I laughed, but this is probably one of the good ones. In the world of lay stats, "insignificant" means "throw away the results." If Timothy were to say "there was a significant difference" and it turned out to be "~12%" someone would object that 12% is actually quite low, and I would have to post that "he probably means statistical significance."
One does not climb up from negative karma by merely laughing. But I did.
At some point in the very near future, Neil McAllister will be able to craft a post entirely from links to his own posts. There will still be an advertisment on each page with links to 3-5 of his own posts. Fans of Neil's opinion will rejoice.
To be fair, you would need to multiply that $0.65 times every item bought. Adding up the sales difference in aggregate, this would be a much higher value than the title suggests.
If this marketplace is "semi-open", it seems to me that watchers in Morgan Stanley would get leading information on any major option exercise inside the company. What's to stop them from dumping when Google employees (presumably acting on some sort of inside info) start exercising en masse?
Fortunately, most employees suck at evaluating their employer's stock:)
It's not a troll, it's a genuine opinion. Originally "due process" meant "don't kick down doors whenever you want". It was intended for the home. Now, "due process" has become the defense lawyer's best friend. You have no idea how many criminals are walking the streets simply because of the technicalities.
Ben Franklin was wrong. You will always sacrifice privacy for security. Get used to it. It's ironic that the Slashdot crowd, 90% of whom probably work for companies who buy and/or sell personal data every day, are so incensed at this. The law is in place, she was justified in her technicalities, but she violated the spirit of law enforcement. She can't be punished, but she could just as easily allowed another bus bomber. Would everybody be so indignant then?
This is the kind of opinion that is killing us. Flat out, no it isn't. Your "rights" don't include the right to molest, rape, murder, or terrorize. But if you ever want to make sure that folks don't have free access to these pasttimes, you'll have to give up what you consider your Civil Rights Principles. It's a public place, it should be public info, if a crime was committed the criminal has no right to privacy.
The police are out there busting their hump, protecting you and me. 99% of them are good, and when they have a hot lead that requires your help, there's no reason to be a hump. It's not "her" library, and I hope that the trustees show her that. It's a public library, and a public place, and if there's a sex offender scoping out my child, I want every citizen's help, whether they think they're somehow "doing good" or not.
She's obstructing justice, IMHO. By the time that warrant is issued, the lead could be cold. Did she consult the trustees? If it's the law, it's a law that should be amended.
I say congrats on finding an apt subject title for your comment. If you wonder whether they're "winning" the war on pirates, just take a peek at legal download statistics. That's what you call a "victory".
It's pretty stupid to claim that if we had a war on porn, then 70% of the population would be criminals. If 70% of the population supported porn in a democracy that criminalized porn, then they would be a shining example of stupidity in action. Get out and shout and vote until it's legal again.
The US government isn't meddling in other nation's internal affairs. It's acting as part of the world community and the global economy. If this were actually considered logic, we'd be shipping a shiny new crate of nukes to the *real* "fundies" in Iran, since that's their own soveriegn right, and their own affair, right?
Piracy is harmful to the economy, plain and simple. It's a self-centered attack on the principle of the market economy - produce a product and sell it. Just because *you* can't afford to buy the product doesn't mean that you can steal it. And if you can afford it, but you choose to spend your dollars elsewhere, then you don't really want it, and shouldn't have it anyway.
The definition of property sucks in the current state of world government. You can patent the mathematical formula you "invented" using a common mathematical language, and you're a genius, but you're an evil corporate oppressor when you want to own the movie that you financed, produced, wrote, shot, edited, marketed, and distributed.
It's nice to hear a rational voice in the crowd. We live in a world where information is power, and I want the government to have the power to protect me. The minute I hear stories about the abuse of this power, I'll start to worry. There's no reason to be suspicious of the government at this point, they don't do a perfect job but they're not systematic oppressors as seems to be the common implication at/. They're people, and people are imperfect, but they're also the people spending their lives trying to avoid the douchebags of the world from taking advantage of those of us who just want to live in peace. Give em bigger guns. These same slippery slope arguments were used to hate on the Social Security Number.
