It's actually pretty amazing just how vastly the difference in perception can be when doing things like flirting, as you say. When one party is thinking about the interaction in a different context than the other there is HUGE room for misunderstanding even when the signals are unambiguous.
I'd also agree that I'm skeptical about this kind of system; my gut tells me it would need to have a huge amount of information on each person in the chat, across multiple chats with multiple parties, to even begin to build up a profile that could have a hope in hell of being accurate. However, it may be that they're looking to see if that isn't the case - we may need much less information than we think to come to these kinds of conclusions.
Some people are very, very good at reading people - can take one look at someone, see a relatively small number of factors but put them together into a framework that suggests lots of other probabilities about the person that turns out to be startlingly accurate. I could see them trying this to see if it's possible for algorithms to pull off this same kind of feat.
If they find there's something to it, it's cool and worth further exploration; if they don't find something to it they can at least start to figure out what the lower boundary might be for the amount of data needed to start getting there.
It isn't always obvious because efforts to get into someone's head aren't always obvious.
Some people will attempt to groom a chat participant - they will ask more or less innocuous questions, but occasionally throw in one that is just a shade less innocuous than the others. Over time they will push the limits, until eventually some of the most outrageous stuff seems like it's just par for the course from this person. They'll couch all of this in the guise of being a mentor or friend, will back off if their target gets a little iffy, but will try to reconcile and take another tack. When this method is used against a target from a vulnerable population (kids, for example) it's scary how effective it can be and how easily even people who are not in vulnerable groups get taken in (see: people who fall for scams).
Eventually predators will shift to a more active part once their target has been willing to talk openly about previously forbidden subjects, and they'll attempt to get a cam session, phonecall, pics, meetings, whatever. The target might agree to go on cam or to pics, and at that point the predator has them - "Hey, if you don't keep doing this I'll post those pics/videos everywhere" etc.
It's easy to recognize the obvious and unsubtle ones, but it's a lot harder to recognize (from a relatively small sample) the more crafty ones unless you're an outside observer. For example, if I were someone being groomed by a predator as I described, I might not balk at a question as to whether I had pubic hair since I'd already been conditioned to trust that person. But if I were an outside observer it would be obvious that is untoward - unfortunately for many people targeted by predators, no outside observer is there to kind of make them realize what's going on.
As a researcher who often works with young people who have been exploited or put at risk, I've been given chatlogs from predators like the ones I've described above and was just astonished at how things progressed. However, quite a few of the skeevy questions that were asked by predators were ALSO asked in completely innocuous relationships and in that context were not nearly as skeevy. Just flagging based on questions or terms isn't enough - it's a context that needs to be understood.
The goal, I imagine, in the case of this contest, would be to help automate the process of that "outside observer" to have the software check for suspicious behavior/history and throw a flag once it passes a certain threshold but BEFORE the target gets exploited, and possibly to minimize the number of false positives so that extensive resources aren't wasted on non-predatory relationships.
Ethical considerations aside, it's an interesting problem and could be applied to a number of areas where you're attempting to detect non-obvious manipulative behavior in any kind of multi-party interaction.
You unironically put a zero instead of an O in Obama's name. This tells me everything relevant about you and also let's me know you aren't looking at this as a discussion but a fight. Not interested.
My big problem here is this: there was absolutely no interest oh the part of the authorities in investigating this even after it became a big deal.
The ONLY witness was Zimmerman, and it is undeniable that he has a huge motive to lie about what happened in order to save his skin. The evidence that exists, such as it is, is not clear cut at all - and certainly isn't enough to exonerate Zimmerman on the face of it. Yet the police barely i looked into it before dropping it. Since you felt like playing a hypothetical by bringing up what you believe would have happened had things ended with Zimmerman dead, I will ask you a hypothetical: do you think had Trayvon killed Zimmerman the police would have walked away without investigating much and been so quick to say it was self-defense?
Before you answer, please look at the legal disposition of crimes in this country and pay specific attention to just how much more frequently people of color are convicted vs. whites accused of similar crimes and how much longer sentences are after conviction for offenders of color than white offenders.
This whole incident and the reaction after the fact by the police smells fishy as hell, and I cannot fault those who are suspicious.
On the issue of political hay being made from this: well, duh, it's an election year. Of course people are going to try to tie things to this story if it helps their narrative.
As for your statement that the President's comments were beneath the office, well, I daresay In the scope of things American presidents have done this century to demean the office it barely registers. I will take a thousand incidents of Obama fumbling an attempt to connect to his constituency over a single incident of George Bush making a mockery of a war he started, the memories of the soldiers hurt and killed, and the thousands of civilians left dead in a completely unnecessary war by releasing a video of him trying to find WMDs in the White House. You'll have to forgive me if I find it hard to even register something like Obama's comment.
Zimmerman instigated the entire thing by having ANY interaction with Trayvon. Had Zimmerman behaved as a neighborhood watch is supposed to behave - observed and called the cops, NO INTERACTION - this situation would not have happened, if the reports are to be believed.
I am on the NW in my area and we have had specific instructions not to engage AT ALL with anyone suspicious, for ANY reason, unless there is an IMMEDIATE threat posed by the suspicious person's actions. As in, do NOTHING but call the cops if we merely see the person breaking in or doing damage to property, but attempt to intervene if they are actively physically assaulting another human being. Also, there are several people on my NW group who have carry permits and they were EXPLICITLY told by police to NOT carry when they were doing NW rounds in order to reduce the risk of this exact kind of situation.
Zimmerman going armed and interacting with Trayvon while on NW skews the balance VERY strongly in favor of him trying to provoke something so he'd have a chance to use that gun. I don't find Zimmerman's account credible at all.
Had he simply called the cops and not interacted, as he was supposed to, as any responsible NW member has undoubtedly been told by police to do, this entire situation would not have happened.
Then again, maybe Florida is different. Maybe in Florida they tell guys who have zero law enforcement training and no official standing what-so-ever to feel free to attempt to detain potentially dangerous people who are simply walking down the street, and suggest having the capacity for lethal force while doing so. Maybe they're that fucking stupid down there.
I think the problem is the idea of "revered" - I mean, maybe some people do "revere" him, though to me that seems a bit silly.
Jobs was an amazing businessman and had a genius for marketing, no doubt. He's certainly comparable to other legendary business types on those notes, and may be the best in history in those areas.
