An alternative explanation is that Putin has an extreme majority in certain districts, and these supporters also happen to be very enthusiastic and turn out to vote. I'm not saying it's true or likely, but it's still an explanation. In my opinion, there probably was ballot stuffing, but this data doesn't convince me.
What I would like to see is a comparison of actual voting results by district vs. anonymous non-biased polling numbers from before the election. Unfortunately, I doubt such numbers exist.
Can someone give a better explanation? I'm taking actuarial mathematics and multiple regression courses, and even I have no clue what the guy is talking about.
I agree with your thesis that there is usually an equivalent program available for a given OS. However, you're forgetting about high-profile games that are specific to Windows. It's difficult, if not impossible, to find an equivalent version for some OSs.
Yeah it's a strong statement and it's coming from a diehard Liberal supporter. I'm going to vote Liberal and I'm going to try hard to get them elected, but I still think they're going to lose. Their leadership isn't strong enough, their reputation is still hurt from the scandals, and the Conservatives haven't really done anything "wrong" in the eyes of everyday Canadians. Plus, I think the Conservatives are better strategists and campaigners, even if I disagree with all their policies.
To quote the erudite "Yes, Prime Minister"
Director: Isn't it better to wait until the figure is published? If I try to lobby him now, he won't say anything.
Humphrey: But you want him to DO something.
Director: But if I wait...
Humphrey: Then the figure will be published. Everyone will be committed to it and they'll have to stick with it to save face. To change government decisions, do it before anybody knows they're being made.
I don't know who you are Anonymouse Coward, or whether you know anything about Canadian politics, but I think you're dead wrong here.
This isn't garbage legislation, the kind of legislation that will never pass but is introduced to make their voting base happy. This legislation is important to the rich CRIA lobbyists and the Conservatives want to reward them for their support. The Conservatives mentioned these new laws in their Throne Speech, so it's definately important to them.
The Conservatives would never introduce something if they thought it was going to fail, simply because they couldn't stand the loss of face. Furthermore, it won't fail, since the Liberals aren't going to fight over an issue that won't garner them much votes. If the Liberals do fight, the Conservatives will make the bill another confidence motion and force an election, which the Liberals will lose.
Jim Hacker: Prime Minister Sir Humphrey: Cabinet Secretary ---
Sir Humphrey: "With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe." Jim Hacker: "I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe." Sir Humphrey: "It's a deterrent." Jim Hacker: "It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it." Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't." Jim Hacker: "They probably do." Sir Humphrey: "Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know." Jim Hacker: "They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't." Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would."
Many common law countries have a mechanism for the losing party to pay full legal costs. It's called "costs as between solicitor and client".
Reference: Smith, Murray. "Costs of international commercial arbitration." Dispute Resolution Journal, Feb-Apr 2001.
In the United States, there is no concept of party and party costs as distinguished from solicitor and client costs....
In many common law countries, authority to order costs in court cases is confined to a tariff of costs absent exceptional circumstances. In litigation cases, an increase in costs is often tied to misconduct of a party. Where fraud or corruption has been alleged but not proven, an award of solicitor and client costs is common. In litigation, the usual order is for party and party costs as fixed by a tariff or scale in rules of court or in a statute. Solicitor and client costs, on the other hand, are intended to indemnify the party for reasonable legal costs incurred.
In British Columbia, a successful litigant will recover party and party costs which generally represent an indemnity of between 30% and 50% of actual fees expended. The courts will now award increased costs of approximately 50% of actual costs where there is a significant discrepancy between party and party costs and actual costs and an even higher percentage where there is misconduct.
It is still only for cases involving serious misconduct that the courts will grant solicitor and client costs, i.e., a full indemnity for actual and reasonable legal costs incurred.
In England, an award of costs in litigation is intended to more fully indemnify the successful party and approaches 70% to 80% of actual legal fees expended. The fees of the barrister may be claimed as a disbursement in the solicitor's account for legal costs, thus generating a higher rate of recovery than in Canada where counsel fees are caught by a tariff."
Well that survey shows ATI sold about 200 extra cards. For the sake of the argument, lets say they get $100 in profit off each card. That's a profit of only $200,000. That barely pays for the yearly salaries of a couple of engineers.
Of course, there could be any number of problems with this brief analysis. For example, the steam hardware survey may not be representative of all gamers. Even so, this is at least some evidence that multi-gpu's aren't the new sliced bread.
Well, Google isn't just a search engine anymore. Yes it's their core business, but they're definately branching out into other areas. It is perhaps arguable that they're developing into a monopoly for online advertising.
Oh uh, the RIAA is not going to be happy with this report and I expect some sort of counterattack in the near future. Look out for some of the following tricks as described by my favorite show 'Yes Minister".
'There is a well-established government procedure for suppressing -- that is, not publishing -- unwanted reports.'