Slashdot Mirror
I laughed, but this is probably one of the good ones. In the world of lay stats, "insignificant" means "throw away the results." If Timothy were to say "there was a significant difference" and it turned out to be "~12%" someone would object that 12% is actually quite low, and I would have to post that "he probably means statistical significance." One does not climb up from negative karma by merely laughing. But I did.
At some point in the very near future, Neil McAllister will be able to craft a post entirely from links to his own posts. There will still be an advertisment on each page with links to 3-5 of his own posts. Fans of Neil's opinion will rejoice.
To be fair, you would need to multiply that $0.65 times every item bought. Adding up the sales difference in aggregate, this would be a much higher value than the title suggests.
If this marketplace is "semi-open", it seems to me that watchers in Morgan Stanley would get leading information on any major option exercise inside the company. What's to stop them from dumping when Google employees (presumably acting on some sort of inside info) start exercising en masse?
:)
Fortunately, most employees suck at evaluating their employer's stock
It's not a troll, it's a genuine opinion. Originally "due process" meant "don't kick down doors whenever you want". It was intended for the home. Now, "due process" has become the defense lawyer's best friend. You have no idea how many criminals are walking the streets simply because of the technicalities. Ben Franklin was wrong. You will always sacrifice privacy for security. Get used to it. It's ironic that the Slashdot crowd, 90% of whom probably work for companies who buy and/or sell personal data every day, are so incensed at this. The law is in place, she was justified in her technicalities, but she violated the spirit of law enforcement. She can't be punished, but she could just as easily allowed another bus bomber. Would everybody be so indignant then?
This is the kind of opinion that is killing us. Flat out, no it isn't. Your "rights" don't include the right to molest, rape, murder, or terrorize. But if you ever want to make sure that folks don't have free access to these pasttimes, you'll have to give up what you consider your Civil Rights Principles. It's a public place, it should be public info, if a crime was committed the criminal has no right to privacy.
The police are out there busting their hump, protecting you and me. 99% of them are good, and when they have a hot lead that requires your help, there's no reason to be a hump. It's not "her" library, and I hope that the trustees show her that. It's a public library, and a public place, and if there's a sex offender scoping out my child, I want every citizen's help, whether they think they're somehow "doing good" or not.
She's obstructing justice, IMHO. By the time that warrant is issued, the lead could be cold. Did she consult the trustees? If it's the law, it's a law that should be amended.
I say congrats on finding an apt subject title for your comment. If you wonder whether they're "winning" the war on pirates, just take a peek at legal download statistics. That's what you call a "victory". It's pretty stupid to claim that if we had a war on porn, then 70% of the population would be criminals. If 70% of the population supported porn in a democracy that criminalized porn, then they would be a shining example of stupidity in action. Get out and shout and vote until it's legal again. The US government isn't meddling in other nation's internal affairs. It's acting as part of the world community and the global economy. If this were actually considered logic, we'd be shipping a shiny new crate of nukes to the *real* "fundies" in Iran, since that's their own soveriegn right, and their own affair, right? Piracy is harmful to the economy, plain and simple. It's a self-centered attack on the principle of the market economy - produce a product and sell it. Just because *you* can't afford to buy the product doesn't mean that you can steal it. And if you can afford it, but you choose to spend your dollars elsewhere, then you don't really want it, and shouldn't have it anyway. The definition of property sucks in the current state of world government. You can patent the mathematical formula you "invented" using a common mathematical language, and you're a genius, but you're an evil corporate oppressor when you want to own the movie that you financed, produced, wrote, shot, edited, marketed, and distributed.
It's nice to hear a rational voice in the crowd. We live in a world where information is power, and I want the government to have the power to protect me. The minute I hear stories about the abuse of this power, I'll start to worry. There's no reason to be suspicious of the government at this point, they don't do a perfect job but they're not systematic oppressors as seems to be the common implication at /. They're people, and people are imperfect, but they're also the people spending their lives trying to avoid the douchebags of the world from taking advantage of those of us who just want to live in peace. Give em bigger guns. These same slippery slope arguments were used to hate on the Social Security Number.