Same here.
I think the end result of meta-moderation is Groupthink. If you punish moderators that might have a bit of an edge, you end up with moderators that are Group thinking. That will show immediately if you browse at +5.
This is a cheap publicity stunt, nothing more.
And that is a bad thing exactly how?
Mathematics is not dancing with the stars or what not.
Says who? If you don't like it, don't watch it. I say that if this draw even a few bright people towards maths and shows them that this is really interesting stuff, it is a good thing. I do not understand why Mathematicians should appear as some sage-like, ascetic monks.
A 26-year-old Massachusetts man with a physics degree
So, what was his Slashdot handle?
Let's find out. Every one who isn't him, reply here: Not me.
Given that a RC plane controlling law is prepared, I am curious to find who idea the RC plane was. FBI's or guy's own. The risk that government generates crime to justify a legislation is a worrying one. This is one more reason why encouraging some to commit a crime, should be a crime even when done by officials.
slightly off-topic. this msnbc blog entry shows some interesting insight in the dynamics of the group:
a Londoner when asked by a television reporter: Is rioting the correct way to express your discontent?
"Yes," said the young man. "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"
The TV reporter from Britain's ITV had no response.
That is because the reporter was not up to the work he was doing. He should asked the guy what he would like to say now that he has a possibility to speak. He would have produced a gush of drivel of leftist platitudes. They usually do and with the general idea that they are victims of "state" and "society" while they are completely ignorant about their own conduct that adds to their state of being bored.
And bored they are as they do not really have material poverty: They know not hunger, not cold from winter. That is what this is all about: This is about nihilistic, bored, self-centered people doing something. People who do not have a slightest interest in anything sensible. If they would, they would appreciate other people's life's work (like a small business shop) and would refrain from burning it down.
God, I fucking hate when people are being complete dicks and these lefties treat them like some fucking victims.
As an European (from Finland), this is mainly a spectacle of American justice system. Here are some random thoughts based on this news.
In here I constantly hear that "American justice system is corrupted, owned by politicians and big money... Blah blah blah." Now we have an example to observe. It seems to me that the judge is this case is not willing to cave in for anything. The junge is strict, has huge balls, and it appears that the best thing he can do for his career, is to make just decision.
I also bet that he is going to deliver his decision in plain language that is readable even to lay persons. This, and the fact that the case is public, will guarantee that if anything will go wrong, you will hear about it. This is quite a good guarantee that there won't be any funny business.
Nothing is perfect and there is a possibility that the decision is rotten. If this is the case, as I mentioned, the hell break loose. Unfortunately, the public ripping of judgements has one unintended consequence: Europeans will hear about it and somehow conclude that because the system is criticized, it must be worse than their own system that receives no such critique. If any, the opposite is true.
You are correct. All the blathering about 'control' and stuff are borderline conspiracy theories. The study is being suppressed because MPAA/RIAA and movie studios, believe or not, are different entities. This requires just basic understanding of bureaucracy. MPAA/RIAA do not want to release the study. They are afraid that movie studios and record labels execs would read it; afraid that they conclude that MPAA/RIAA are a waste of time and good money.
Believe me, this report is read with great interest in head quarters of each and every movie studio.
And understands the difference between causation and correlation:
The State's evidence is not compelling. California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them,6 and with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively (which would at least be a beginning). Instead, "[n]early all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology." [] They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and minuscule real-world effects, such as children's feeling more aggressive or making louder noises in the few minutes after playing a violent game than after playing a nonviolent game.7
The footnote 7 in question in hilarious:
One study, for example, found that children who had just finished playing violent video games were more likely to fill in the blank letter in “explo_e” with a “d” (so that it reads “explode”) than with an “r” (“explore”). App. 496, 506 (internal quotation marks omitted). The prevention of this phenomenon, which might have been anticipated with common sense, is not a compelling state interest.
... the global warming naysayers are going to have a field day with this one...
They are all over the thread already. Can't be arsed to engage them anymore, to be honest. Well, we can bask in the warm glow of burning Al Gore strawmen....
