Between anonymity/freedom of press and conflict of interest.
While the article authors have the right to remain anonymous, every article should state upfront whether or not the author stands to benefit from the publication (e.g. a conservative lobby group attacking the Democrats).
And, laws have to be made that if authors are found to lie about this conflict of interest, there should be some sort of penalty.
i.e. you can be anonymous and say/lie whatever you want, but you have to honestly state whether and if so how you could benefit from the publication, with the consequence of being punished if you tell a lie.
Already implement "auto-parallelization" of sorts. It's called "out of order" execution - code specificially written with this in mind can perform quite a bit faster - all you have to do is to create separate independent sections of code.
The problem is not disallowing people to move to the US - the problem stems from sending them back to their own country at the employer's discretion thus allowing the employers to dictate unfair employment terms.
If the H1B could freely negotiate for higher pay and better benefits without fears of being sent back, the competition problem would be eliminated - the game would then be considered fair.
Until then, it's unfair to everyone with the employer being the only beneficiary.
Is it just me, or does anyone think that using a cyber attack as a basis for physical retaliation would make it too easy to fake justifying evidence? Electronic evidences are easy to fabricate and hard to disprove.
If US can produce gigabytes of logs "proving" that someone in another country is attacking their computers, would that give them the right to physical military actions, in the lack of other form of evidences?
There is a saying that, "In the academia, publication is the unit of currency." This is especially true for the more prestigious journals - the more publications you have, the more important you are and by extension what you say will weigh more - if you're lucky enough you'll become more prestige, and join the "star club" - the "big names" in the field - who get to chair committees and have more say in journals, what gets published, etc.
Thus a ladder of power is created for people to climb. It's not hard to see how this power struggle feeds itself, just like the monetary system - just that it's "self-regulated" (read: unregulated)
And it tends to (I've seen with my own eyes) encourage reviewers (who are academics themselves) to form mutual-support clans - you scratch my back, I scratch yours - as a result, when some reviewers review papers they ask "is it my friend? is it in my clan? does it kiss my ass? does it attack my work?", which means a lot of good paper gets rejected and bad papers published.
So far, this system has not broken down due to a few reasons: 1. A few good people - who still do reviews on the merits of papers - who consider themselves to be "professors" thus a role model for their students. 2. Someone who work their way up finally obtains a "god-like" reputation and at this point start to work on their karma - precisely because the reputation could be at stake and so many people are trying to replace you (beating the guy at the top means you'll be at the top instantly), so to say, the higher you are the more vulnerable you are.
Since all systems tend to have flaws and this one seems to work, I don't see it going away. However, this system does not require journals to be paid in order to be prestigious - as long as people still pay to attend conferences, I'm sure this system can survive without the publishers.
However, besides the obvious illegal pump and dump - which I strongly disagree with, there are plenty of other fair and legal ways to honestly "fuck stupid people over", such as carefull analysis before investing - in the end, you'll be technically "fuck the speculators over" because their wealth will be transferred to you.
Unfortunately, it seems that some other poster, who shall remain unnamed, is disgusted by even the fair and legal ways to "fuck people over" and simply imply that you need to have "sympathy" in the stock market, which I totally disagree with.
I bet kids are smarter than this AI, but, in case it works, it only ultimately teaches the kid a lesson about what "betrayal" really means - just an abuse of trust.
If you're against something, you must provide your alternative, otherwise you would be opposing just for the sake of it. So, please, let us know what YOU think the stock market SHOULD BE, other than a place where "survival of the fittest" holds.
And no, saying that it "fucks people over" is insufficient, because, there are cases where people who gets "fucked" ask for it, and in a lot of those cases, "fucking those people over" would be the most logical and sane consequence, simply because, people need to know that their actions carry consequences.
There are countless examples: 1. A thief who tries to break into a house and get mauled by the a German Shepherd trained to be a guard dog. 2. Some person who keeps smoking despite of knowing that it causes cancer, guess what eventually happens. 3. Those who keeps going to McDon*lds daily and get obese, guess who's to blame.
It's the stock market, which YES, makes fucking people over okay. BECAUSE, (1) nobody is forced to enter it, and (2) those who do should know the WELL-KNOWN risk involved. Both points exactly like all the above examples.
You want more example? Think about a Casino. Everyone who enters, enters by their own will and at their own peril.
I do believe that cleaning out unintelligent/lazy investors is in itself a contribution - after all, you have to make WAY more than one mistakes to be screwed by pump and dump spamming - i.e. "normal" idiots don't get affected as much as "super" idiots.
As for not having sympathy - it's not libertarianism. It's just the real world. What do you expect the stock market to be, a public charity?