One thing I note on slashdot is that a lot of people get pissy when the business people who make things happen get any credit, and instead they want to focus on the geeks who invented stuff. And that makes a certain kind of sense, to be sure - I mean, what Woz did was impressive, and it's hard to be a good businessman without a good product.
The problem is this:
What would have become of things if it were just Woz? I sincerely doubt that Apple would have been anything but one of those things that barely anyone outside of a handful of people remember, kind of like some people nowadays remember some really neat but obscure BBS software from back in the day.
Woz made things that Jobs was able to work with to make Apple huge. Without Woz and his kit, I think Jobs would have almost certainly found some other opportunity to get involved with and turn into something huge.
I don't think Woz, by himself, would have done much but make really neat stuff to give away. Which is really nice of him, but he would be completely obscure by this point in time unless someone like Jobs came along and brought his stuff to the masses.
Personally, I have a lot more respect for the Woz than I do for Jobs, but even so I cannot deny that without a Jobs-type Woz would just be some bearded nerd who makes cool shit that nobody outside of certain very small circles ever heard of.
Some years back I was assaulted in the parking lot of a chain store by someone wearing an outfit (red polo, khakis) similar to the store I just left. The person approached said they hadn't checked my receipt, and then when I went to give it to him, shoved me down, took what I'd just bought, and took off.
Police got involved, and I explained to the store manager that though this guy wasn't an employee, I was never going to shop there again and would tell everyone I knew not to shop there either, because this kind of policy allows exactly that kind of thing to happen.
I can assure you that if I were ever to have a situation like the one you described happen to me again, the only thing the person chasing after me would get would be the experience of his testicles accelerating at near relativistic speeds into his abdominal cavity followed by charges being pressed and the loss of his job. Some guy chasing me while I'm vulnerable and carrying a heavy, cumbersome, expensive purchase and I can't easily get away? Yeah, that's self-defense, no question.
But it won't make good writers, merely functional ones.
A computer will not recognize a particularly nice turn of phrase, nor will it understand when a rule is intentionally broken in order to draw attention to a certain passage, nor will it understand certain rhetorical devices often used in the most compelling writing when those devices play with the rules.
Granted, a writer should have a very firm grasp of the rules before they break them, but it seems to me that this kind of tool would wind up breaking down advanced writers, forcing them to be simply technically proficient, which would be a real shame.
A good manager will adapt their management style to the needs of the organization and the people they are managing. A manager coming in and trying to make everyone fit their style is missing the point.
Managers should be facilitators, expediters, troubleshooters, organizers and mentors. They should not be dictators.
I've been a manager in several organizations with widely different cultures over the course of my career and have had to have widely different styles.
My first management position was a with a data entry team comprised of individuals who functioned best when there was a steady stream of work to do, knew what metrics they were being rated by, and simply wanted to chew through piles of entry without having to get into any rah-rah teambuilding stuff. So, I made sure that they were shielded from the stuff secondary to their jobs (office politics), that they knew exactly what was expected and how it would be measured and rewarded, and when I made changes they were changes done to facilitate the actual completion of work, not to implement bullshit new tasks to measure quality.
When I worked at a consulting firm I had to adapt my methods to a team comprised of very intelligent & productive individuals who responded best to extremely logical and well planned out directives, but who functioned best when allowed to figure out how to fulfill the directives themselves. I would give my people space to do amazing work, but at the same time I would touch base regularly to make sure they had what they needed. Most of my job consisted of preventing the sales team from bugging them (by hearing out the sales manager and determining whether or not the stuff they wanted was worthwhile). We had regular but short team meetings, and I went out of my way to help my team carve out time to work on things they were interested in exploring but that might not have an immediate application at work.
When I was promoted to take over the sales and engineering teams, I would give the sales force the rah-rah we will kick ass and take over the universe, go ye and make us money money money pep-talks they needed as well as a bit of latitude in the terms they could offer clients, but I also set firm boundaries as to ethical expectations and made the sales person who offered a special deal the one responsible for ensuring the deal was met, and also took a much more hard-line kind management stance because the people on that team both expected it and needed it or else they would blow you off.
Now that I work in academia I have an extremely collaborative style of management, and though I have quite a few people working for me, I tend to act more as a mentor than a boss. Most of my supervisory load now is taking our larger study goals and turning them into discrete tasks to be completed and, when necessary, helping newer team members by breaking down the process we use for their tasks, explaining why we're doing what we're doing and helping them figure out what kind of approach to take. Everyone on this team tends to be very, very interested in the work we are doing - personally vested in it - and what motivates them best is respecting that and helping them find ways to use their interest and passion to look for better ways to work with our participants and different groups within the community we are focused on.
All of those methods are different, all of them are different from my personal style, except for maybe the approach I took with the engineers. I am, personally, a bit blunt, a bit sarcastic, I expect a LOT from myself and from anyone else who is a peer of mine. I don't need my ego stroked with pointless "way to go" stuff - I'm able to look at the things I do and find the objective measures of success which is much more satisfying. I would rather avoid having to pay attention to the feelings of people I work with (meaning, I don't really care if your feelings are hurt because I didn't ask about how your kid is because I think it's absurd to expect everyone to try to manage your emotions) but I'
So, in other words, you have literally nothing to back up your claims and you still want to believe that oil is somehow magically able to completely defy the laws of supply and demand. Gotcha.
Thanks for the ad hominem. It's clear that you have no argument against the points I am making, so instead you want to paint me personally in an unfavorable light rather than address my points.
I suppose you also imagine Warren Buffet is a filthy hippy since he's directly come out saying he supports OWS? Or the myriad other billion and millionaires who have come out in favor of a more rational and human centered economic approach?
As I said, unlike some - and in this case I am specifically referring to you and people who think like you - I don't feel compelled to hoard economic resources past a certain comfort level, and in fact would rather live by more modest means than I could in order to improve things for other people. It's a shame you want to ay by a fuck you got mine kind of mindset, and that you can't fathom that there are people who have more than you do who might not have the same value system of greed you do.
I will say, though, that you are right about me being part of the 99%. My income and networth are both only around the 95th percentile for the US, which clearly means abject poverty and a lack of access to showers.
