BTW, thanks for the "Latent Semantic Analysis" reference, I'll store it carefully... just in case the humanity decides it needs to become more stupid in an automated way.
Latent semantic analysis has uses far beyond just grading papers. It really is one of the most interesting techniques that we have to assign "meaning" to words. And just like a human being, after being trained sufficiently, it starts getting more information about words by where they are NOT used, than by where they are used.
Apple used (uses?) it in the spam filter for Mail.app. Meaning it was able to identify spam that used words similarly, and similar words to previously identified spam... it also makes searching for prior art in patent applications much easier, as well as an enormous number of other interesting uses that would not qualify as "making humanity stupider".
Uh.. a reference paper? So.. the system you mentioned can't be used without a reference paper? Awesome.. way to kill English class for even the students who like English class. Since all paper assignments will be quite narrow, since that will be what the reference paper covers..
I should say "reference papers", with the plural. You can train it to be generalized, or you can train to be specialized. But the program was designed less so for an English course, where a professor is going to want to read the paper themselves, because they're grading far more than just content, and more so for other fields of study, where they avoid essays because they're a pain in the butt to grade*.
*: not actually saying that they are objectively... just Americans tend to be lazy, and so relatively, why give an essay than a bubble sheet multiple choice test?
This is one area where automatic grading will cause massive skill decrease, as no auto-grader can actually assess contents.
There was a guy who was doing Latent Semantic Analysis on papers in order to grade them. The program would parse out the collection of words and assign a form of "meaning" to the words, and see if those "meanings" matched up with the reference "meanings" from another paper. This would show that the writer actually understood the terms correct, and used the appropriately in relation to the other words.
They did attempt to cheat the system and actually found that if one were extremely well versed on the topic of the essay, one could write gibberish that the grader would give good grades to. However, the level of knowledge of the subject necessary to cheat turned out to be greater than the knowledge of the subject necessary to write a good essay... so they suggested that the easiest way to cheat the system was to "know the subject, and write a good essay".
How about it? Do the British (and even Australians) have any similar fascination with hearing American accents?
I can't speak for the British, but I do speak German fluently, and when I was in Germany studying German, the single most jarring accent in German was English.
We had a new guy come into our class super late, and the moment he started speaking, I was like, "This guy is from America. Probably the North West." Sure enough he was. His accent was grating and biting.
I'm actually quite proud that my German accent doesn't sound anything like an American accent (except for a few random words, like "amerikanisch" which I cannot seem to help but pronounce as "uhmerikanisch")...
(Who said "universal average of the English language is the "Mid-West" accent" anyway? Is that in TFA or something? If ever a citation was needed it was with that bizarre statement!)
General American/Standard American English. This is the accent that most anchors attempt to emulate as it is generally regarded as the most easily accessible accent. The article has a nice depiction of where the local accent is closest to SAE... you'll notice its location in the Midwest.
Now, for (unnecessary?) qualifications: I'm not saying that SAE is the "universal average of the English language". It's just widely adopted as the most clear and articulate way to speak by the media industry. And this does not mean that it objectively _IS_ the most clear and articulate way to speak, just that the American media considers and uses it as such.
But British accents have undergone enormous amounts of mutation as well. In some ways, they have made more changes than American English since Victorian times.
So, while Americans associate a British accent with what should be appropriate for medieval times, because they're living where the language was spoken during medieval times, the accent being used is still anachronistic, and just as inappropriate as a Jersey accent.
But then from your argument we could not ever declare anything a felonious act, not even 1st degree murder...
No, not really. "First degree murder" is already defined by the circumstances of the crime. It's the context of the act that distinguishes first degree murder from second degree murder or manslaughter. Ending another person's life can even be considered to not be a crime at all, as in military conflict or self defense.
... exactly. And since you can come up with a plausible exception (self defense) you can't universally apply 1st degree murder as a felony, because... ok, I mean, intentionally killing someone. If the question is "should intentionally killing a person be a felony?" the blunt answer is yes. Taking into account all exceptional cases it becomes a "it depends".
In the same way, you were applying exceptional cases for the case of simple robbery. If you allow for exceptional cases, then no action can be declared that it should be felonious.
