Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Prime Scalia - "Words no longer having meaning" (Score 1) 588 588

by techsoldaten (#49993175) Attached to: Supreme Court Upholds Key Obamacare Subsidies

It's not so weird.

In the ACA case, the court simply used a test that applied logic to the whole of the law, instead of a single sentence. This is not unusual. It's not that words lack meaning, it's that few legal codes are perfect and it's a judge's job to figure them out. SCOTUS did that, in line with the role set out for the court in the Constitution.

With regards to the Rebel flag, it's more accurately called the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It was never adopted by the Confederacy or any Confederate member state as an official symbol.

The fact a bunch of people want to treat it as a cultural symbol has always come with the understanding that it's also been understood as a symbol of oppression by many, many others.

It's ironic to hear judicial literalists claim an ambiguous sentence should be used to strike down a major piece of legislation, then turn around to defend the "Rebel Flag" as something worthy of cultural status. It never was a cultural symbol, it was the standard of an army that has little relevance to any actual antiquarian interested in the identity of southern states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

As far as changing the name of a park goes, monuments are retired all the time. Consider the case of Fort Haggerty:

http://fortwiki.com/Fort_Hagge...

The history described there is actually inaccurate, the fort was actively used through WWI for ammunition storage. But regardless - it was named after a predecessor of mine for his gallantry in battle against that same Army of Northern Virginia. I am not sure how fair it would be for people in Virginia to have to live with that Fort there today, considering what happened during the madness of war.

The point here is that there's often a difference between the literal truth of a matter and way it is interpreted by the many. It's useful to consider other points of view before declaring the world's gone mad.

Comment: Re:Finally (Score 1) 169 169

by techsoldaten (#49252905) Attached to: Swedish Authorities Offer To Question Assange In London

He will not be immediately arrested because, he has already been neutralized and their ability to effectively imprison people like him has been demonstrated by effectively keeping him imprisoned for years.

Last I saw, Wikileaks was still alive and well.

I really doubt this is going to blow over.

Comment: Finally (Score 4, Interesting) 169 169

by techsoldaten (#49250019) Attached to: Swedish Authorities Offer To Question Assange In London

Finally.

It's not like this is unprecedented. I don't know what's so special about Assange that they could not have done this a long time ago.

My guess on what's about to happen:

- Sweden interviews him and drops the charges.

- Assange steps out of the embassy and is immediately arrested.

- Assange is charged in the US and extradited within a few days.

Comment: This is an overreaction (Score -1, Flamebait) 465 465

by techsoldaten (#48588815) Attached to: Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site

This is an overreaction. What we are seeing is a rare opportunity for a politician to accuse Greenpeace of overreach.

The ecological impact is no more significant than were someone to walk through the Nevada Black Sands and disturb wagon wheel tracks from the 1800s. The Hummingbird was not actually touched nor will it be impacted by the group's efforts.

The statements from the government are meant to prevent future uses of the land for political purposes. The statements from Greenpeace are diplomatically what's best, but, in reality, they know all this too.

Comment: This is being blown out of proportion (Score 2) 228 228

by techsoldaten (#47362591) Attached to: The New 501(c)(3) and the Future of Open Source In the US

This is scary but ultimately a decision that needs to be appealed.

I own a small company that works with Drupal. I am a member of the Drupal Foundation and give as generously as possible to their events.

Similar determinations have been made by the IRS before and challenged successfully. It is important that Yorba stands up for themselves on this matter and establish the scientific and educational validity of their claim to 501 c3 status.

There is an important point in the lifecycle of every open source project, where it goes from being a small hobby to something having an ecosystem that must be managed. It's essential that there is a way to provide fiscal support for groups springing up around the management of these projects without creating a tax burden.

The IRS judgement pertains really seems to only include an established software project, and not one that is supported by a small community. I am not sure there is a way for them to make a determination between the two. IANAL, but I am sure this is important in distinguishing the legitimacy of 501c3 claims.

Comment: Flexibility is not exclusive to CS (Score 4, Informative) 358 358

by techsoldaten (#46805381) Attached to: Google: Better To Be a 'B' CS Grad Than an 'A+' English Grad

Well, I am an English major who learned programming and started a technology shop I have been running for the last 10 years.

During that time, I have had programmers working for me with CS degrees, but also with degrees in law, economics, theater, criminal justice, business, political science, and other pursuits.

We build websites and CRM systems using open source content management systems. To be honest, the people who have worked out best over the years came to programming from another background. The people that have really thrived have tended to be lawyers, they are able to apply logic on the fly.

Comment: Re:It's the Cubs (Score 1) 56 56

Well, it says 5 years ago, they would not be a team you would expect. I still say it's the Cubs, and yeah, this is just a guess. But I really can't think who else would have a reason to do it.

When I go down the list, here's the teams that have a front office with a strong, expressed interest in Big Data.

- Athletics
- Red Sox
- Cubs
- Padres (Jed Hoyer legacy)

Here are the clubs that are known to have been investing in advanced metrics previously, in some cases at a limited scale.

- Nationals
- Dodgers
- Rays
- Phillies
- Yankees
- Mets

Out of the teams listed above, the Cubs stand out as the one with the strongest support for big data from the front office, and the biggest gap in terms of what they have now. There was an article about Theo recently that talked about the fact they had someone on payroll who would print emails and web pages out for scouts to read, since they were not reading them online. Five years ago, they are one of the last teams I would expect to use metrics in a meaningful way.

I discount the other teams based on the following factors:

- If it was the Yankees, the price tag would be more like $13 million. They don't spend cheap period.

- If it was the Nationals, Davey Johnson would not be in the front office. He has been vocal about not using advanced stats in game-time decisions.

- If it was the Phillies, the system would be less about game time decisions and more about scouting. Their issues with their scouting system are well-known.

- The Rays are all about efficiency and doing the most with what they have. They don't like to acquire free agents, they are about building from within. They are not going to have a lot of historical data about their players for a system like this to chew on. It would not make sense for them to invest in one.

- I could almost see it being the Dodgers, but the Dodgers have a lot on their hands with new television contracts. I doubt they have the bandwidth for an organizational overhaul on top of that. They are focused on marketing, and this plays a role in how they make decisions.

- The Mets continue to struggle financially, and I am not sure they are entirely solvent. I am sure a capital expenditure like this would be something people would have already heard about through the media. It's possible it's something that would need to be approved by a bankruptcy judge.

The teams I simply discount are as follows. I don't see where big data fits into what they are doing. A $500,000 investment in winning requires some kind of organizational commitment to transforming the club overall, which just doesn't jive with the way these teams spend money. They either have systems that already work, or the markets they operate in allow them to make money without winning. I don't see where the impetus for a big, organizational change comes from with these ones.

- Orioles
- Indians
- Twins
- Mariners
- Angels
- Rangers
- Astros
- Marlins
- Pittsburgh
- Braves

That leaves about 11 teams to think about. If there was a wildcard, I would say it's the Twins, simply because Selig owns them and is aware of what Big Data can do.

Comment: It's the Cubs (Score 2) 56 56

My best guess is it's the Cubs.

They are looking for minority investors in the club right now, and the cost of ballpark improvements is a smoke screen for taking on the cost of big data. Theo has not been the same without Tessie, and it's not cheap to recreate the analysis that system is capable of performing.

I really wonder what the value of such a system is compared to updating / refining Nate Silver's PECOTA odds to play out hypothetical teams and transactions over a 5 year period. There is so much data available about players at this point, it's almost possible to predict regressions on a macro level.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers

Working...