If you are trying to say "I know this stuff and you don't know what you're talking about," you should either demonstrate that in fact you DO know what you're talking an (like, by not missing the entire fact that speculators serve to do nothing but add non-value-added players to a market, or that they don't take delivery of the stuff they are buying) or present some kind of credential.
Yu claimed you know markets better than I do but you Started off - your very first point, the one you felt simply had to be made - indicated an ignorance of what speculators do with white they have bought. So, since you failed to actually demonstrate knowledge, yeah, presenting credentials is pretty much your only option if you want to back things up.
However, since this is a forum where anyone can make any claim they like about themselves I don't care about credentials when faced with demonstrated ignorance.
I actually do grasp the concept of short and long sales in a market. Now, can you please address one point I have made over and over again but that you have completely ignored?
When you have a product that is very, very much in demand and very, very necessary for pretty much every aspect of modern life, and that resource is finite, subject to frequent atimes of scarcity due to political maneuvering and/or accidents that can come out of nowhere, but is NEVER going to have a moment where there is a sudden, surprise abundance because for that to happen because of the difficulty of finding new sources and limits on refining capacity - how, exactly, does adding MORE players to the market who serve no purpose but to skim profits without adding value to the product, serve to do anything but increase prices?
See, if oil demand were to be something that trended downward over time, or if oil were something that wasn't essential, or if oil could have surprise bumper crops/over abundance instead of ONLY being able to have surprise scarcity, I might buy that speculators can Help smoothe the market.
So, please explain how adding an artificial demand (speculators) without ANY possibility hat demand would otherwise decrease to compensate and without ANy incree in supply can do anything BUT drive prices up in the long run. I will be happy to hear your argument that goes agains a pretty fundamental rule that describes markets, and why oil is so special that it defies that rule.
Claim whatever knowledge of markets you want - you came in insisting that speculators couldn't be making money because they would have to pay to store the oil and the prices hadn't gone up enough to cover the storage. The fact that you were flat out wrong with that and that it was your very first point tells me everything I need to know about where you're coming from.
It wasn't until I pointed out that speculators don't take delivery that you even seemed aware of that, so I'm going to say you seem to just be trying to throw things out in the hopes that some kind of defense sticks.
They add zero value, period. They do not make it a better product, they do not increase production. They literally buy something to artificially drive up prices, and you seem to think that's a good and defensible position.
Which, I suppose if making money is all that's important, it may be. I personally find that attitude pretty reprehensible but whatever - maybe I'm the weird one for not desperately trying to validate entirely selfish behavior.
You do know that speculators don't actuall take delivery of the oil, right?
And you do understand that more people entering into a market with a finite supply will drive up prices right?
And you do understand that speculators add zero value - they just buy and resell, driving the price up without actually doing or facilitating anything but hire prices, right?
Sorry, it's just that your response seemed pretty naive and I wanted to make sure you understood what a speculator actually is and what they "continue" to the market.
You also don't seem to be even slighhtly aware of how much suburban sprawl is subsidized. I would also point it that dollar cost for things like transit isn't the same as the actual resource cost involved due in part to subsidies and issues relating to sprawl, nimby and other legal wrangling by monied interests trying to maintain a broken system for their own profit.
And you also don't know anything about me, but make some assumptions that are amusingly wrong. It may stun you to know that there are people in the world who put their own financial benefit past a certain comfort level secondary to improving things for others. I don't believe in "fuck you, got mine," as so many people seem to these days. And I can think of much, much worse company to be in than OWS. The fact that you toss it out as if it's a slur says volumes about you and none of it good.
Speculators. During the crash in 2008 speculators got out of oil in a big way and lo, prices plummeted. As they got back in prices have gone steadily back up.
And sorry to go off on a rant here, but to the larger point...
As far as triggering behavioral changes, I would recommend increasing taxes on gas (we're still much less expensive than Europe) and VASTLY increasing tolls for daily commuters. If you live in the city/suburbs and are commuting to the suburbs/city you are a big part of the problem. If employers want to reap the benefits of cheap real estate in the burbs, let them subsidize workers transit or - MUCH BETTER - make them pay so much that telecommuting is very strongly incentivized.
Spend the increased taxes on improving mass transit and information infrastructure, see consumption drop, and maybe the best part would be more people working from home and being able to spend more time with family instead of wasting hours of their days stuck in traffic to go to a job they could easily do from anywhere with a decent net connection (for the most part).
Fuel costs would stabalize or go down for long-haul uses and things like food production while purely recreational use would be treated like an expensive luxury (as it should be).
What we need is not just changing from one fuel source to another, but a radical shift in how our economy works to recognize that physical transport of individual humans from point a to point b is pointless, that productivity has increased so much that a 40 hour work week is just dumb for the most part (and would be better split up between 2 people working 20 hours/week each), and that technology will let us make quite a few office jobs things people do routinely from home rather than being the exception.
Because some small segment of Apple owners are people who are supposedly "socially aware" types that are imagined to be smug assholes about it, and thus are seen as hypocrites for owning Apple kit.
This ignores the fact that Apple sells products across every demographic, and that consequently most Apple users aren't smug activist hipsters but rather Joe and Jane Six-Pack.
This also ignores the fact that Apple is, by and large vastly better about this kind of thing that most any other consumer electronics company, it's just that they're more open about their supply chain than most of those other consumer electronics companies.
This also ignores the fact that in most of the countries where stuff like this is sourced, the working conditions we in the West view as hellish are actually pretty amazing compared to those of most people in those countries.
Basically, the people ragging on Apple (but not literally every other manufacturer on the planet) are doing it because they aren't thinking things through and have decided on the simple but completely incorrect idea that Apple can change the entire manufacturing industry if only people get angry enough at them.
For me, the big issue with working from home was that I wouldn't take breaks, wouldn't get up and move around, and basically blobbed out a bit from it.
What I'm doing now is I have set up my workstation to be viable if I'm standing (atop my regular desk I put 2 18" high tv stands and put my monitors above them, and I have one of those raise/lower hospital tables for the keyboard and mouse) OR sitting (add in a high drafting stool for when you need to sit) and with anti-fatigue mats so my feet aren't in agony by day's end.
At first it was a little difficult to do stuff that required heavy thought (designing software) while standing, so I would sit for that part and then stand when I was working on easier stuff (implementing the design, sending email, whatever). For about a week my feet and lower back hurt all the time, but I got over that once I acclimated. Now I stand pretty much all day and have a LOT more energy.