My overall point still stands: there could be a doubt whether it's a felonious act. It depends on the context in which the act was committed.
But then from your argument we could not ever declare anything a felonious act, not even 1st degree murder...
Of course delving into specifics will produce exceptional cases, but a felonious act is one that is a felony in the "standard" or "unexceptional" case.
I was all prepared to note that most of what people call grammatical errors are not actually errors in grammar, but of style or register... then you have to go and break out examples of actual grammatical errors...
As it turns out, Brand is being charged with "simple criminal damage to property". Which fits with my assertion, namely, the reason that the police didn't charge him with robbery ("simple robbery" apparently being the appropriate charge) is because he didn't actually take anything. And once again, "taken" doesn't just merely mean grabbed out of one's hands and thrown away.
First charges made are always "exaggerated". They're basically the most far reaching that they can possibly go for, and then they reign them in as more details emerge, and they have a better idea of what to charge the person with. This is because lessening charges is significantly easier than raising charges.
A good analysis appears to be available on lacriminaldefensepartners.com, explaining a legal theory for robbery, but also the reality of what the prosecutors would probably do. I can't seem to find any better details about Brand's criminal action...
However, it appears that Chris Brown snatched a phone out of a fan's hands and drove off with it, suggesting fully all the intent and conditions of robbery, for simply snatching a phone out of someone's hands.
No one is debating whether the crime is felony under current law
Yes... they are.
Instead, when discussing law, it is useful to discuss whether it is just
We are in disagreement here.
For example, is it fair that a man be marked a felon and deported for throwing a phone out of a window?
As, I already stated is the case: "it depends". What if the phone were from the future and it contained all the information necessary to stop the next Hitler? Then, HELL FUCKING YEAH it's fair.
As always, morality is an application of ideals upon specific information, and at all times, some new information coming to light can change the moral validation of any argument.
That is what is happening here. By dismissing the actual topic you come off as rather clueless by essentially arguing legal codes are equivalent to justice.
Moral beliefs have no effect upon the world unless they are brought into practical application. If the laws fail to apply justice, then legal codes should be changed. But without understanding the legal codes, one cannot actually know if they are unjust or not, because then one is just arguing against strawmen.
What fucking report did you read? Of course something was taken. The iPhone was taken out of the paparazzo's hands. That's "taken".
The aggressor here didn't maintain possession of the phone (but rather tossed it through a window) which strikes me as a key requirement for robbery to occur.
And under Common Law, it is. However, Louisiana is not governed by Common Law. It is predominantly a Civil Law system.
Nor did he demonstrate intent to take anything of value (say like having an accomplice outside the window take the phone).
The word "take" here is not "steal", it is not "take with intent to permanently deprive". It is "taken from another person's possession", which snatching something out of another person's hands most certainly is.
The victim could immediately retrieve their property, though it might be broken or otherwise damaged. That's why I suggested assault and vandalism as suitable charges.
That is irrelevant to the charge of robbery in the Louisiana Revised Statutes.
If grabbing someone's phone and throwing it on the ground is "robbery", then reorienting the computer screen at a library is also robbery since you snatched the screen and dropped it a quarter inch closer.
Only if the situation described is also described by "Simple robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, but not armed with a dangerous weapon."
Would you happen to know of Kohlberg's stages of moral development? You're operating at about a level 4, while the actual discussion is happening at a 6.
I don't give a shit about the moral arguments behind this matter. What is at argument here is if snatching a person's iPhone and tossing it away is a felony under Louisiana state law.
If you can find some way to argue law outside of appeals to authority, since you know... law is established and maintained by authorities... then go ahead.
SHOULD snatching this guy's phone and tossing it be a felony? As the title of the article proposes? Meh, the argument is of little interest to me, because I know what the answer is: "it depends". But the legal argument can at least be settled, and people are arguing that robbery is not the proper crime to be charging Brand with... when it clearly by law is.
It seems absolutely retarded to admit in open court to committing any crime, unless it is the only way to prove your innocence of a greater crime.