Sympathy has its place, just not on the stock market, buddy.
But to me it largely doesn't matter. The question is, WHY is Google wasting time on this branding stuff? Running dry on innovations? Hired the wrong marketing team?
LOL. It doesn't need calculation, but it doesn't intend to take away the thinking. Sorry, it was late in the night and I didn't expect anyone to catch this!
> And here I thought the philosophical goal of OLPC was... One Laptop Per Child.
It goes deeper than that. Take a look from their own press releases from OLPC.
> What does Marvell vs. Realtek have to do with that? That only raises the hackles of folks who think this is about some open-vs-closed "war", rather > than the larger (and IMO more important) goal of helping disadvantaged children.
I'm against the RMS "everything must be OSS" BS. However, in this case, the OLPC project just doesn't seem to be consistent with themselves, or has at one point spread misinformation. What I find disgusting is the deception, the hypocracy, not just being closed. If they told people in the first place that proprietary drivers will be involved, I'd be fine with it.
Have they solved this problem yet? The decision to go with Marvell (instead of some better supported chip, say, RealTek) seems to be arbitrary rather than informed.
The choice of Marvell Wifi chip contradicts the very philosophical goal of OLPC itself. Disgusting.
Slashdot Mirror
Between anonymity/freedom of press and conflict of interest.
While the article authors have the right to remain anonymous, every article should state upfront whether or not the author stands to benefit from the publication (e.g. a conservative lobby group attacking the Democrats).
And, laws have to be made that if authors are found to lie about this conflict of interest, there should be some sort of penalty.
i.e. you can be anonymous and say/lie whatever you want, but you have to honestly state whether and if so how you could benefit from the publication, with the consequence of being punished if you tell a lie.
Already implement "auto-parallelization" of sorts. It's called "out of order" execution - code specificially written with this in mind can perform quite a bit faster - all you have to do is to create separate independent sections of code.
Your concern is totally orthogonal to the issue.
The problem is not disallowing people to move to the US - the problem stems from sending them back to their own country at the employer's discretion thus allowing the employers to dictate unfair employment terms.
If the H1B could freely negotiate for higher pay and better benefits without fears of being sent back, the competition problem would be eliminated - the game would then be considered fair.
Until then, it's unfair to everyone with the employer being the only beneficiary.
Disgusting. They should understand very well that human health is #1, and animal drugs is #10, period.
Any "guidance" serves nothing but to make up excuses that tries to justify animal drugs over human health, for pure "economic" reasons (i.e. greed).
this teraFLOP are on 64-bit doubles. Single precision teraFLOPs are close to useless for anything that requires a teraFLOP.
...from those who have less lawyers to those to have more lawyers.
>Apple could permit OSX to run on virtual machines so people could get a taste of it
It's exactly what Apple fears...people getting "bad taste" out of a virtual session and decided not to get a Mac.
Of course, much of the bad taste is due to the emulation speed and compatibility, but people will blame it on Apple nonetheless.
It makes perfect sense to them to never allow Virtualization on a non-Apple machine.
On the other hand, nothing stops them from releasing their own virtualization software.
Is it just me, or does anyone think that using a cyber attack as a basis for physical retaliation would make it too easy to fake justifying evidence? Electronic evidences are easy to fabricate and hard to disprove.
If US can produce gigabytes of logs "proving" that someone in another country is attacking their computers, would that give them the right to physical military actions, in the lack of other form of evidences?
Providing the tools for people to circumvent contracts (especially click thrus) is legal.
It's a sad day for the society that this needs to be stated.
So Canada would pass whatever law they want. I hope Ottawa has the wisdom to see thru this.
There is a saying that, "In the academia, publication is the unit of currency." This is especially true for the more prestigious journals - the more publications you have, the more important you are and by extension what you say will weigh more - if you're lucky enough you'll become more prestige, and join the "star club" - the "big names" in the field - who get to chair committees and have more say in journals, what gets published, etc.
Thus a ladder of power is created for people to climb. It's not hard to see how this power struggle feeds itself, just like the monetary system - just that it's "self-regulated" (read: unregulated)
And it tends to (I've seen with my own eyes) encourage reviewers (who are academics themselves) to form mutual-support clans - you scratch my back, I scratch yours - as a result, when some reviewers review papers they ask "is it my friend? is it in my clan? does it kiss my ass? does it attack my work?", which means a lot of good paper gets rejected and bad papers published.
So far, this system has not broken down due to a few reasons:
1. A few good people - who still do reviews on the merits of papers - who consider themselves to be "professors" thus a role model for their students.