I've also been experimenting with adding in a treadmill - I tend to pace back and forth about 3 feet while I am standing and just reading stuff, so if I can add walking while I work to the routine that should be another healthy thing to do.
Also, I'll chop a ton of veggies 2x a week and store them for snacks that I can eat while I work. Peppers, carrots, celery etc. are great.
The other stuff - make sure you have a routine, make sure you get time with family and co-workers, make sure you minimize distractions - that's all no brainer stuff.
He isn't getting 10 years for certain, he can get UP TO 10 years. And he had a fine opportunity to plea bargain and receive basically probation and help dealing with immigration so he wouldn't be deported. Instead, he chose to go to court and risk conviction and a harsher sentence.
And again you say he was tried and convicted for his thoughts. Again, you are wrong. He could have thought anything at all and, had his actions not shown what he was thinking, he wouldn't have had any legal problems at all. There are many, many, many people in the US who absolutely hate gay people and who would love to see gay people suffer, but because they do not act on those thoughts there is no crime.
Ravi, however, chose to have a cam on the guy (invasion of privacy), then made public statements about it, directly referencing the sexual orientation of the guy (providing some evidence for the hate crime addition), and then threatened to do it again with even more exposure, before deciding to call that part off. He then, when the shit hit the fan and the guy committed suicide, tried to tamper with the witnesses in the investigation (really bad idea!) and get them to lie.
Had Ravi simply hated gay people but not invaded the guy's privacy, threatened to do it again in a public forum (and made it clear he was threatening to do it because the guy was gay), and then tampered with the witnesses in the case, he would not have ANY of these problems. His thoughts were not the issue - it's that he had the thoughts, ACTED ON THEM IN NUMEROUS WAYS, and then made it clear that his thoughts on gay people were why he took those actions.
You ask if any of this wouldn't have happened if Ravi hadn't had his thoughts, if Clementi hadn't committed suicide, or if Clementi wasn't gay and all I can say is:
If Ravi hadn't had his thoughts he wouldn't have invaded another man's privacy, done bias intimidation via threatening to broadcast the next encounter, and then engaged in witness tampering after the investigation started to look at what had happened prior to the suicide. So, again, if Ravi had not committed multiple felonies (that sprung from his thoughts), probably he would not be facing possibly years in prison.
Clementi might have killed himself anyway - but if that had happened, and then investigators looking into the circumstances had discovered nothing about Ravi, because Ravi hadn't done the things he did, then again, no, he wouldn't be facing prison because he wouldn't have committed multiple felonies.
However, let me put something else out there: Let's say Ravi tweeted about how he doesn't like his gay roommate and then the guy killed himself. Let's say Ravi didn't invade the man's privacy and then threaten a further invasion because of the man's sexual orientation. Let's say that because he didn't do anything of the sort he also didn't feel compelled to tamper with witnesses or otherwise hinder the investigation. Would he still be facing prison? Answer: Hell no. Because he wouldn't have committed any of the felonies that in reality he did.
You keep on saying "thought crime!" but I don't think you understand what a thought crime is. So let me explain it: It is literally thinking thoughts that, in and of themselves, with no need for action taken, are sufficient reason in a system to imprison someone.
Ravi committed multiple felonies that required ACTIONS. The sentences for those felonies were enhanced because of his motivation (thoughts) for committing them, but he was NOT punished solely for his thoughts.
If Ravi had taken responsibility for what he DID (regardless of what he THOUGHT), he would have been given probation. If Ravi had only THOUGHT what he thought but hadn't DONE what he DID, he wouldn't have even had probation because it wouldn't be a crime. But instead he allowed his THOUGHTS to guide his ACTIONS, then made it very, very clear (at least to 12 jurors) that he would not have DONE the things he DID without THINKING the THOUGHTS he had, and they convicted him.
1. It's not a thought crime. Ravi actually did something, he didn't just think about it. He actually invaded another man's privacy and he actually publicly humiliated that man because of what he saw during said invasion. Further, he attempted to get other individuals to lie to police during the investigation. Not thought crimes.
2. Ravi was not charged with any category of homicide. He was charged with bias intimidation and invasion of privacy as well as witness tampering. The suicide brought attention to the crimes, yes, but he was not charged with homicide.
3. "Gay" is not a "special protected class. Anyone of any sexual orientation is a "special protected class" if they are being targeted for harm because of their sexual orientation, period.
It's weird that you find someone being punished for invading another person's privacy, attempting to intimidate and harass that person due to what was seen during that invasion, and then to later attempt to thwart investigation into the crimes - unless, are you saying you think it would be perfectly all right for someone to do those things to you and your loved ones? A strange POV for slashdot, but then again, you do say you have thoughts outside the norm so maybe you're special.
I sincerely hope that neither you nor anyone you care for is ever raped. Wishing that on another human being - even one who has committed crimes - is repugnant. Doing so gleefully is despicable.
I don't disagree that Ravi is a dickhead, nor do I disagree that he deserves to be punished according to the laws he broke and was convicted under. Rape as punishment is not part of the law, and any civilized person should understand that, and as such, that is why you're a lousy human being.
Tell me - since you take such joy in the idea of him being sexually assaulted in prison - do you also fantasize about people jailed for possession of marijuana being raped? Or how about innocents put in jail due to corrupt law enforcement and prosecutors more interested in a win than in justice?
Because, you see, by cheering on this guy's rape you're cheering it on and endorsing it for everyone else who winds up in prison, regardless of the circumstances.
Like I said, I sincerely hope that you never experience such an assault, and I also hope that someday you become a civilized human being, rather than a repugnant troglodyte who advocates punishment outside of the law.
It seems like they're keeping the gameplay and just adding some shiny graphical elements...... which is totally fucking awesome!
My laundry list for a remake would also include multiplayer (2 squads going after aliens or one player is the aliens one is the human, or x number of players where each player controls one soldier and one is the base commander) oh god I want this game now please.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually pretty amazing just how vastly the difference in perception can be when doing things like flirting, as you say. When one party is thinking about the interaction in a different context than the other there is HUGE room for misunderstanding even when the signals are unambiguous.
