To the best of my understanding (my company was very happy to again be top 10), they are surveying the people who provide IT support for the rest of the company. So, whereas Google employees (developers, marketers, etc.) on average could be very happy, they could all dump on the IT staff. Not saying this is the case, just indicating that the survey results aren't bogus just because most Microsofties are happy.
From my perspective (including time spent at Microsoft), the IT staff is best when it is invisible; everything just works. At a former job, this meant having people around 24x7. At my current job, we know that most support calls in the early morning or evening won't get handled immediately. (I.e., the IT staff keep largely normal hours.) Based on these experiences, I believe that my company belongs on the list.
If by "highest of any crime" you mean lower, then absolutely! From the US Bureau of Justice: "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense --- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders."
Sorry to stand in the way of an unrighteous rant, but there's statistics, lies, damn lies, and the $h!t that people wipe off their asses.
First, my apologies for replying to your comments out of order, but one comment is particularly germaine:
Is there more than one type of sexual offense?
Absolutely, this is why the sex offender registries are so pointless. I am the father of a six-year-old girl. About a year ago, I checked out the registry information. Because the registry contained no context (e.g., did the offender have consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, molest his son, prey on strangers), I learned nothing from it*. Is the risk to my family zero? Certainly not. Am I going to worry about who is (or is not) on the list? Nope. Without specifics, I cannot distinguish any difference between the risk of a particular re-offense and background risk from first-offenders.
These statistics are pretty close to meaningless in this context.
The context in which I presented these statistics was in response to a comment that stated the recidivism rate is "incredibly high." In this context, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is certainly meaningful. I also included the recidivism rates for two crimes because a) these numbers were readily available and b) they help to determine whether or not 5.3% is "incredibly high."
It occurs to me that the ones that the fact that there isn't a lot of repeat crimes for rapists and murderers is because most of them aren't released.
I respectfullly disagree that most offenders receive life sentences without parole, or are put to death. However, let's assume that it were true. The recidivism rate is computed by taking the number of people who, after their release, are found guilty of another crime within a certain time period (3 years for these data, IIRC) and dividing by the number of people released from prison. So, even if most offenders are never released, all this does is drive down the total size of the population. The variance will increase, but the recidivism rate can still be calculated.
*Actually, I learned that nearly all sex offenders are grainy. Given this strong correlation, I think we should monitor all persons who appear grainy. We can just install cameras at convenience stores and then plant tracking devices on anyone for whom the corresponding photo is grainy.
Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.
To me, these statistics do not indicate an "incredibly high" recidivism rate. Sure, sex offenders are more likely than non-sex offenders to commit a sex offense, but if 2.5% recidivism is high enough to justify lifetime tracking, then 1.2% (for murder!) is as well.
In regards to the "free house upgrade," be sure you read the fine print. On line 4 of form 5695, you multiply expenses related to "qualified energy efficiency improvements" (line 3) by 10%. As soon as I heard about the credit (in the newspaper), I ran out and made "free" upgrades. It was quite a surprise to learn that free really means 10% off.
A more reputable source (namely the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) confirms this: "charged with a felony count of threatening to use weapons of mass destruction and misdemeanor counts of making false alarms."
Oh and for the record my cell phone did change on it's own on time.
So did mine... 2 weeks after the new and improved DST. In fact, math would be much easier if pi were to equal 3. Why don't we just frak around with other constants. While we're at it, e is pretty close to 3.
In short, why should I have to reset my alarm so that you can stay up an extra hour. When you go to bed is your business, not mine. Let's keep the Congress out of it!
Ooh, can we also skip Winter to save on heating bills? While we're at it, can we skip time all together. I'm pretty sure that if we did I'd never have to pay a parking ticket again!
Ah, you've identified the crux of the issue. The more we frak with the clock, the more money we waste on useless programming. But these $$$ count as GDP even though not we haven't seen a penny of economic benefit. Enjoy your paycheck for spinning your wheels. Some of us expect to see a benefit from our labors.
"You want more light? YOU get up earlier. Leave my clock alone; I'll be a lot more productive that way."
No thanks, I prefer coming home before sunset.
That's exactly GP's point. If you want to get home before sunset, then you should get up an hour earlier and head home from work an hour earlier. If your boss doesn't like this, then take it up with her. Leave the rest of us out of the equation. Lying about what time it is benefits nobody.
