Trying to prevent sexism or racism or other isms did not used to be considered an evil thing to do, at least not until the last couple of years.
It's that "progressivism" moving always forward, at some point advocates for certain groups start to look simply like opponents of others.
There are so many decent UPS / inverter-charger systems out there.
Posts should help, not just criticize. Mentioning *even one* would have been helpful. Your post is just Slashtrash as written and I know you usually do better. How about fixing that?
I heard the acute problem aptly summarized recently: "Patents are supposed to cover inventions, but what they're being issued for is mere engineering."
This is a better metric than the "obviousness test" - what is the essential and genius inspiration that led to a the idea of putting a delivery message in a SMS message? There is none - no patent.
I realize the entire system has evolved into one giant mechanism to enrich entrenched corporate interests, but it's still a good insight into how maybe the system could have been designed less-wrong from the beginning.
You are better off spending money on geothermal HVAC
Not that effective during a long power outage.
Is there a valid reason we accept studies that have not been reproduced at least one more time to truly vet them before the community?
The point of papers [in real science] is to say, "we did this, here's what we found". It's not to announce a beacon of new Revealed Truth. That's largely the fault of science "reporters" looking to sell advertising space.
The papers are themselves the invitations to replicate.
The problem is the government science-funding model is largely based on fame and popularity, and doing replication studies is felt to be beneath most researchers except for the most extraordinary of claims, or those that threaten the Orthodoxy.
None of these problems will go away until the incentives of the funding model change. To assume anything else would be economically ignorant.
Other posters have already demolished the idea that banks will do this voluntarily or by edict.
The engineering approach is to not involve them. The Finance::Bank collection is the closest you're going to find to a workable solution.
Anybody who has money to spend on a government "solution" should send it to these developers instead.
Think about it. You may love the open source movement, but how would you like it if you wrote software at your day job for a salary...and then one day the government said "Hey, we decided that all software is free now. So you can't charge for it, even if you worked hard to make it and invested tons of money in the software-making process."
That's a nonsense argument. Absent monopoly grants, software goes to the person who paid for it, and they have the choice of whether to release it or not.
It's when it's released to the public, do you have Men With Guns threaten the People for making copies of that software or not? That is the ethical question. Do predictions of purported benefit from social-engineering justify threats of murder?
You, or at least anyone reading this who fits this profile, should think carefully about the foundation of your own ethics.
*Yours* is based on threats of violence for duplication (not stealing) of information. It abolishes a portion of _real_ property rights for imaginary ones, when there is no demonstrable harm other than a postulate of diminution of earning potential.
The reduced argument is "murder for profit".
I doubt it. Their vision for the future is sound, but they're not strongly connected to the reality of maintaining a good browser for the present at the same time. Mostly chest-beating rather than doing the hard work required.
Mozilla has gotten brazen lately about forcing questionable changes on users
Right. I have to manage $1200 PDU's that use SSLv3, so to use Firefox I had to re-enable SSLv3 for all sites. That's the only choice Mozilla felt like giving users. That's not bold, it's lazy and worsens overall security for the Internet.
If they think I'm going to get $30K to replace working gear "because Firefox" they're delusional.
and don't forget that most wealth is generated by engaging in activities with energy requirements.
That Tesla 80D Insane Edition that I want takes $115K worth of economic profit to acquire, which in most industries requires 5-20x as much revenue. So over a million dollars worth of economic activity on average to just get that Tesla before you can drive it. Is that greener than a Fiesta?
As a fellow argentinian I can confirm I've never heard of this bullshit before. There was an a(dve)rticle on Infobae the other day with the same phrasing.
When MercadoPago accepts BTC we can talk.
Therefore the only task of those who write software to grade essays is that the variation of the machine is no worse that the variations of the humans. There is some success in this. Edx has a module that will grade essays. As far as I know the value in this is quicker and more uniform feedback for practice essays.
Well, I'm a humanities guy and I know enough about the scientific method to understand that you don't know whether you have "success" until you test your bright idea in the real world and find out whether it actually works. And that's what MIT professor Les Perelman said in the article you're citing:
“My first and greatest objection to the research is that they did not have any valid statistical test comparing the software directly to human graders,” said Perelman, a retired director of writing and a current researcher at MIT.
As Perelman said, some computer students wrote a program that can turn out gibberish that the main robo-grading program consistently scores above the 90th percentile.
Of course humanities majors, who have generally have minimal understanding of advanced technology, hate it. This, of course, includes journalists.
The article you're citing was not written by a journalist, but by a retired MIT writing professor.
So you've gotten it wrong on both the science and the reading comprehension. No mod points for you.
This is not to say that computer graded essays are going to be as good of an assessment as human graded essays. However, it may be good enough, and better than other objective measures, such as fill in the bubble tests. In fact anything that minimizes the cost of open ended free response assessment is going to benefit anyone. Securing multiple guess test is very expensive, and the value of them are highly questionable. They tend to overestimate the value of student how have vague passive knowledge, and underestimate the value of those who have an ability to actively apply knowledge.
I am deducting another point for bad grammar.
Computer graded essays can check whether an essay complies with an algorithm, and they can take care of anything you can reduce to an algorithm. The great success of computer writing was the spell-checker. There is also a grammar-checker which I never use because it doesn't work well enough for me. There are also algorithms to check the format of literature citations, which are useful.
But (as somebody who writes for a living) the most important features of writing depend on an understanding of the content. Most important: Is it correct? As Perelman says, the robo-graders ignore whether what you say is true (or whether it even makes sense). The next thing I look at: If the author takes a controversial position, does he give both sides of the argument? This is what you may know as Neutral Point of View from Wikipedia (although writers have known about it since the ancient Greeks.) Wikipedia actually has a pretty good structure.
Let's remember the purpose of writing: A person communicating an idea to somebody else. When I read something, I'm looking for a good idea, clearly communicated. If the algorithm can't identify a good idea (and as Perelman showed, it can't), then it can't tell me whether the writing is any good. Algorithms have surprised me, but I can't imagine how an algorithm can tell me whether an idea is good.
Maybe somebody can write a program to cheat. Try random sentences and feed them into a copy of the AI until you get a good grade.
They did that.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opi...
Flunk the robo-graders
By Les Perelman
April 30, 2014
(Computer science students at MIT and Harvard developed an application that generates gibberish that IntelliMetric, a robot essay-grading system, consistently scores above the 90th percentile. IntelliMetric scored incoherent essays as "advanced" in focus, meaning, language use and style. None of the major testing companies allows demonstrations of their robo-graders. Longer essays get higher grades, even if they make no sense.)
Typical output: “According to professor of theory of knowledge Leon Trotsky, privacy is the most fundamental report of humankind. Radiation on advocates to an orator transmits gamma rays of parsimony to implode.’’
he is showing his value by creating crap for his handlers to screw up your future.
Yeah, I totally hate the Internet too. If only the FCC had been regulating it since it's inception, it would be so much better now!
Classic example of a market failure.
Just so you know, Microsoft did a lot of shitty deals back then and screwed over a lot of people.
Why wasn't the contact enforced when Vista or 7 came out? One party is a nuclear-armed sovereign - don't tell me Microsoft refused... the courts would surely order cooperation if that were the case.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