Arguing that you could have committed another crime to raise reasonable doubt is of course possible, but the key there is the hypothetical.
Arguing that the facts of the crime do not fit the charges filed? You would present a motion to the judge that even if the prosecution's arguments were to be accepted in full, then they would not fit the crime being charged. Note again, no admission of the commission of any crime, but rather you're arguing that the prosecution is arguing inconsistent with the facts in their own case. Namely, "even if everything the prosecutors say is taken as gospel truth, then my client would still be innocent of the charges brought."
And in the state of Louisiana, there is no requirement that the robbery be done with intent to permanently deprive the other party of their goods. Now, I hear you say, "but Common Law establishes what robbery is, and you can't just throw the establishment of the crime in Common Law out of the window!" MOST CERTAINLY YOU CAN! In Civil Law jurisdictions, Common Law standards are inapplicable, and guess what? Louisiana operates predominantly under a Civil Law system.
This is not a case where deadly force should be used, but for those claiming it is vandalism rather than theft : Texas law permits deadly force for malicious vandalism at night. Ya'll be careful now.
I've heard that in Texas you can legally shoot someone who is attempting to repo your car at night as well, so long as you had good faith to believe it were a theft, rather than a repo.
Robbery requires theft, which requires intent to deprive an individual of property. This was not robbery. Is possible it was criminal damage, but it strikes me that it should be a civil suit.
You're talking Common Law... Louisiana is the one state of the US that follows more or less Civil Law.
A. Simple robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, but not armed with a dangerous weapon.
B. Whoever commits the crime of simple robbery shall be fined not more than three thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than seven years, or both.
If a mentally ill person did it suddenly for no apparent reason, then I might question the need to charge him, and whether some action might make more sense.
If a person lacks the capacity to understand right from wrong, then they can't be held reasonable for their actions the same way that other people can.
These exceptions are not novel, or interesting. They're boring and well established law.
If, however, the owner of the egg snuck up on someone and started aggressively jamming the egg in the guy's face, I wouldn't think the person being accosted was guilty of anything if he grabbed the edge and threw it away.
So long as no intentional contact, or threatened force is made, there's no permission for a person to respond with force. It is also well established that public figures have a diminished right to privacy by being a public figure. So, what might be legal for your or I to do, might not always be legal for a celebrity to do.
No, it's not. It's all about context. If I walked up to you in the street and said "hey, if you can snatch this dollar out of my hand you can have it" and you do, can I then have you arrested for robbery?
No, because you're consenting to the act. Just like boxers cannot be arrested for battery during their fight. They have consented to combat.
Goo luck trying to convince a judge/jury that there is a difference from grabbing something form someone's hand and throwing it out the window, vs. taking it off a table and throwing it vs. intentionally causing you to drop it out of a window. And of those could be considered willful destruction, but not necessarily theft/robbery.
The jury doesn't decide what crimes a person is tried for. The prosecuting attorney presents the charges as robbery, and explains what robbery is legally defined to be to the grand jury. They then indict. After that point, the defense cannot argue that the facts of the case fit another crime, but not the crime that the person has been charged with. Besides which, that would be the stupidest defense in the world...
The defense would argue that the person's actions don't constitute robbery. But since snatching something out of another person's hands (without their consent) is technically robbery, good luck on that.
Too many site owners are worried about SEO strategies rather than producing good content.
It took me getting half way through the article to realize that they were talking about SEARCH ENGINE optimization. I was like, "why would they want to down rank pages that load quickly and efficiently?"
It's like when someone says that they're an awesome programmer, and can do magic, when all they do is write HTML, and CSS. No, you don't program just because you can write in a formatting markup language.
And you'll go to jail for escalating force well beyond what is reasonable...
Unless you can show that you had an actual fear that it were a weapon endangering your life, and you had no duty to retreat. (Some states hold that if you are in public, you have a duty to attempt to run away before you attempt lethal force. In a few states, this duty even applies inside your own home.)
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, thanks for the "Latent Semantic Analysis" reference, I'll store it carefully... just in case the humanity decides it needs to become more stupid in an automated way.