Your observation (x10 density in 5 years) actually matches Moore's law almost perfectly. In 5 years there are 3-1/3 18 month spans. According to my calculator, 2^(3-1/3) is roughly 10.08.
According to the people that put together the Terraserver, Mount Rushmore was one of the most requested images. But (as the above link demonstrates), what do you think you see of Mount Rushmore from above!?!
I don't take a laptop to coffee shops very often, but I did just buy a new desktop (for my wife's NWN II). It turned out that the graphics card wasn't up to the task. Instead of perusing the control panel, I just copied all of the salient info off of the sticker on the front (i.e., the default graphics card, the graphics slot, etc.). A sticker that contains the machine's (default) specifications is a great timesaver. (Now, the useless Intel Inside stickers, I'm not gonna try to defend.)
Pardon my naivete, but given the groupthink on/., I thought lawyers were the scum of the earth, never to be trusted. But, now I hear that I should use a lawyer? Brain hurt (in the immortal words of Earthworm Jim)!
Well, reasoning by analogy is always spotty. Disclaimer aside, consider an alternative verson of the analogy: The button makers owned the intellectual property for one particular class of fastening device (the button). Others were free to invent new fastening devices (e.g., the lace). The button makers enlisted the aid of the government to prevent the evil tailors from copying their intellectual property. Like I said, reasoning by analogy is more an exercise in creativity than logic.
Recidivism rates in sexual offenders are through the roof.
No, they are not: "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders." (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics)
Sex offenders are, however, four times more likely than non-sex offenders to commit another sex crime. Ready for the number? Drum roll, please... 5.3 percent! Through the roof? Pfft.
A more detailed BJS breakdown indicates that people jailed for property crimes are the most likely to reoffend. So, how come the government isn't telling me which of my neighbors I shouldn't loan a cup of flour to?
Line 1 of the abstract: "Two years ago, some of us wrote a paper... 'One Size Fits All (OSFA)' [Sto05a]." Looking at the references indicates that the paper in question is:
Stonebraker and Cetintemel. "One Size Fits All: An Idea Whose Time has Come and Gone." In: ICDE, 2005.
Slashdot Mirror
To the best of my understanding (my company was very happy to again be top 10), they are surveying the people who provide IT support for the rest of the company. So, whereas Google employees (developers, marketers, etc.) on average could be very happy, they could all dump on the IT staff. Not saying this is the case, just indicating that the survey results aren't bogus just because most Microsofties are happy.
From my perspective (including time spent at Microsoft), the IT staff is best when it is invisible; everything just works. At a former job, this meant having people around 24x7. At my current job, we know that most support calls in the early morning or evening won't get handled immediately. (I.e., the IT staff keep largely normal hours.) Based on these experiences, I believe that my company belongs on the list.
No, no, no, it isn't you insensitive clod. People on /. will argue about anything. Even whether or not they will argue about anything. Or nothing...
If by "highest of any crime" you mean lower, then absolutely! From the US Bureau of Justice: "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense --- 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders."
Sorry to stand in the way of an unrighteous rant, but there's statistics, lies, damn lies, and the $h!t that people wipe off their asses.
First, my apologies for replying to your comments out of order, but one comment is particularly germaine:
Absolutely, this is why the sex offender registries are so pointless. I am the father of a six-year-old girl. About a year ago, I checked out the registry information. Because the registry contained no context (e.g., did the offender have consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend, molest his son, prey on strangers), I learned nothing from it*. Is the risk to my family zero? Certainly not. Am I going to worry about who is (or is not) on the list? Nope. Without specifics, I cannot distinguish any difference between the risk of a particular re-offense and background risk from first-offenders.
The context in which I presented these statistics was in response to a comment that stated the recidivism rate is "incredibly high." In this context, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is certainly meaningful. I also included the recidivism rates for two crimes because a) these numbers were readily available and b) they help to determine whether or not 5.3% is "incredibly high."
I respectfullly disagree that most offenders receive life sentences without parole, or are put to death. However, let's assume that it were true. The recidivism rate is computed by taking the number of people who, after their release, are found guilty of another crime within a certain time period (3 years for these data, IIRC) and dividing by the number of people released from prison. So, even if most offenders are never released, all this does is drive down the total size of the population. The variance will increase, but the recidivism rate can still be calculated.
*Actually, I learned that nearly all sex offenders are grainy. Given this strong correlation, I think we should monitor all persons who appear grainy. We can just install cameras at convenience stores and then plant tracking devices on anyone for whom the corresponding photo is grainy.
