Datasets:
redmoddata
/
lines_train_2M

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
text
stringlengths
1
330k
Permalink to the edit in question
share|improve this question
After seeing ChrisF's reply, I re-read this question and realized - you think this edit was made to a question! That doesn't really change my answer, but it does make me wonder if the review page needs to make this a bit more obvious (right now, the only major distinction is "answered" vs "asked" next to the original author's name). –  Shogging through the snow Nov 22 '11 at 0:01
4 Answers 4
up vote 11 down vote accepted
When in doubt, read the edit in the context of the question!
Note how the asker edited her question shortly after asking it, shortening all those long class and variable names down to things like "abc" and "ABC"?
The suggested edit did the same thing to the answer. So far as I can tell, it was a perfectly appropriate edit, preserving the intent of the answerer while removing the confusion introduced by the edit to the question.
On a more general note, there's nothing inherently wrong with editing code to make it easier to read (whether by reformatting whitespace, adding comments, or simply renaming variables). When evaluating an edit, try to determine if it actually improves the post - don't look for hard and fast rules by which you can accept or reject without thought.
share|improve this answer
As implied by Shog9's answer, I allow these edits when made by the OP to the accepted answer.
In fact, I usually "Improve" the edit, as this automatically "Accepts" the OP's changes. Otherwise, they are usually rejected by people who don't check the whole question-context.
share|improve this answer
Changing variable names in code could substantially improve the question/answer by making the code much easier to understand.
Every case needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and I have no opinion on the case you cite, but in general, I believe that renaming variables can constitute a legitimate, constructive edit.
share|improve this answer
Always take care with editing code in questions. It's all too easy to correct the mistake that's the cause of the problem.
In the context of this question it might be that the OP has reused a variable incorrectly, or mistyped it a second time for example.
In these cases reject the edit and leave a comment for the OP asking if the error is just a typo in the question.
share|improve this answer
In this particular case, the edit was made by the asker to an answer (a fact I now realize was missed by the OP here as well... Perhaps the suggested edits page does not do well at distinguishing between questions and answers?) after making a corresponding edit to the question itself. –  Shogging through the snow Nov 21 '11 at 23:53
@Shog9 - I realise that and perhaps should have made it clearer that I was addressing a slightly tangential issue. –  ChrisF Nov 22 '11 at 9:13
You must log in to answer this question.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
Sign in to comment!
Nicole Kidman Diplomatic About Tom, Katie
Nicole Kidman (search), star of the upcoming movie "Bewitched," is carefully not casting judgment on ex-husband Tom Cruise's (search) relationship with Katie Holmes (search).
When asked in early May about Cruise's very public romance with Holmes, Kidman didn't address the subject directly.
However, when asked about photographic publicity stunts in general, Kidman tells Vanity Fair in its July issue, on newsstands June 14: "In terms of your life, if you start to exploit it, then what's real, and what's not? What's yours, and what isn't?"
Kidman and Cruise divorced in 2001 after almost 10 years of marriage.
"When it all exploded and we were in Cannes with 'Moulin Rouge.' ... `My sister and I slept in the same bed together. She would just hold me," Kidman told Vanity Fair.
"When we came out of the big screening and there were swarms of people, I felt like I couldn't breathe. So I just sort of eyeballed her as if to say, 'Help! Help!' Taking absolute control, she took me into the bathroom, unlaced my corset and the dress I was wearing, took my shoes off, and said, 'You're going to be OK.'"
Cruise and Holmes were photographed together in Rome in April and later confirmed they were dating. During an appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" last month, the 42-year-old actor exuberantly professed his love for the 26-year-old actress.
He stars in Steven Spielberg's (search) upcoming "War of the Worlds" and Holmes will co-star with Christian Bale (search) in "Batman Begins."
Badge TV & Radio Blog
A debate on disability and beauty, or just trash TV?
Is BBC3's contest to select a disabled model really concerned with the issues, or is it simply an exploitative entertainment?
Britain's Missing Top Model contestant, Jess
Jess (left), contestant on Britain's Missing Top Model. Photograph: BBC/Love Productions
I expected to hate Britain's Missing Top Model. But we are now three weeks into the show, part of BBC3's beauty season, and I'm still watching. In fact, having watched a sneak preview of tonight's show I can confirm I now care who wins. As with every other reality television programme we've had tears, late night squabbles, and a double elimination. In tonight's show there's the "catwalk challenge", the judges fall out and there are yet more shots of creepy "mentor" Jonathan Phang looking wistfully into the distance as he says "I just wonder if the public is ready for a disabled model".