I'd also agree that I'm skeptical about this kind of system; my gut tells me it would need to have a huge amount of information on each person in the chat, across multiple chats with multiple parties, to even begin to build up a profile that could have a hope in hell of being accurate. However, it may be that they're looking to see if that isn't the case - we may need much less information than we think to come to these kinds of conclusions.
Some people are very, very good at reading people - can take one look at someone, see a relatively small number of factors but put them together into a framework that suggests lots of other probabilities about the person that turns out to be startlingly accurate. I could see them trying this to see if it's possible for algorithms to pull off this same kind of feat.
If they find there's something to it, it's cool and worth further exploration; if they don't find something to it they can at least start to figure out what the lower boundary might be for the amount of data needed to start getting there.
It isn't always obvious because efforts to get into someone's head aren't always obvious.
Some people will attempt to groom a chat participant - they will ask more or less innocuous questions, but occasionally throw in one that is just a shade less innocuous than the others. Over time they will push the limits, until eventually some of the most outrageous stuff seems like it's just par for the course from this person. They'll couch all of this in the guise of being a mentor or friend, will back off if their target gets a little iffy, but will try to reconcile and take another tack. When this method is used against a target from a vulnerable population (kids, for example) it's scary how effective it can be and how easily even people who are not in vulnerable groups get taken in (see: people who fall for scams).
Eventually predators will shift to a more active part once their target has been willing to talk openly about previously forbidden subjects, and they'll attempt to get a cam session, phonecall, pics, meetings, whatever. The target might agree to go on cam or to pics, and at that point the predator has them - "Hey, if you don't keep doing this I'll post those pics/videos everywhere" etc.
It's easy to recognize the obvious and unsubtle ones, but it's a lot harder to recognize (from a relatively small sample) the more crafty ones unless you're an outside observer. For example, if I were someone being groomed by a predator as I described, I might not balk at a question as to whether I had pubic hair since I'd already been conditioned to trust that person. But if I were an outside observer it would be obvious that is untoward - unfortunately for many people targeted by predators, no outside observer is there to kind of make them realize what's going on.
As a researcher who often works with young people who have been exploited or put at risk, I've been given chatlogs from predators like the ones I've described above and was just astonished at how things progressed. However, quite a few of the skeevy questions that were asked by predators were ALSO asked in completely innocuous relationships and in that context were not nearly as skeevy. Just flagging based on questions or terms isn't enough - it's a context that needs to be understood.
The goal, I imagine, in the case of this contest, would be to help automate the process of that "outside observer" to have the software check for suspicious behavior/history and throw a flag once it passes a certain threshold but BEFORE the target gets exploited, and possibly to minimize the number of false positives so that extensive resources aren't wasted on non-predatory relationships.
Ethical considerations aside, it's an interesting problem and could be applied to a number of areas where you're attempting to detect non-obvious manipulative behavior in any kind of multi-party interaction.
You unironically put a zero instead of an O in Obama's name. This tells me everything relevant about you and also let's me know you aren't looking at this as a discussion but a fight. Not interested.
My big problem here is this: there was absolutely no interest oh the part of the authorities in investigating this even after it became a big deal.
The ONLY witness was Zimmerman, and it is undeniable that he has a huge motive to lie about what happened in order to save his skin. The evidence that exists, such as it is, is not clear cut at all - and certainly isn't enough to exonerate Zimmerman on the face of it. Yet the police barely i looked into it before dropping it. Since you felt like playing a hypothetical by bringing up what you believe would have happened had things ended with Zimmerman dead, I will ask you a hypothetical: do you think had Trayvon killed Zimmerman the police would have walked away without investigating much and been so quick to say it was self-defense?
Before you answer, please look at the legal disposition of crimes in this country and pay specific attention to just how much more frequently people of color are convicted vs. whites accused of similar crimes and how much longer sentences are after conviction for offenders of color than white offenders.
This whole incident and the reaction after the fact by the police smells fishy as hell, and I cannot fault those who are suspicious.
On the issue of political hay being made from this: well, duh, it's an election year. Of course people are going to try to tie things to this story if it helps their narrative.
As for your statement that the President's comments were beneath the office, well, I daresay In the scope of things American presidents have done this century to demean the office it barely registers. I will take a thousand incidents of Obama fumbling an attempt to connect to his constituency over a single incident of George Bush making a mockery of a war he started, the memories of the soldiers hurt and killed, and the thousands of civilians left dead in a completely unnecessary war by releasing a video of him trying to find WMDs in the White House. You'll have to forgive me if I find it hard to even register something like Obama's comment.
Zimmerman instigated the entire thing by having ANY interaction with Trayvon. Had Zimmerman behaved as a neighborhood watch is supposed to behave - observed and called the cops, NO INTERACTION - this situation would not have happened, if the reports are to be believed.
I am on the NW in my area and we have had specific instructions not to engage AT ALL with anyone suspicious, for ANY reason, unless there is an IMMEDIATE threat posed by the suspicious person's actions. As in, do NOTHING but call the cops if we merely see the person breaking in or doing damage to property, but attempt to intervene if they are actively physically assaulting another human being. Also, there are several people on my NW group who have carry permits and they were EXPLICITLY told by police to NOT carry when they were doing NW rounds in order to reduce the risk of this exact kind of situation.
Zimmerman going armed and interacting with Trayvon while on NW skews the balance VERY strongly in favor of him trying to provoke something so he'd have a chance to use that gun. I don't find Zimmerman's account credible at all.
Had he simply called the cops and not interacted, as he was supposed to, as any responsible NW member has undoubtedly been told by police to do, this entire situation would not have happened.
Then again, maybe Florida is different. Maybe in Florida they tell guys who have zero law enforcement training and no official standing what-so-ever to feel free to attempt to detain potentially dangerous people who are simply walking down the street, and suggest having the capacity for lethal force while doing so. Maybe they're that fucking stupid down there.
I think the problem is the idea of "revered" - I mean, maybe some people do "revere" him, though to me that seems a bit silly.
Jobs was an amazing businessman and had a genius for marketing, no doubt. He's certainly comparable to other legendary business types on those notes, and may be the best in history in those areas.
One thing I note on slashdot is that a lot of people get pissy when the business people who make things happen get any credit, and instead they want to focus on the geeks who invented stuff. And that makes a certain kind of sense, to be sure - I mean, what Woz did was impressive, and it's hard to be a good businessman without a good product.