From the Bureau of Justice:
To me, these statistics do not indicate an "incredibly high" recidivism rate. Sure, sex offenders are more likely than non-sex offenders to commit a sex offense, but if 2.5% recidivism is high enough to justify lifetime tracking, then 1.2% (for murder!) is as well.
We've drifted way off-topic, but what about science?
In regards to the "free house upgrade," be sure you read the fine print. On line 4 of form 5695, you multiply expenses related to "qualified energy efficiency improvements" (line 3) by 10%. As soon as I heard about the credit (in the newspaper), I ran out and made "free" upgrades. It was quite a surprise to learn that free really means 10% off.
My gut reaction was that you still have to file on time. But, I stand corrected and I think you for the information.
A more reputable source (namely the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) confirms this: "charged with a felony count of threatening to use weapons of mass destruction and misdemeanor counts of making false alarms."
Well, at Circuit City, they can't keep up with the demand because they've decided that employees are an indefensible drain on the bottom line.
You are far too generous. When in doubt, assume stupidity.
So did mine ... 2 weeks after the new and improved DST. In fact, math would be much easier if pi were to equal 3. Why don't we just frak around with other constants. While we're at it, e is pretty close to 3.
In short, why should I have to reset my alarm so that you can stay up an extra hour. When you go to bed is your business, not mine. Let's keep the Congress out of it!
Ooh, can we also skip Winter to save on heating bills? While we're at it, can we skip time all together. I'm pretty sure that if we did I'd never have to pay a parking ticket again!
Ah, you've identified the crux of the issue. The more we frak with the clock, the more money we waste on useless programming. But these $$$ count as GDP even though not we haven't seen a penny of economic benefit. Enjoy your paycheck for spinning your wheels. Some of us expect to see a benefit from our labors.
That's exactly GP's point. If you want to get home before sunset, then you should get up an hour earlier and head home from work an hour earlier. If your boss doesn't like this, then take it up with her. Leave the rest of us out of the equation. Lying about what time it is benefits nobody.
Really?!? It's time to kill some kittens. That broad seriously needs to unwind!
Your observation (x10 density in 5 years) actually matches Moore's law almost perfectly. In 5 years there are 3-1/3 18 month spans. According to my calculator, 2^(3-1/3) is roughly 10.08.
Opera is blocked entirely. I even set a site preference to mask as IE and was still denied access. Like I need another excuse not to shop at Wal-mart.
According to the people that put together the Terraserver, Mount Rushmore was one of the most requested images. But (as the above link demonstrates), what do you think you see of Mount Rushmore from above!?!
I don't take a laptop to coffee shops very often, but I did just buy a new desktop (for my wife's NWN II). It turned out that the graphics card wasn't up to the task. Instead of perusing the control panel, I just copied all of the salient info off of the sticker on the front (i.e., the default graphics card, the graphics slot, etc.). A sticker that contains the machine's (default) specifications is a great timesaver. (Now, the useless Intel Inside stickers, I'm not gonna try to defend.)
Pardon my naivete, but given the groupthink on /., I thought lawyers were the scum of the earth, never to be trusted. But, now I hear that I should use a lawyer? Brain hurt (in the immortal words of Earthworm Jim)!
Well, reasoning by analogy is always spotty. Disclaimer aside, consider an alternative verson of the analogy: The button makers owned the intellectual property for one particular class of fastening device (the button). Others were free to invent new fastening devices (e.g., the lace). The button makers enlisted the aid of the government to prevent the evil tailors from copying their intellectual property. Like I said, reasoning by analogy is more an exercise in creativity than logic.
For some reason, I thought Age of Wonders was a sequel. I guess it's just a close derivative.
No, they are not: "Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders." (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics)
Sex offenders are, however, four times more likely than non-sex offenders to commit another sex crime. Ready for the number? Drum roll, please ... 5.3 percent! Through the roof? Pfft.
A more detailed BJS breakdown indicates that people jailed for property crimes are the most likely to reoffend. So, how come the government isn't telling me which of my neighbors I shouldn't loan a cup of flour to?
Line 1 of the abstract: "Two years ago, some of us wrote a paper ... 'One Size Fits All (OSFA)' [Sto05a]." Looking at the references indicates that the paper in question is:
Stonebraker and Cetintemel. "One Size Fits All: An Idea Whose Time has Come and Gone." In: ICDE, 2005.