the studies have focused on self-identified electrosensitives.
Now let me talk about MY electro-sensitivity. There is a high-voltage power line that crosses the motorway on the route between my childhood home and where my grandparents used to live. When we went under it, I used to get a funny feeling in the top of my head -- every time, without fail. So someone if my family (I can't remember who) suggested that I shut my eyes and tell them when I felt it. For a year or two, I kept opening my eyes too early and seeing the powerlines before we went under them. So one year I got determined to do it properly. I closed my eyes as soon as we reached the first bend on the motorway and kept them shut for ten minutes or more. No sensation. Ever since then, I have felt nothing whatsoever when passing under the lines. I couldn't even make myself conjure up or relive the sensation.
Not to mention "desk space"...
Yes, but it gets messy and it's often beyond the creator's ability. There's lots of MOOCs out there full of ugly patched over words, or a subtitle annotation saying "Oops! I'm talking nonsense." Editing the videos would be easier if they had been planned and filmed in segments and edited tigether in the first place, but most of them just appear to be video-blogger style pieces to camera wie the visuals/slides/code-sessions recorded live with the content.
The courses shouldn't be designed for idealized setups like multiple monitors.
They're not -- they're just designed for a very specific course style: the one used in Andrew Ng's Machine Learning course. It works quite well for that partly because he's dealing with a complex subject that means students need a lot of input and explanation before attempting tasks, and partly because of Ng's exemplary skills as a lecturer.
Most programming courses, on the other hand, involve lots of tiny incremental tasks that need minimal explanation, followed by several practise tasks to internalise the logic. Programming MOOCs that I've tried tend to fall into one of two camps: either they give you lots and lots of input in the videos so that you end up forgetting it all before you get to the practise tasks, or they stop the video with a message telling you to go away and try out the exercise in another window and then come back. Neither of these are efficient workflows, but the main platforms in general, and Coursera in particular, all push things in that direction.
When someone makes a written mistake in a slidecast/pencast-type video, there's no going back to correct it. To me that renders a lot of MOOCs frustratingly confusing. It also means that all their talk about gathering data "to improve the courses" is nonsense, because it means they've got no way to A/B test individual small changes to the course, so they have no proper comparisons whatsoever.
If it's an emulator, why do they need to authorise? Sounds like a recompilation job to me.
No, I'm pretty sure you're the only one with that particular brain issue.
The entire history of human semiotics is one of multiple redundancy. Look at numbers: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight ... we still haven't repeated any vowel sounds, and we've had a fair mix of consonants too. The differences are bigger than necessary for conveying unique information, even taking into account every single part of information theory. why? Because the brain isn't pure maths, and redundant information can often speed things up as two inputs can reinforce each other.
I never could understand how so many people don't recognise that colon is a start-block token. "It's the end of a command that takes a block" is semantic wriggling.
When I started reading, I thought it might be about the way the manufacturers keep releasing new cards to rebalance the game. An episode of Extra Credits on YouTube talked about how they constantly fiddled with the game so that there was always a new potential super-tactic to learn, but after a while it would no longer be quite so super, hence the need yo keep playing and keep learning. The way the guy was waxing lyrical about it, I'm assuming no-one else has an algorithm anywhere near capable of copying them. If you made an AI that copied that part of what they do, there would be several major customers for it -- not just the niche card makers, but also the major MMO makers.
The AI will run the numbers and realise that with Wizards of the Coast's operating profit, the only way to win is not to play...
As a native English speaker, I couldn't tell you the difference between a street and a road. The simplest distinction is pavements for pedestrians, but some roads have them too. What I'm saying is that all these sorts of categorisations are ambiguous.
He asked "did", not "does". I nearly did in 98, but thought better of it.
It's probably down to the way opcodes exploit common functionality between opcodes and use parts of the opcode to trigger certain logical blocks in the chip. That means a lot of the glue logic will have to be the same, if you want the chip to run efficiently.
For my money he was "cheating" by not writing his own tests to begin with. His student merely used publicly available information to enhance their studying. It's not like they knew which of the 500 questions he was going to use on his 120 question test.
I agree completely - as I said, test banks are supposed to be databases of the teachers' own questions.
On a similar topic, I'm pretty appalled at the lack of time and attention given to numerical values in a lot of modern maths texts. My lecturers at uni always went out of their way to construct problems that has numbers manageable by mental arithmetic, right up to final step of solving for x -- and typically we weren't asked to do that final step. They took pride in making sure that the task tested our knowledge of specific mathematical concepts, and not on managing to keep all the significant digits throughout. No 3.753579x, but plenty of 5x/4 etc. This was questions just for their classes,mincluding test questions only ever answered by 50-150 students, and yet people writing books to be used by thousands of students across the world year after year can't be bothered to do it properly.
I'm not complaining about the video, just about people's reactions to it. It's an interesting tech demo, but all this hyperbole is as yet unwarranted.
Sorry, but infomation is useless if you don't know how to handle it.
I could give you the information to help you see your way out of the fallacy you have constructed for yourself, but I'm sure you wouldn't know how to handle it. Therefore, I won't even bother. It is, after all, for your own good.
Woo. AC responds to a post discussing education theory with no substantive information. I must be wrong, patronising AC says so!
Journalist fails to understand technology shocker! This is just another way of stating that the attack exploits the bit-shift behaviour.