2. Someone who work their way up finally obtains a "god-like" reputation and at this point start to work on their karma - precisely because the reputation could be at stake and so many people are trying to replace you (beating the guy at the top means you'll be at the top instantly), so to say, the higher you are the more vulnerable you are.
Since all systems tend to have flaws and this one seems to work, I don't see it going away. However, this system does not require journals to be paid in order to be prestigious - as long as people still pay to attend conferences, I'm sure this system can survive without the publishers.
Please read my other post. LOL, much debate for nothing, yes, I believe we've got different definitions, so... :beer:
I agree with you, Bryansix, completely.
However, besides the obvious illegal pump and dump - which I strongly disagree with, there are plenty of other fair and legal ways to honestly "fuck stupid people over", such as carefull analysis before investing - in the end, you'll be technically "fuck the speculators over" because their wealth will be transferred to you.
Unfortunately, it seems that some other poster, who shall remain unnamed, is disgusted by even the fair and legal ways to "fuck people over" and simply imply that you need to have "sympathy" in the stock market, which I totally disagree with.
Which eye of yours has read me advocating illegal course of action? Which line? Which sentence?
I believe in JUSTICE and FAIRNESS, although being JUST and FAIR and "FUCKING PEOPLE OVER" are NOT mutually exclusive.
Until you answer my questions in the grandparent post, I call you Troll. I rest my case.
I bet kids are smarter than this AI, but, in case it works, it only ultimately teaches the kid a lesson about what "betrayal" really means - just an abuse of trust.
If you're against something, you must provide your alternative, otherwise you would be opposing just for the sake of it.
So, please, let us know what YOU think the stock market SHOULD BE, other than a place where "survival of the fittest" holds.
And no, saying that it "fucks people over" is insufficient, because, there are cases where people who gets "fucked" ask for it, and in a lot of those cases, "fucking those people over" would be the most logical and sane consequence, simply because, people need to know that their actions carry consequences.
There are countless examples:
1. A thief who tries to break into a house and get mauled by the a German Shepherd trained to be a guard dog.
2. Some person who keeps smoking despite of knowing that it causes cancer, guess what eventually happens.
3. Those who keeps going to McDon*lds daily and get obese, guess who's to blame.
It's the stock market, which YES, makes fucking people over okay. BECAUSE, (1) nobody is forced to enter it, and (2) those who do should know the WELL-KNOWN risk involved. Both points exactly like all the above examples.
You want more example? Think about a Casino. Everyone who enters, enters by their own will and at their own peril.
Guilt by association?
I do believe that cleaning out unintelligent/lazy investors is in itself a contribution - after all, you have to make WAY more than one mistakes to be screwed by pump and dump spamming - i.e. "normal" idiots don't get affected as much as "super" idiots.
As for not having sympathy - it's not libertarianism. It's just the real world. What do you expect the stock market to be, a public charity?
Sympathy has its place, just not on the stock market, buddy.
"at some point"....to short a stock, there's a deadline before which you have to return the shares borrowed. That's what makes it risky.
It seems it's not somebody trying to "redefine" a word. So. Who cares.
tags = flickr
labels = gmail
But to me it largely doesn't matter. The question is, WHY is Google wasting time on this branding stuff? Running dry on innovations? Hired the wrong marketing team?
Speculate. Now.
LOL. It doesn't need calculation, but it doesn't intend to take away the thinking.
Sorry, it was late in the night and I didn't expect anyone to catch this!
SI is not about division by 10.
It is about almost not needing any calculation at all, since the few fundamental units is a basis for everything else.
How much energy does a 100 Watt bulb burn in a minute? Immediately it is 60 kilojoule, since Watt is defined as "Joules per second".
How much energy does the same bulb burn in a minute for calories? C'mon, imperial people, bring out your calculator, punch fast, and check twice!
> And here I thought the philosophical goal of OLPC was... One Laptop Per Child.
It goes deeper than that. Take a look from their own press releases from OLPC.
> What does Marvell vs. Realtek have to do with that? That only raises the hackles of folks who think this is about some open-vs-closed "war", rather
> than the larger (and IMO more important) goal of helping disadvantaged children.
I'm against the RMS "everything must be OSS" BS. However, in this case, the OLPC project just doesn't seem to be consistent with themselves, or has at one point spread misinformation. What I find disgusting is the deception, the hypocracy, not just being closed. If they told people in the first place that proprietary drivers will be involved, I'd be fine with it.
Google for the controversy.
Have they solved this problem yet? The decision to go with Marvell (instead of some better supported chip, say, RealTek) seems to be arbitrary rather than informed.
The choice of Marvell Wifi chip contradicts the very philosophical goal of OLPC itself. Disgusting.