I think you should make a reality check. Those of us who do not buy the whole "CO2 is destroying the world" -thing are not having a field day. I browse Slashdot with +4 threshold and I can tell you that it is you having a field day. And by you I mean the folk who is yelling "naysayers", and yelling "denialists", and, this is the best of all, setting up strawmen of "denialist arguments are strawmen relating to Al Gore".
I realize that this is Slashdot, &tc... but please read the full opinion. As it makes clear, the Supreme Court (in an 8-0 decision, with the Chief recused) agrees that this aspect of the patent system is broken.
You can find it here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/10-290.ZS.html
This opinion is a good example of the Supreme Court essentially telling Congress to get its act together and fix the broken patent system. In the meantime, the Court reiterates what the problem is with the patent system in this case, and provides a solution for Congress to implement. But the Court is not empowered to fix the broken statute by itself, so it has to essentially settle for restating what the current broken statute says, and enforcing the law that's on the books.
Well there is more to it. I find this concurrence by Breyer interesting. It gives a layman such as myself a clear picture what they ruled:
I join the Court’s opinion in full. I write separately because, given the technical but important nature of the invalidity question, I believe it worth emphasizing that in this area of law as in others the evidentiary standard of proof applies to questions of fact and not to questions of law. [...] Thus a factfinder must use the “clear and convincing” standard where there are disputes about, say, when a product was first sold or whether a prior art reference had been published.
Many claims of invalidity rest, however, not upon factual disputes, but upon how the law applies to facts as given. Do the given facts show that the product was previously “in public use”? 35 U. S. C. 102(b). Do they show that the invention was “nove[l]” and that it was “non-obvious”? 102, 103. Do they show that the patent ap-plicant described his claims properly? 112. Where the ultimate question of patent validity turns on the correct answer to legal questions—what these subsidiary legal standards mean or how they apply to the facts as given—today’s strict standard of proof has no application. [...]
Courts can help to keep the application of today’s “clear and convincing” standard within its proper legal bounds by separating factual and legal aspects of an invalidity claim, say, by using instructions based on case-specific circumstances that help the jury make the distinction or by using interrogatories and special verdicts to make clear which specific factual findings underlie the jury’s conclusions. [...]. By isolating the facts (determined with help of the “clear and convincing” standard), courts can thereby assure the proper interpretation or application of the correct legal standard (without use of the “clear and convincing” standard). By preventing the “clear and convincing” standard from roaming outside its fact-related reservation, courts can increase the likelihood that discoveries or inventions will not receive legal protection where none is due.
The headline should read:
Germany To End Nuclear Power By 2022 yet again
Politicians are good at two things: making large strategic decisions that do not require anything now but much in not-so-near future and apologizing stuff that their predecessors have made. This decision will be repealed; nothing to see here, move along.
This may sound trivial but app-store has a few advantages to apt-get:
1. Programs are presented as icons
2. Programs can be rated
3. App-store tells you what applications are popular
These are important features for casual users.
I see this a lot in politics these days: educated, intelligent journalists lashing out and saying anyone who doesn't agree with their political opinions must not be a member of the human race.
You truly are missing the point. This is not about a disagreeing with political opinion. It is lashing out because Mr. Berlusconi is a criminal of the worst degree. He's using his post as a prime minister shield against various corruption charges, he's hiring child prostitutes, he's appointing showgirls as parliamentary candidates, etc. The guy is an embarrassment to whole Europe. Only the people of Italy does not seem to get it.
As with climate change, the few real scientists who are skeptical seem to be from fields which have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand
So what? It is not like Navier-Stokes becomes solvable when applied to climate or weather.
Anyway, I have a counter example: Freeman Dyson. So there you have a guy who have been intimately involved in climate science and who don't by what Mann, Hansen, et. al. are saying. I hope that now you can also agree that comparing being skeptical on climate change and creationism is not fair.
Odd that this controversy isn't covered in the wikipedia article, it's well known to acedemics here in Springfield.
Consider covering it. After all, Wikipedia is everyone to edit.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