The problem is this:
What would have become of things if it were just Woz? I sincerely doubt that Apple would have been anything but one of those things that barely anyone outside of a handful of people remember, kind of like some people nowadays remember some really neat but obscure BBS software from back in the day.
Woz made things that Jobs was able to work with to make Apple huge. Without Woz and his kit, I think Jobs would have almost certainly found some other opportunity to get involved with and turn into something huge.
I don't think Woz, by himself, would have done much but make really neat stuff to give away. Which is really nice of him, but he would be completely obscure by this point in time unless someone like Jobs came along and brought his stuff to the masses.
Personally, I have a lot more respect for the Woz than I do for Jobs, but even so I cannot deny that without a Jobs-type Woz would just be some bearded nerd who makes cool shit that nobody outside of certain very small circles ever heard of.
Some years back I was assaulted in the parking lot of a chain store by someone wearing an outfit (red polo, khakis) similar to the store I just left. The person approached said they hadn't checked my receipt, and then when I went to give it to him, shoved me down, took what I'd just bought, and took off.
Police got involved, and I explained to the store manager that though this guy wasn't an employee, I was never going to shop there again and would tell everyone I knew not to shop there either, because this kind of policy allows exactly that kind of thing to happen.
I can assure you that if I were ever to have a situation like the one you described happen to me again, the only thing the person chasing after me would get would be the experience of his testicles accelerating at near relativistic speeds into his abdominal cavity followed by charges being pressed and the loss of his job. Some guy chasing me while I'm vulnerable and carrying a heavy, cumbersome, expensive purchase and I can't easily get away? Yeah, that's self-defense, no question.
But it won't make good writers, merely functional ones.
A computer will not recognize a particularly nice turn of phrase, nor will it understand when a rule is intentionally broken in order to draw attention to a certain passage, nor will it understand certain rhetorical devices often used in the most compelling writing when those devices play with the rules.
Granted, a writer should have a very firm grasp of the rules before they break them, but it seems to me that this kind of tool would wind up breaking down advanced writers, forcing them to be simply technically proficient, which would be a real shame.
If it makes you feel any better, you beat me to the joke you made.
Or, since we're messing with causality, I beat you! Please mark parent "-1 Redundant."
Eh, it's trivial to identify who is a Ted Haggard type:
Are they loudly, constantly, angrily anti-gay and bring up he issue constantly and without any reason?
If yes, they are almost certainly so deep into the closet the live in Narnia.
See: reaction formation.
A good manager will adapt their management style to the needs of the organization and the people they are managing. A manager coming in and trying to make everyone fit their style is missing the point.
Managers should be facilitators, expediters, troubleshooters, organizers and mentors. They should not be dictators.
I've been a manager in several organizations with widely different cultures over the course of my career and have had to have widely different styles.
My first management position was a with a data entry team comprised of individuals who functioned best when there was a steady stream of work to do, knew what metrics they were being rated by, and simply wanted to chew through piles of entry without having to get into any rah-rah teambuilding stuff. So, I made sure that they were shielded from the stuff secondary to their jobs (office politics), that they knew exactly what was expected and how it would be measured and rewarded, and when I made changes they were changes done to facilitate the actual completion of work, not to implement bullshit new tasks to measure quality.
When I worked at a consulting firm I had to adapt my methods to a team comprised of very intelligent & productive individuals who responded best to extremely logical and well planned out directives, but who functioned best when allowed to figure out how to fulfill the directives themselves. I would give my people space to do amazing work, but at the same time I would touch base regularly to make sure they had what they needed. Most of my job consisted of preventing the sales team from bugging them (by hearing out the sales manager and determining whether or not the stuff they wanted was worthwhile). We had regular but short team meetings, and I went out of my way to help my team carve out time to work on things they were interested in exploring but that might not have an immediate application at work.
When I was promoted to take over the sales and engineering teams, I would give the sales force the rah-rah we will kick ass and take over the universe, go ye and make us money money money pep-talks they needed as well as a bit of latitude in the terms they could offer clients, but I also set firm boundaries as to ethical expectations and made the sales person who offered a special deal the one responsible for ensuring the deal was met, and also took a much more hard-line kind management stance because the people on that team both expected it and needed it or else they would blow you off.
Now that I work in academia I have an extremely collaborative style of management, and though I have quite a few people working for me, I tend to act more as a mentor than a boss. Most of my supervisory load now is taking our larger study goals and turning them into discrete tasks to be completed and, when necessary, helping newer team members by breaking down the process we use for their tasks, explaining why we're doing what we're doing and helping them figure out what kind of approach to take. Everyone on this team tends to be very, very interested in the work we are doing - personally vested in it - and what motivates them best is respecting that and helping them find ways to use their interest and passion to look for better ways to work with our participants and different groups within the community we are focused on.
All of those methods are different, all of them are different from my personal style, except for maybe the approach I took with the engineers. I am, personally, a bit blunt, a bit sarcastic, I expect a LOT from myself and from anyone else who is a peer of mine. I don't need my ego stroked with pointless "way to go" stuff - I'm able to look at the things I do and find the objective measures of success which is much more satisfying. I would rather avoid having to pay attention to the feelings of people I work with (meaning, I don't really care if your feelings are hurt because I didn't ask about how your kid is because I think it's absurd to expect everyone to try to manage your emotions) but I'
So, in other words, you have literally nothing to back up your claims and you still want to believe that oil is somehow magically able to completely defy the laws of supply and demand. Gotcha.
Thanks for the ad hominem. It's clear that you have no argument against the points I am making, so instead you want to paint me personally in an unfavorable light rather than address my points.
I suppose you also imagine Warren Buffet is a filthy hippy since he's directly come out saying he supports OWS? Or the myriad other billion and millionaires who have come out in favor of a more rational and human centered economic approach?
As I said, unlike some - and in this case I am specifically referring to you and people who think like you - I don't feel compelled to hoard economic resources past a certain comfort level, and in fact would rather live by more modest means than I could in order to improve things for other people. It's a shame you want to ay by a fuck you got mine kind of mindset, and that you can't fathom that there are people who have more than you do who might not have the same value system of greed you do.
I will say, though, that you are right about me being part of the 99%. My income and networth are both only around the 95th percentile for the US, which clearly means abject poverty and a lack of access to showers.