Stage one: The public interest 1) You hint at security considerations. 2) You point out that the report could be used to put unwelcome pressure on government because it might be misinterpreted. [Of course, anything might be misinterpreted.] 3) You then say that it is better to wait for the results of a wider and more detailed survey over a longer time-scale. 4) If there is no such survey being carried out, so much the better. You commission one, which gives you even more time to play with.
Stage two: Discredit the evidence that you are not publishing This is, of course, much easier than discrediting evidence that you do publish. You do it indirectly, by press leaks. You say: (a) that it leaves important questions unanswered (b) that much of the evidence is inconclusive (c) that the figures are open to other interpretations (d) that certain findings are contradictory (e) that some of the main conclusions have been questioned. Points (a) to (d) are bound to be true. In fact, all of these criticisms can be made of a report without even reading it. There are, for instance, always some questions unanswered -- such as the ones they haven't asked. As regards (e), if some of the main conclusions have not been questioned, question them! Then they have.
Stage three: Undermine the recommendations This is easily done, with an assortment of government phrases: (a) 'not really a basis for long-term decisions...' (b) 'not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment...' (c) 'no reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy...' (d) 'broadly speaking, it endorses current practice...' These phrases give comfort to people who have not read the report and who don't want change -- i.e. almost everybody.
Stage four: If stage three still leaves doubts, then Discredit The Man Who Produced the Report This must be done OFF THE RECORD. You explain that: (a) he is harbouring a grudge against the government (b) he is a publicity seeker (c) he's trying to get his knighthood (d) he is trying to get his chair (e) he is trying to get his Vice-Chancellorship (f) he used to be a consultant to a multinational company or (g) he wants to be a consultant to a multinational company.
I'll just refer you the wikipedia article on case law. I know it's not the best reference, but it's good enough.
Case law... is that body of reported judicial opinions in countries that have common law legal systems that are published and thereby become precedent.
Case law is judge-made law that interprets prior case law, statutes and other legal authority -- including doctrinal writings by legal scholars such as the Corpus Juris Secundum, Halsbury's Laws of England or the doctrinal writings found in the Recueil Dalloz and law commissions such as the American Law Institute.
I don't know about the rest of your argument, but this court case was in France where they use the Civil Law system. There is no judge-made law and there is no "precedent".
Slashdot Mirror
An alternative explanation is that Putin has an extreme majority in certain districts, and these supporters also happen to be very enthusiastic and turn out to vote. I'm not saying it's true or likely, but it's still an explanation. In my opinion, there probably was ballot stuffing, but this data doesn't convince me.
What I would like to see is a comparison of actual voting results by district vs. anonymous non-biased polling numbers from before the election. Unfortunately, I doubt such numbers exist.
Can someone give a better explanation? I'm taking actuarial mathematics and multiple regression courses, and even I have no clue what the guy is talking about.
Hmmm, yeah it is a quote. I didn't notice that originally. In any case, it's still difficult to read.
The summary could use a touchup. "But you could do extreme programming" is a sentence fragment. Does Slashdot have editors?
Only on Slashdot would a story about "calibration of equipment using saltflats" be tagged as ReallyFuckingCool. :D
I agree with your thesis that there is usually an equivalent program available for a given OS. However, you're forgetting about high-profile games that are specific to Windows. It's difficult, if not impossible, to find an equivalent version for some OSs.
Yeah it's a strong statement and it's coming from a diehard Liberal supporter. I'm going to vote Liberal and I'm going to try hard to get them elected, but I still think they're going to lose. Their leadership isn't strong enough, their reputation is still hurt from the scandals, and the Conservatives haven't really done anything "wrong" in the eyes of everyday Canadians. Plus, I think the Conservatives are better strategists and campaigners, even if I disagree with all their policies.
To quote the erudite "Yes, Prime Minister" Director: Isn't it better to wait until the figure is published? If I try to lobby him now, he won't say anything.
Humphrey: But you want him to DO something.
Director: But if I wait...
Humphrey: Then the figure will be published. Everyone will be committed to it and they'll have to stick with it to save face. To change government decisions, do it before anybody knows they're being made.
I don't know who you are Anonymouse Coward, or whether you know anything about Canadian politics, but I think you're dead wrong here.
This isn't garbage legislation, the kind of legislation that will never pass but is introduced to make their voting base happy. This legislation is important to the rich CRIA lobbyists and the Conservatives want to reward them for their support. The Conservatives mentioned these new laws in their Throne Speech, so it's definately important to them.
The Conservatives would never introduce something if they thought it was going to fail, simply because they couldn't stand the loss of face. Furthermore, it won't fail, since the Liberals aren't going to fight over an issue that won't garner them much votes. If the Liberals do fight, the Conservatives will make the bill another confidence motion and force an election, which the Liberals will lose.
Thank you.
Jim Hacker: Prime Minister
Sir Humphrey: Cabinet Secretary
---
Sir Humphrey: "With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Jim Hacker: "I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe."
