The financial damage was too insignificant? That's a rather strange reason to dismiss a case, as it violates the letter of the law.
No it doesn't. Whatever the law says, in criminal cases the prosecutor always has to decide whether or not a prosecution is in the public interest. If the damage caused by the defendant is not significant, then it probably isn't.
Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
But you can say: "Oh, you're over the age of 70", or "Oh, you come from a district with a notoriously poor school system, so there's a good chance you get intimidated by using computers" Another thing you can say about both of those groups may be that they are more likely to vote for one party more than the other.
That amounts to the same thing as saying that voters from one party have (on average) better computer skills than those from another. If this sort of indirect demographic evidence is all we've got, there's no reason to take this idea seriously.
Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
You don't see how certain population demographics could be less comfortable with computer use than others?
I do indeed. This basically constitutes one way of explaining the bias, not the "several ways" you alluded to.
And couldn't you see how if a particular demographic was less capable at using a computer they would still probably tend towards a single political party as a group?
It's not clear exactly what you mean here. Could you be a bit more precise? I think what you mean is that it's reasonable to assume that there could be a significant difference in computer skills between the respective demographics of the Republicans and Democrats. What you need to get this theory off the ground is evidence. Are Democrat voters more likely to have computer skills below a certain threshold than Republicans? We don't know. (Note that this is not the same as comparing average computer skills -- we're interested in the lower range of the distribution.)
Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
There are several ways this wouldn't be true. They happen to be the same types of reasons that would cause voters of a particular demographic choose one party over another.
Several ways, like what? As far as I can see, it could only not be true if Republican voters were on average better with computers than Democrat voters. Even if this turned out to be true, one could still maintain that if a significant portion of the electorate were unable to operate the equipment, the election was unfair.
Re:Exit Polls are Inaccurate
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
Probably because people clam up and act like morons when presented with a new electronic device for the first time. Massive conspiracy that nobody leaked, coincidental series of smaller conspiracies that also weren't leaked, or people being stupid when presented with a computer... Which seems more likely to you?
The stupidity theory would predict an equal number of accidental votes for democrats as accidental votes for Republicans. In fact, in states with electronic voting, the discrepancy between exit polls and votes always favored the Republicans.
The sentence is ambiguous. It can be parsed without "radiation in the uk" being a constituent. It might perhaps have been better to use a non-ambiguous sentence, but since the intended interpretation is pretty clear, who cares.
Even the Queen's word isn't law, since it's been pretty well established that the Monarch isn't above the law since the English Civil War. No-one's word is law in the English constitution.
Except that they're not actually banning the use of Microsoft software, just encouraging public institutions not to use it. That's not anything like forcing private citizens to use one or other bit of software.
That doesn't mean that computer science doesn't, in a big sense, exist to support programmers today.
No, no, no! It's a terrible mistake to imagine that academic disciplines exist for any other purpose than advancing knowledge. It is not the business of a Comp. Sci. Professor to help professional programmers. His business is to do original research and get it published in peer-reviewed journals. Nothing else.
A focus on researching areas which are thought to have "practical applications" tends to lower the overall quality of research, and indeed its practical use in the long run. (For example, prime number theory was studied for centuries before any practical application for it was found.)
Well, early Unix systems were not without their problems, you know. Read the "Unix haters handbook" (available free online now) for an insight into the slightly crappy world of early 90s Unix systems.
You're missing the point. If he puts up signs on his property saying something like "You can walk on my property so long as you don't do X", he can kick you out for trespassing if you do X. It doesn't matter if X is stealing berries or picking your nose.
It's perfectly usual to use "capital" loosely to mean people or groups of people who have lots of it.
When corporations collude, that's punishable by anti-trust action (sometimes). But when people oranize together to form corporations, that's apparently fine. If worker organization is always bad, management organization should also always be bad for the same reasons.
someone once tried to justify why harvard anthropology kid (straight out of undergrad) was better than midwest comp sci kid.
Because (all else being equal) they're probably more intelligent. Graduate tutors want the best students, and the best students aren't always those who happen to have previous experience in the field. If graduate programs close their doors to anyone who hasn't gone through the comp sci treadmill, they're missing out on a lot of talent. Now, there are maybe some subjects where this isn't the case. Maths or physics, say, because you just need to know so much stuff before you can even get started on research in those areas. But comp sci is still a relatively small field, and (especially if you're doing applied stuff rather than theoretical) it's still feasible to start from scratch.
I can only assume you have some sort of irrational predjudice against people who study anthropology at Harvard. That Harvard anthropology kid might be a talented hobbyist programmer who's brilliant at maths. The Midwest state school kid might be a perfectly intelligent but fairly average student, who has a head start but ultimately isn't going to achieve as much.
Just because passing a pointer or object reference by value resembles pass-by-reference semantics, it does not mean that they are the same thing.
I know, but because terminology is rather fluid, it does mean that you can sensibly refer to them using the same phrase. Especially given that there isn't a short phrase with the meaning "language-which-is-pass-by-value-but-has-a-referen ce-value-type".
It's clear that you understand how Java passes parameters. It's not clear to me that you understand how this differs from passing parameters by reference.
Then reread what I wrote. I gave a very explicit explanation of how one could also say that Java was pass by value, but that it had a reference value type, thus demonstrating my understanding of the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Won't work, because concepts aren't descriptions. Read some of the philosophical and psychological literature on concepts.
The financial damage was too insignificant? That's a rather strange reason to dismiss a case, as it violates the letter of the law.
No it doesn't. Whatever the law says, in criminal cases the prosecutor always has to decide whether or not a prosecution is in the public interest. If the damage caused by the defendant is not significant, then it probably isn't.But you can say: "Oh, you're over the age of 70", or "Oh, you come from a district with a notoriously poor school system, so there's a good chance you get intimidated by using computers" Another thing you can say about both of those groups may be that they are more likely to vote for one party more than the other.