Latent semantic analysis has uses far beyond just grading papers. It really is one of the most interesting techniques that we have to assign "meaning" to words. And just like a human being, after being trained sufficiently, it starts getting more information about words by where they are NOT used, than by where they are used.
Apple used (uses?) it in the spam filter for Mail.app. Meaning it was able to identify spam that used words similarly, and similar words to previously identified spam... it also makes searching for prior art in patent applications much easier, as well as an enormous number of other interesting uses that would not qualify as "making humanity stupider".
Uh.. a reference paper? So.. the system you mentioned can't be used without a reference paper? Awesome.. way to kill English class for even the students who like English class. Since all paper assignments will be quite narrow, since that will be what the reference paper covers ..
I should say "reference papers", with the plural. You can train it to be generalized, or you can train to be specialized. But the program was designed less so for an English course, where a professor is going to want to read the paper themselves, because they're grading far more than just content, and more so for other fields of study, where they avoid essays because they're a pain in the butt to grade*.
*: not actually saying that they are objectively... just Americans tend to be lazy, and so relatively, why give an essay than a bubble sheet multiple choice test?
This is one area where automatic grading will cause massive skill decrease, as no auto-grader can actually assess contents.
There was a guy who was doing Latent Semantic Analysis on papers in order to grade them. The program would parse out the collection of words and assign a form of "meaning" to the words, and see if those "meanings" matched up with the reference "meanings" from another paper. This would show that the writer actually understood the terms correct, and used the appropriately in relation to the other words.
They did attempt to cheat the system and actually found that if one were extremely well versed on the topic of the essay, one could write gibberish that the grader would give good grades to. However, the level of knowledge of the subject necessary to cheat turned out to be greater than the knowledge of the subject necessary to write a good essay... so they suggested that the easiest way to cheat the system was to "know the subject, and write a good essay".
How about it? Do the British (and even Australians) have any similar fascination with hearing American accents?
I can't speak for the British, but I do speak German fluently, and when I was in Germany studying German, the single most jarring accent in German was English.
We had a new guy come into our class super late, and the moment he started speaking, I was like, "This guy is from America. Probably the North West." Sure enough he was. His accent was grating and biting.
I'm actually quite proud that my German accent doesn't sound anything like an American accent (except for a few random words, like "amerikanisch" which I cannot seem to help but pronounce as "uhmerikanisch")...
(Who said "universal average of the English language is the "Mid-West" accent" anyway? Is that in TFA or something? If ever a citation was needed it was with that bizarre statement!)
General American/Standard American English. This is the accent that most anchors attempt to emulate as it is generally regarded as the most easily accessible accent. The article has a nice depiction of where the local accent is closest to SAE... you'll notice its location in the Midwest.
Now, for (unnecessary?) qualifications: I'm not saying that SAE is the "universal average of the English language". It's just widely adopted as the most clear and articulate way to speak by the media industry. And this does not mean that it objectively _IS_ the most clear and articulate way to speak, just that the American media considers and uses it as such.
But British accents have undergone enormous amounts of mutation as well. In some ways, they have made more changes than American English since Victorian times.
So, while Americans associate a British accent with what should be appropriate for medieval times, because they're living where the language was spoken during medieval times, the accent being used is still anachronistic, and just as inappropriate as a Jersey accent.
No, he said "obese gun fanatics", not "obese-gun fanatics"...
So it has come to this.
Obligatory XKCD
But then from your argument we could not ever declare anything a felonious act, not even 1st degree murder...
No, not really. "First degree murder" is already defined by the circumstances of the crime. It's the context of the act that distinguishes first degree murder from second degree murder or manslaughter. Ending another person's life can even be considered to not be a crime at all, as in military conflict or self defense.
... exactly. And since you can come up with a plausible exception (self defense) you can't universally apply 1st degree murder as a felony, because... ok, I mean, intentionally killing someone. If the question is "should intentionally killing a person be a felony?" the blunt answer is yes. Taking into account all exceptional cases it becomes a "it depends".
In the same way, you were applying exceptional cases for the case of simple robbery. If you allow for exceptional cases, then no action can be declared that it should be felonious.
My overall point still stands: there could be a doubt whether it's a felonious act. It depends on the context in which the act was committed.