Sir Humphrey: "It's a deterrent."
Jim Hacker: "It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't."
Jim Hacker: "They probably do."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know."
Jim Hacker: "They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't."
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would."
Reference: Smith, Murray. "Costs of international commercial arbitration." Dispute Resolution Journal, Feb-Apr 2001. In the United States, there is no concept of party and party costs as distinguished from solicitor and client costs.
In many common law countries, authority to order costs in court cases is confined to a tariff of costs absent exceptional circumstances. In litigation cases, an increase in costs is often tied to misconduct of a party. Where fraud or corruption has been alleged but not proven, an award of solicitor and client costs is common. In litigation, the usual order is for party and party costs as fixed by a tariff or scale in rules of court or in a statute. Solicitor and client costs, on the other hand, are intended to indemnify the party for reasonable legal costs incurred.
In British Columbia, a successful litigant will recover party and party costs which generally represent an indemnity of between 30% and 50% of actual fees expended. The courts will now award increased costs of approximately 50% of actual costs where there is a significant discrepancy between party and party costs and actual costs and an even higher percentage where there is misconduct.
It is still only for cases involving serious misconduct that the courts will grant solicitor and client costs, i.e., a full indemnity for actual and reasonable legal costs incurred.
In England, an award of costs in litigation is intended to more fully indemnify the successful party and approaches 70% to 80% of actual legal fees expended. The fees of the barrister may be claimed as a disbursement in the solicitor's account for legal costs, thus generating a higher rate of recovery than in Canada where counsel fees are caught by a tariff."
So according to the stats, only 44.41% got to the last level.
Good thing I'm not responsible for their profit analysis ;)
Well that survey shows ATI sold about 200 extra cards. For the sake of the argument, lets say they get $100 in profit off each card. That's a profit of only $200,000. That barely pays for the yearly salaries of a couple of engineers.
Of course, there could be any number of problems with this brief analysis. For example, the steam hardware survey may not be representative of all gamers. Even so, this is at least some evidence that multi-gpu's aren't the new sliced bread.
Oh, here's the link to that survey.
This seems an odd move by AMD. I thought that multi-gpu systems were a complete failure? Take a look at Valve's recent hardware survey:
Multi-GPU Systems (1073 of 269297 Total Users (0.40% of Total) )
NVIDIA SLI (2 GPUs) 880 82.01 %
ATI Crossfire (2 GPUs) 193 17.99 %
So only 0.4% of Steam's users had a multi-gpu system. Maybe this segment is actually profitable, but it's hard to imagine that with such low numbers.
You win the "sharpest wit of the day" award.
Better to be reliant on Google's cash, than not having any cash at all.
Well, Google isn't just a search engine anymore. Yes it's their core business, but they're definately branching out into other areas. It is perhaps arguable that they're developing into a monopoly for online advertising.
Stage one: The public interest
1) You hint at security considerations. 2) You point out that the report could be used to put unwelcome pressure on government because it might be misinterpreted. [Of course, anything might be misinterpreted.] 3) You then say that it is better to wait for the results of a wider and more detailed survey over a longer time-scale. 4) If there is no such survey being carried out, so much the better. You commission one, which gives you even more time to play with.
Stage two: Discredit the evidence that you are not publishing
This is, of course, much easier than discrediting evidence that you do publish. You do it indirectly, by press leaks. You say: (a) that it leaves important questions unanswered (b) that much of the evidence is inconclusive (c) that the figures are open to other interpretations (d) that certain findings are contradictory (e) that some of the main conclusions have been questioned. Points (a) to (d) are bound to be true. In fact, all of these criticisms can be made of a report without even reading it. There are, for instance, always some questions unanswered -- such as the ones they haven't asked. As regards (e), if some of the main conclusions have not been questioned, question them! Then they have.
Stage three: Undermine the recommendations
This is easily done, with an assortment of government phrases: (a) 'not really a basis for long-term decisions...' (b) 'not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment...' (c) 'no reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy...' (d) 'broadly speaking, it endorses current practice...' These phrases give comfort to people who have not read the report and who don't want change -- i.e. almost everybody.
Stage four: If stage three still leaves doubts, then Discredit The Man Who Produced the Report
This must be done OFF THE RECORD. You explain that: (a) he is harbouring a grudge against the government (b) he is a publicity seeker (c) he's trying to get his knighthood (d) he is trying to get his chair (e) he is trying to get his Vice-Chancellorship (f) he used to be a consultant to a multinational company or (g) he wants to be a consultant to a multinational company.
Reference: (The Complete Yes Minister, pp. 257-9)
I don't know about the rest of your argument, but this court case was in France where they use the Civil Law system. There is no judge-made law and there is no "precedent".
I think you're confusing the rovers with Deep Space 1 and it's Star Tracker.