nmrm2

20 ms·

361.
by nmrm2 11y ago
> the NuPRL project is like this in what way? Difficult to obtain and get running (I'm told by everyone I've asked). So definitely not the first thing; mostly those last two things. And yeah, I think that high-quality source
362.
by nmrm2 11y ago
Thanks for giving an excellent example. NuPRL is exactly like this, but no one in their right mind would say the group that put out NuPRL hasn't done good science for 20+ years.
363.
by nmrm2 11y ago
My criticism was only of the justification given. And honestly, the attitude in scientific publishing has never been "science should be written so that people in industry can reproduce the results at minimal effort/expense and w
364.
by nmrm2 11y ago
I can't state how strongly I disagree with the conclusion that papers should be providing excruciating detail about protocol just because "pharmaceutical companies can't reproduce key cancer papers [without the help of the or
365.
by nmrm2 11y ago
Sure, they drafted rights to protect them in cases where they were minorities. Isn't that exactly what I'm saying? I bet Jefferson didn't want to be raped. Wonder why he didn't make that an amendment? Could it have been
366.
by nmrm2 11y ago
You're confusing the logical consequence with the historical reality. The historical reality is that the rights enumerated in the amendments were designed specifically to protect minorities. Yes, "individual rights are minority ri
367.
by nmrm2 11y ago
> are you an American? Yes. > May I ask where you received your education pertaining to the Constitution? From a constitutional law course taught by a professor with a JD from Harvard. Again, rights of a minority are individual right
368.
by nmrm2 11y ago
The substance of my post above was that on balance, "minority rights" is a better characterization of the enumerated rights in the bill of rights than "individual rights". Yes, saying "individual rights" isn&#x
369.
by nmrm2 11y ago
I'm not saying they don't have those rights, I'm saying they don't need them. Not at the particular moment when they are expressing an idea that the governing party agrees with. If you agree with a supermajority of Congr
370.
by nmrm2 11y ago
See my response to ScottBurson. The Constitution does not protect individual rights in general. Instead, it protects a small set of individual rights that are most relevant when that individual finds himself in a minority, so-called minorit
371.
by nmrm2 11y ago
(Edit: Here is a summary of what happens below to save everyone time: OP: 5 is a positive number. jr: Correction: 5 is a number. nm: That's a silly correction. It's more accurate to say it's a positive number, why are you cor
372.
by nmrm2 11y ago
> Scalia's argument is the stronger here Scalia's argument is not new and goes back to before the civil rights era. It was wrong-headed then and it's wrong-headed now. > there's no way the federal court system w
373.
by nmrm2 11y ago
> that disagrees with said majority We typically call a person who disagrees with the majority a member of the minority . > the majority What majority? There are lots of majorities and lots of minorities -- one for each issue put
374.
by nmrm2 11y ago
Did you read the opinion? Decisions typically contain some rhetorical flair ("fluffy stuff"), but there was plenty of substance to this decision. See e.g. pages 3-5 of the Syllabus. None of this analysis would be relevant to a dec
375.
by nmrm2 11y ago
No, "minority" is correct here. Individuals who happen to be members of a majority do not need a Bill of Rights. Individuals who are a member of a minority do. (edit: Holy cow this post got downvotes! If you think this is wrong pl
376.
by nmrm2 11y ago
IANAL. FYI, this is a constitutional issue that goes back to the early days of the court. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_... The essential response from Kennedy et al. was two-fold
377.
by nmrm2 11y ago
Very interesting, because it would undermine basically everything SCOTUS has ever said about marriage. (undermine in the sense of reverse a principle upon which the arguments used by SCOTUS to defend various decisions depend.)
378.
by nmrm2 11y ago
Your comment is confusing. What is the difference between "code correctness" and "to show that the result of a function is correct for all input parameters"? In common parlance these are the same thing. Also, what does i
379.
by nmrm2 11y ago
First, their goal is to make money, probably. Success of their students might be important in service to that goal, but it's quite important to not confuse the two. Second, I'm not sure why they make their decisions. Maybe they wa
380.
by nmrm2 11y ago
FTR I totally agree they should have been more transparent.
381.
by nmrm2 11y ago
Just get one and use it and don't let the arrogant bastards get to you. After a couple of near-fatal bicycle accidents with asshole cars, I got a front and rear camera for my bicycle and always take up the entire lane I'm entitled
382.
by nmrm2 11y ago
Many of these academies/bootcamps have a 90+% completion rate and a 90+% placement rate. Those are numbers you only get by extremely rigorous filtering on the front end; there's simply no way to admit anything except low-risk stud
383.
by nmrm2 11y ago
That's irrelevant. What matters in the context of this discussion is the consumer's perception, not the objective reality.
384.
by nmrm2 11y ago
> They're just people who have a bit of a redneck streak, are into country music, hunting, etc. I know what you're saying, having grown up in the non-deep south. However, I disagree with you. The flag makes a lot of people ve
385.
by nmrm2 11y ago
> It astounds me that there are large numbers of whites in this country who think the Civil War was about anything other than slavery. Indoctrination with these beliefs in pretty common at high schools in places like Mississippi and S.
386.
by nmrm2 11y ago
I can't give you hard data. But anecdotally, most people I know who own an iPhone and aren't Apple devouts chose it because "the software is better". I assume the typical consumer lumps Apps in with OS, because I doubt t
387.
by nmrm2 11y ago
Okay, fine. The coffee shop is Starbucks. The simile is only stronger in that case. The local coffee shop might be OK stocking some Marxist rags or hard core Libertarian texts or whatever the owner likes. Meanwhile, Starbucks only stocks th
388.
by nmrm2 11y ago
Again, the issue isn't whether games are Art. The issue is that Apple wants a closer association/connection between their brand and the contents of the App Store, and they can get that association with Apps in a way that would be
389.
by nmrm2 11y ago
Their stance makes perfect sense. The App Store is not a commons, it is the private property of Apple, in which they curate the works of others at their convenience. But unlike a book store or a music store, they can closely associate what
390.
by nmrm2 11y ago
This is an intellectually and morally bankrupt sentiment that is all the more worth calling out because it is both impractical and nonsensical. 1. This sentiment is nonsensical. Scientific funding often funds more than just salaries, and wh

More ›