But then from your argument we could not ever declare anything a felonious act, not even 1st degree murder...
Of course delving into specifics will produce exceptional cases, but a felonious act is one that is a felony in the "standard" or "unexceptional" case.
I was all prepared to note that most of what people call grammatical errors are not actually errors in grammar, but of style or register... then you have to go and break out examples of actual grammatical errors...
As it turns out, Brand is being charged with "simple criminal damage to property". Which fits with my assertion, namely, the reason that the police didn't charge him with robbery ("simple robbery" apparently being the appropriate charge) is because he didn't actually take anything. And once again, "taken" doesn't just merely mean grabbed out of one's hands and thrown away.
First charges made are always "exaggerated". They're basically the most far reaching that they can possibly go for, and then they reign them in as more details emerge, and they have a better idea of what to charge the person with. This is because lessening charges is significantly easier than raising charges.
A good analysis appears to be available on lacriminaldefensepartners.com, explaining a legal theory for robbery, but also the reality of what the prosecutors would probably do. I can't seem to find any better details about Brand's criminal action...
However, it appears that Chris Brown snatched a phone out of a fan's hands and drove off with it, suggesting fully all the intent and conditions of robbery, for simply snatching a phone out of someone's hands.
No one is debating whether the crime is felony under current law
Yes... they are.
Instead, when discussing law, it is useful to discuss whether it is just
We are in disagreement here.
For example, is it fair that a man be marked a felon and deported for throwing a phone out of a window?
As, I already stated is the case: "it depends". What if the phone were from the future and it contained all the information necessary to stop the next Hitler? Then, HELL FUCKING YEAH it's fair.
As always, morality is an application of ideals upon specific information, and at all times, some new information coming to light can change the moral validation of any argument.
That is what is happening here. By dismissing the actual topic you come off as rather clueless by essentially arguing legal codes are equivalent to justice.
Moral beliefs have no effect upon the world unless they are brought into practical application. If the laws fail to apply justice, then legal codes should be changed. But without understanding the legal codes, one cannot actually know if they are unjust or not, because then one is just arguing against strawmen.
Was something taken?
What fucking report did you read? Of course something was taken. The iPhone was taken out of the paparazzo's hands. That's "taken".
The aggressor here didn't maintain possession of the phone (but rather tossed it through a window) which strikes me as a key requirement for robbery to occur.
And under Common Law, it is. However, Louisiana is not governed by Common Law. It is predominantly a Civil Law system.
Nor did he demonstrate intent to take anything of value (say like having an accomplice outside the window take the phone).
The word "take" here is not "steal", it is not "take with intent to permanently deprive". It is "taken from another person's possession", which snatching something out of another person's hands most certainly is.
The victim could immediately retrieve their property, though it might be broken or otherwise damaged. That's why I suggested assault and vandalism as suitable charges.
That is irrelevant to the charge of robbery in the Louisiana Revised Statutes.
If grabbing someone's phone and throwing it on the ground is "robbery", then reorienting the computer screen at a library is also robbery since you snatched the screen and dropped it a quarter inch closer.
Only if the situation described is also described by "Simple robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, but not armed with a dangerous weapon."
Would you happen to know of Kohlberg's stages of moral development? You're operating at about a level 4, while the actual discussion is happening at a 6.
I don't give a shit about the moral arguments behind this matter. What is at argument here is if snatching a person's iPhone and tossing it away is a felony under Louisiana state law.
If you can find some way to argue law outside of appeals to authority, since you know... law is established and maintained by authorities... then go ahead.
SHOULD snatching this guy's phone and tossing it be a felony? As the title of the article proposes? Meh, the argument is of little interest to me, because I know what the answer is: "it depends". But the legal argument can at least be settled, and people are arguing that robbery is not the proper crime to be charging Brand with... when it clearly by law is.
The absolutely can (and do) argue that.
It seems absolutely retarded to admit in open court to committing any crime, unless it is the only way to prove your innocence of a greater crime.
Arguing that you could have committed another crime to raise reasonable doubt is of course possible, but the key there is the hypothetical.