If you are trying to say "I know this stuff and you don't know what you're talking about," you should either demonstrate that in fact you DO know what you're talking an (like, by not missing the entire fact that speculators serve to do nothing but add non-value-added players to a market, or that they don't take delivery of the stuff they are buying) or present some kind of credential.
Yu claimed you know markets better than I do but you Started off - your very first point, the one you felt simply had to be made - indicated an ignorance of what speculators do with white they have bought. So, since you failed to actually demonstrate knowledge, yeah, presenting credentials is pretty much your only option if you want to back things up.
However, since this is a forum where anyone can make any claim they like about themselves I don't care about credentials when faced with demonstrated ignorance.
I actually do grasp the concept of short and long sales in a market. Now, can you please address one point I have made over and over again but that you have completely ignored?
When you have a product that is very, very much in demand and very, very necessary for pretty much every aspect of modern life, and that resource is finite, subject to frequent atimes of scarcity due to political maneuvering and/or accidents that can come out of nowhere, but is NEVER going to have a moment where there is a sudden, surprise abundance because for that to happen because of the difficulty of finding new sources and limits on refining capacity - how, exactly, does adding MORE players to the market who serve no purpose but to skim profits without adding value to the product, serve to do anything but increase prices?
See, if oil demand were to be something that trended downward over time, or if oil were something that wasn't essential, or if oil could have surprise bumper crops/over abundance instead of ONLY being able to have surprise scarcity, I might buy that speculators can Help smoothe the market.
So, please explain how adding an artificial demand (speculators) without ANY possibility hat demand would otherwise decrease to compensate and without ANy incree in supply can do anything BUT drive prices up in the long run. I will be happy to hear your argument that goes agains a pretty fundamental rule that describes markets, and why oil is so special that it defies that rule.
Claim whatever knowledge of markets you want - you came in insisting that speculators couldn't be making money because they would have to pay to store the oil and the prices hadn't gone up enough to cover the storage. The fact that you were flat out wrong with that and that it was your very first point tells me everything I need to know about where you're coming from.
It wasn't until I pointed out that speculators don't take delivery that you even seemed aware of that, so I'm going to say you seem to just be trying to throw things out in the hopes that some kind of defense sticks.
They add zero value, period. They do not make it a better product, they do not increase production. They literally buy something to artificially drive up prices, and you seem to think that's a good and defensible position.
Which, I suppose if making money is all that's important, it may be. I personally find that attitude pretty reprehensible but whatever - maybe I'm the weird one for not desperately trying to validate entirely selfish behavior.
Wow, I was mauled by autocorrect.
Actual should be actually.
Hire should be higher.
Continue should be contribute.
You do know that speculators don't actuall take delivery of the oil, right?
And you do understand that more people entering into a market with a finite supply will drive up prices right?
And you do understand that speculators add zero value - they just buy and resell, driving the price up without actually doing or facilitating anything but hire prices, right?
Sorry, it's just that your response seemed pretty naive and I wanted to make sure you understood what a speculator actually is and what they "continue" to the market.
You are positively adorable.
You also don't seem to be even slighhtly aware of how much suburban sprawl is subsidized. I would also point it that dollar cost for things like transit isn't the same as the actual resource cost involved due in part to subsidies and issues relating to sprawl, nimby and other legal wrangling by monied interests trying to maintain a broken system for their own profit.
And you also don't know anything about me, but make some assumptions that are amusingly wrong. It may stun you to know that there are people in the world who put their own financial benefit past a certain comfort level secondary to improving things for others. I don't believe in "fuck you, got mine," as so many people seem to these days. And I can think of much, much worse company to be in than OWS. The fact that you toss it out as if it's a slur says volumes about you and none of it good.
Speculators. During the crash in 2008 speculators got out of oil in a big way and lo, prices plummeted. As they got back in prices have gone steadily back up.
And sorry to go off on a rant here, but to the larger point...
As far as triggering behavioral changes, I would recommend increasing taxes on gas (we're still much less expensive than Europe) and VASTLY increasing tolls for daily commuters. If you live in the city/suburbs and are commuting to the suburbs/city you are a big part of the problem. If employers want to reap the benefits of cheap real estate in the burbs, let them subsidize workers transit or - MUCH BETTER - make them pay so much that telecommuting is very strongly incentivized.
Spend the increased taxes on improving mass transit and information infrastructure, see consumption drop, and maybe the best part would be more people working from home and being able to spend more time with family instead of wasting hours of their days stuck in traffic to go to a job they could easily do from anywhere with a decent net connection (for the most part).
Fuel costs would stabalize or go down for long-haul uses and things like food production while purely recreational use would be treated like an expensive luxury (as it should be).
What we need is not just changing from one fuel source to another, but a radical shift in how our economy works to recognize that physical transport of individual humans from point a to point b is pointless, that productivity has increased so much that a 40 hour work week is just dumb for the most part (and would be better split up between 2 people working 20 hours/week each), and that technology will let us make quite a few office jobs things people do routinely from home rather than being the exception.
Because some small segment of Apple owners are people who are supposedly "socially aware" types that are imagined to be smug assholes about it, and thus are seen as hypocrites for owning Apple kit.
This ignores the fact that Apple sells products across every demographic, and that consequently most Apple users aren't smug activist hipsters but rather Joe and Jane Six-Pack.
This also ignores the fact that Apple is, by and large vastly better about this kind of thing that most any other consumer electronics company, it's just that they're more open about their supply chain than most of those other consumer electronics companies.
This also ignores the fact that in most of the countries where stuff like this is sourced, the working conditions we in the West view as hellish are actually pretty amazing compared to those of most people in those countries.
Basically, the people ragging on Apple (but not literally every other manufacturer on the planet) are doing it because they aren't thinking things through and have decided on the simple but completely incorrect idea that Apple can change the entire manufacturing industry if only people get angry enough at them.
For me, the big issue with working from home was that I wouldn't take breaks, wouldn't get up and move around, and basically blobbed out a bit from it.
What I'm doing now is I have set up my workstation to be viable if I'm standing (atop my regular desk I put 2 18" high tv stands and put my monitors above them, and I have one of those raise/lower hospital tables for the keyboard and mouse) OR sitting (add in a high drafting stool for when you need to sit) and with anti-fatigue mats so my feet aren't in agony by day's end.