That amounts to the same thing as saying that voters from one party have (on average) better computer skills than those from another. If this sort of indirect demographic evidence is all we've got, there's no reason to take this idea seriously.
You don't see how certain population demographics could be less comfortable with computer use than others?
I do indeed. This basically constitutes one way of explaining the bias, not the "several ways" you alluded to.
And couldn't you see how if a particular demographic was less capable at using a computer they would still probably tend towards a single political party as a group?
It's not clear exactly what you mean here. Could you be a bit more precise? I think what you mean is that it's reasonable to assume that there could be a significant difference in computer skills between the respective demographics of the Republicans and Democrats. What you need to get this theory off the ground is evidence. Are Democrat voters more likely to have computer skills below a certain threshold than Republicans? We don't know. (Note that this is not the same as comparing average computer skills -- we're interested in the lower range of the distribution.)
There are several ways this wouldn't be true. They happen to be the same types of reasons that would cause voters of a particular demographic choose one party over another.
Several ways, like what? As far as I can see, it could only not be true if Republican voters were on average better with computers than Democrat voters. Even if this turned out to be true, one could still maintain that if a significant portion of the electorate were unable to operate the equipment, the election was unfair.
Probably because people clam up and act like morons when presented with a new electronic device for the first time. Massive conspiracy that nobody leaked, coincidental series of smaller conspiracies that also weren't leaked, or people being stupid when presented with a computer... Which seems more likely to you?
The stupidity theory would predict an equal number of accidental votes for democrats as accidental votes for Republicans. In fact, in states with electronic voting, the discrepancy between exit polls and votes always favored the Republicans.
Also, see this.
Maybe that would work, but the great grandparent didn't do it. Perhaps the results would support his position, perhaps they wouldn't.
They are often wildly innacurate because many folks choose not to participate - mostly people who are Republican
If they didn't participate, how did you know they were Republican?
Forecast temperatures can't possibly be accurate to more than 1C.
Were you sleeping when the decimal point was invented?
The sentence is ambiguous. It can be parsed without "radiation in the uk" being a constituent. It might perhaps have been better to use a non-ambiguous sentence, but since the intended interpretation is pretty clear, who cares.
Even the Queen's word isn't law, since it's been pretty well established that the Monarch isn't above the law since the English Civil War. No-one's word is law in the English constitution.
The definitions for (in)equality only work if the only possible values are True or False.
It is well established that simply using a GPL application without linking to any of its code does not constitute a derived work.
Except that they're not actually banning the use of Microsoft software, just encouraging public institutions not to use it. That's not anything like forcing private citizens to use one or other bit of software.
That doesn't mean that computer science doesn't, in a big sense, exist to support programmers today.
No, no, no! It's a terrible mistake to imagine that academic disciplines exist for any other purpose than advancing knowledge. It is not the business of a Comp. Sci. Professor to help professional programmers. His business is to do original research and get it published in peer-reviewed journals. Nothing else.
A focus on researching areas which are thought to have "practical applications" tends to lower the overall quality of research, and indeed its practical use in the long run. (For example, prime number theory was studied for centuries before any practical application for it was found.)
In any event, one of the beauties of the free market is coming up with solutions that noone anticipates.
You mean...magic solutions!
That's not really analagous -- it's a question of conforming to a standard orthography rather than a question of meaning.
Well, early Unix systems were not without their problems, you know. Read the "Unix haters handbook" (available free online now) for an insight into the slightly crappy world of early 90s Unix systems.
You're missing the point. If he puts up signs on his property saying something like "You can walk on my property so long as you don't do X", he can kick you out for trespassing if you do X. It doesn't matter if X is stealing berries or picking your nose.
It's perfectly usual to use "capital" loosely to mean people or groups of people who have lots of it. When corporations collude, that's punishable by anti-trust action (sometimes). But when people oranize together to form corporations, that's apparently fine. If worker organization is always bad, management organization should also always be bad for the same reasons.
But given that capital is permitted to organise (e.g. by formaing corporations), labour is going to get screwed if it doesn't organise too.
someone once tried to justify why harvard anthropology kid (straight out of undergrad) was better than midwest comp sci kid.
Because (all else being equal) they're probably more intelligent. Graduate tutors want the best students, and the best students aren't always those who happen to have previous experience in the field. If graduate programs close their doors to anyone who hasn't gone through the comp sci treadmill, they're missing out on a lot of talent. Now, there are maybe some subjects where this isn't the case. Maths or physics, say, because you just need to know so much stuff before you can even get started on research in those areas. But comp sci is still a relatively small field, and (especially if you're doing applied stuff rather than theoretical) it's still feasible to start from scratch.
I can only assume you have some sort of irrational predjudice against people who study anthropology at Harvard. That Harvard anthropology kid might be a talented hobbyist programmer who's brilliant at maths. The Midwest state school kid might be a perfectly intelligent but fairly average student, who has a head start but ultimately isn't going to achieve as much.
Do you have any idea how few people are able to read a microwave manual and operate it correctly? I know several engineers who can't.
Just because passing a pointer or object reference by value resembles pass-by-reference semantics, it does not mean that they are the same thing.
I know, but because terminology is rather fluid, it does mean that you can sensibly refer to them using the same phrase. Especially given that there isn't a short phrase with the meaning "language-which-is-pass-by-value-but-has-a-referen ce-value-type".
It's clear that you understand how Java passes parameters. It's not clear to me that you understand how this differs from passing parameters by reference.
Then reread what I wrote. I gave a very explicit explanation of how one could also say that Java was pass by value, but that it had a reference value type, thus demonstrating my understanding of the difference.