Arguing that the facts of the crime do not fit the charges filed? You would present a motion to the judge that even if the prosecution's arguments were to be accepted in full, then they would not fit the crime being charged. Note again, no admission of the commission of any crime, but rather you're arguing that the prosecution is arguing inconsistent with the facts in their own case. Namely, "even if everything the prosecutors say is taken as gospel truth, then my client would still be innocent of the charges brought."
And in the state of Louisiana, there is no requirement that the robbery be done with intent to permanently deprive the other party of their goods. Now, I hear you say, "but Common Law establishes what robbery is, and you can't just throw the establishment of the crime in Common Law out of the window!" MOST CERTAINLY YOU CAN! In Civil Law jurisdictions, Common Law standards are inapplicable, and guess what? Louisiana operates predominantly under a Civil Law system.
This is not a case where deadly force should be used, but for those claiming it is vandalism rather than theft : Texas law permits deadly force for malicious vandalism at night. Ya'll be careful now.
I've heard that in Texas you can legally shoot someone who is attempting to repo your car at night as well, so long as you had good faith to believe it were a theft, rather than a repo.
Except snatching something is robbery.
Is it?
Yes, it is.
Robbery requires theft, which requires intent to deprive an individual of property. This was not robbery. Is possible it was criminal damage, but it strikes me that it should be a civil suit.
You're talking Common Law... Louisiana is the one state of the US that follows more or less Civil Law.
65. Simple robbery
A. Simple robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, but not armed with a dangerous weapon.
B. Whoever commits the crime of simple robbery shall be fined not more than three thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than seven years, or both.
Acts 1983, No. 70, 1.
If a mentally ill person did it suddenly for no apparent reason, then I might question the need to charge him, and whether some action might make more sense.
If a person lacks the capacity to understand right from wrong, then they can't be held reasonable for their actions the same way that other people can.
These exceptions are not novel, or interesting. They're boring and well established law.
If, however, the owner of the egg snuck up on someone and started aggressively jamming the egg in the guy's face, I wouldn't think the person being accosted was guilty of anything if he grabbed the edge and threw it away.
So long as no intentional contact, or threatened force is made, there's no permission for a person to respond with force. It is also well established that public figures have a diminished right to privacy by being a public figure. So, what might be legal for your or I to do, might not always be legal for a celebrity to do.
No, it's not. It's all about context. If I walked up to you in the street and said "hey, if you can snatch this dollar out of my hand you can have it" and you do, can I then have you arrested for robbery?
No, because you're consenting to the act. Just like boxers cannot be arrested for battery during their fight. They have consented to combat.
Goo luck trying to convince a judge/jury that there is a difference from grabbing something form someone's hand and throwing it out the window, vs. taking it off a table and throwing it vs. intentionally causing you to drop it out of a window. And of those could be considered willful destruction, but not necessarily theft/robbery.
The jury doesn't decide what crimes a person is tried for. The prosecuting attorney presents the charges as robbery, and explains what robbery is legally defined to be to the grand jury. They then indict. After that point, the defense cannot argue that the facts of the case fit another crime, but not the crime that the person has been charged with. Besides which, that would be the stupidest defense in the world...
The defense would argue that the person's actions don't constitute robbery. But since snatching something out of another person's hands (without their consent) is technically robbery, good luck on that.
Something is wrong when it's that easy to break into apartments/houses.
He was the landlord. And honestly, apartments/houses are always quite easy to break into.
Too many site owners are worried about SEO strategies rather than producing good content.
It took me getting half way through the article to realize that they were talking about SEARCH ENGINE optimization. I was like, "why would they want to down rank pages that load quickly and efficiently?"
It's like when someone says that they're an awesome programmer, and can do magic, when all they do is write HTML, and CSS. No, you don't program just because you can write in a formatting markup language.
you'll get shot
And you'll go to jail for escalating force well beyond what is reasonable...
Unless you can show that you had an actual fear that it were a weapon endangering your life, and you had no duty to retreat. (Some states hold that if you are in public, you have a duty to attempt to run away before you attempt lethal force. In a few states, this duty even applies inside your own home.)