At first it was a little difficult to do stuff that required heavy thought (designing software) while standing, so I would sit for that part and then stand when I was working on easier stuff (implementing the design, sending email, whatever). For about a week my feet and lower back hurt all the time, but I got over that once I acclimated. Now I stand pretty much all day and have a LOT more energy.
I've also been experimenting with adding in a treadmill - I tend to pace back and forth about 3 feet while I am standing and just reading stuff, so if I can add walking while I work to the routine that should be another healthy thing to do.
Also, I'll chop a ton of veggies 2x a week and store them for snacks that I can eat while I work. Peppers, carrots, celery etc. are great.
The other stuff - make sure you have a routine, make sure you get time with family and co-workers, make sure you minimize distractions - that's all no brainer stuff.
He isn't getting 10 years for certain, he can get UP TO 10 years. And he had a fine opportunity to plea bargain and receive basically probation and help dealing with immigration so he wouldn't be deported. Instead, he chose to go to court and risk conviction and a harsher sentence.
And again you say he was tried and convicted for his thoughts. Again, you are wrong. He could have thought anything at all and, had his actions not shown what he was thinking, he wouldn't have had any legal problems at all. There are many, many, many people in the US who absolutely hate gay people and who would love to see gay people suffer, but because they do not act on those thoughts there is no crime.
Ravi, however, chose to have a cam on the guy (invasion of privacy), then made public statements about it, directly referencing the sexual orientation of the guy (providing some evidence for the hate crime addition), and then threatened to do it again with even more exposure, before deciding to call that part off. He then, when the shit hit the fan and the guy committed suicide, tried to tamper with the witnesses in the investigation (really bad idea!) and get them to lie.
Had Ravi simply hated gay people but not invaded the guy's privacy, threatened to do it again in a public forum (and made it clear he was threatening to do it because the guy was gay), and then tampered with the witnesses in the case, he would not have ANY of these problems. His thoughts were not the issue - it's that he had the thoughts, ACTED ON THEM IN NUMEROUS WAYS, and then made it clear that his thoughts on gay people were why he took those actions.
You ask if any of this wouldn't have happened if Ravi hadn't had his thoughts, if Clementi hadn't committed suicide, or if Clementi wasn't gay and all I can say is:
If Ravi hadn't had his thoughts he wouldn't have invaded another man's privacy, done bias intimidation via threatening to broadcast the next encounter, and then engaged in witness tampering after the investigation started to look at what had happened prior to the suicide. So, again, if Ravi had not committed multiple felonies (that sprung from his thoughts), probably he would not be facing possibly years in prison.
Clementi might have killed himself anyway - but if that had happened, and then investigators looking into the circumstances had discovered nothing about Ravi, because Ravi hadn't done the things he did, then again, no, he wouldn't be facing prison because he wouldn't have committed multiple felonies.
However, let me put something else out there:
Let's say Ravi tweeted about how he doesn't like his gay roommate and then the guy killed himself. Let's say Ravi didn't invade the man's privacy and then threaten a further invasion because of the man's sexual orientation. Let's say that because he didn't do anything of the sort he also didn't feel compelled to tamper with witnesses or otherwise hinder the investigation. Would he still be facing prison? Answer: Hell no. Because he wouldn't have committed any of the felonies that in reality he did.
You keep on saying "thought crime!" but I don't think you understand what a thought crime is. So let me explain it: It is literally thinking thoughts that, in and of themselves, with no need for action taken, are sufficient reason in a system to imprison someone.
Ravi committed multiple felonies that required ACTIONS. The sentences for those felonies were enhanced because of his motivation (thoughts) for committing them, but he was NOT punished solely for his thoughts.
If Ravi had taken responsibility for what he DID (regardless of what he THOUGHT), he would have been given probation. If Ravi had only THOUGHT what he thought but hadn't DONE what he DID, he wouldn't have even had probation because it wouldn't be a crime. But instead he allowed his THOUGHTS to guide his ACTIONS, then made it very, very clear (at least to 12 jurors) that he would not have DONE the things he DID without THINKING the THOUGHTS he had, and they convicted him.
Ravi nee
1. It's not a thought crime. Ravi actually did something, he didn't just think about it. He actually invaded another man's privacy and he actually publicly humiliated that man because of what he saw during said invasion. Further, he attempted to get other individuals to lie to police during the investigation. Not thought crimes.
2. Ravi was not charged with any category of homicide. He was charged with bias intimidation and invasion of privacy as well as witness tampering. The suicide brought attention to the crimes, yes, but he was not charged with homicide.
3. "Gay" is not a "special protected class. Anyone of any sexual orientation is a "special protected class" if they are being targeted for harm because of their sexual orientation, period.
It's weird that you find someone being punished for invading another person's privacy, attempting to intimidate and harass that person due to what was seen during that invasion, and then to later attempt to thwart investigation into the crimes - unless, are you saying you think it would be perfectly all right for someone to do those things to you and your loved ones? A strange POV for slashdot, but then again, you do say you have thoughts outside the norm so maybe you're special.
I sincerely hope that neither you nor anyone you care for is ever raped. Wishing that on another human being - even one who has committed crimes - is repugnant. Doing so gleefully is despicable.
I don't disagree that Ravi is a dickhead, nor do I disagree that he deserves to be punished according to the laws he broke and was convicted under. Rape as punishment is not part of the law, and any civilized person should understand that, and as such, that is why you're a lousy human being.
Tell me - since you take such joy in the idea of him being sexually assaulted in prison - do you also fantasize about people jailed for possession of marijuana being raped? Or how about innocents put in jail due to corrupt law enforcement and prosecutors more interested in a win than in justice?
Because, you see, by cheering on this guy's rape you're cheering it on and endorsing it for everyone else who winds up in prison, regardless of the circumstances.
Like I said, I sincerely hope that you never experience such an assault, and I also hope that someday you become a civilized human being, rather than a repugnant troglodyte who advocates punishment outside of the law.
It seems like they're keeping the gameplay and just adding some shiny graphical elements... ... which is totally fucking awesome!
My laundry list for a remake would also include multiplayer (2 squads going after aliens or one player is the aliens one is the human, or x number of players where each player controls one soldier and one is the base commander) oh god I want this game now please.