Last week Debbie was booted out for daring to have hint of a stomach, giving the impression that even in fashion, having a disability is one thing, but having curves is another. So far, so very fashion.
Of the five remaining contestants, four are blonde, and all conform to traditional western ideals of beauty. (There hasn't been a single non-white model in the show, presumably because whoever chose the contestants decided that a model who was both disabled and black just wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance so let's not even bother giving her airtime.) And yet there is something compelling about the programme - the trouble is I can't figure out what. Is it because it's good television or because I'm a sucker for trash?
Here is a show with no subtlety, a distinct lack of irony or humour, and in casting director Mark Summers a man so lacking in social skills that he makes Wayne Hemingway look suave. When the judges discuss whether a deaf woman has as much right to be there as a paraplegic contestant, I'm left feeling a bit grubby. Why so? Is this a serious debate about society's attitudes to beauty and disability, or is it just trash TV dressed up as something worthy? And if so, does watching it make me a willing participant in the exploitation of others or am I being exploited myself?
Today's best video
U.S. v. JUAREZ-ORTEGA No. 88-2547 Summary Calendar.
866 F.2d 747 (1989)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Esau JUAREZ-ORTEGA, Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
January 31, 1989.
Ron Barroso, Corpus Christi, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Paula Offenhauser, Henry K. Oncken, U.S. Atty., Robert A. Berg, Asst. U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
The defendant, convicted of two counts of distribution of cocaine, challenges the district court's consideration during sentencing of his possession of a handgun, on the grounds that the jury acquitted him of a substantive count of carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. Finding that the district court could properly consider all the evidence during sentencing, we affirm.
On January 22, 1988, two undercover detectives purchased six one-hundredths of a gram of cocaine for $20 from Esau Juarez-Ortega, the defendant, at his apartment in Corpus Christi, Texas. Three days later the detectives returned to Juarez-Ortega's apartment where, when asked for more cocaine, Juarez-Ortega told codefendant Rogelio DeLuna to get the substance. DeLuna then produced a small package containing one-tenth gram of cocaine and sold it to the officers for $20. During the transaction, one of the officers observed what appeared to be a small-frame handgun in Juarez-Ortega's waistband.
Later that afternoon, the officers returned and found only DeLuna at the apartment. DeLuna produced a plastic bag of cocaine from under his sweater. After the officers saw a handgun in DeLuna's waistband, he was arrested. A struggle ensued as DeLuna reached for the gun. When Juarez-Ortega returned to the apartment, approximately five minutes later, the officers arrested him. Juarez-Ortega was not carrying a gun at that time.
After being advised of his constitutional rights, Juarez-Ortega stated that he was illegally residing in the United States and that he had been selling marijuana and cocaine from that apartment. Juarez-Ortega admitted that he had possessed and carried the gun found with DeLuna, a Charter Arms .38 caliber revolver, which had been given to him by his "supplier" for his own protection. DeLuna stated that Juarez-Ortega had transferred possession of the revolver to him "to keep for protection" while he was conducting drug sales outside Juarez-Ortega's presence.
Juarez-Ortega was indicted on three counts, two counts of distributing cocaine (violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2, Counts 1 and 2), and one count of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense (a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), Count 3). After a jury trial, he was convicted of Counts 1 and 2 and acquitted of Count 3. Juarez-Ortega was sentenced to seventy-six months on each of the two counts, to run concurrently, followed by a term of five years supervised release. If Juarez-Ortega is deported the release is to be unsupervised; if he is not deported, the court imposed 200 hours of community service on each count.
Juarez-Ortega's codefendant DeLuna was convicted of the two distribution counts and the firearms count (§ 924(c)(1)). He was also sentenced to concurrent sentences of seventy-six months.
Juarez-Ortega's sentence on each of the two counts, although exceeding the guidelines and the recommendation of the presentence report, was within the statutorily permissible limits. This court will generally not review the severity of a sentence imposed within statutory limits, "and the trial court's broad discretion in determining the appropriateness of a sentence will not be disturbed absent a finding of arbitrary or capricious action resulting in a gross abuse of discretion." United States v. Adi, 759 F.2d 404, 411 (5th Cir.1985). Furthermore, the court may properly consider past crimes, including those for which a defendant has been indicted but not convicted, as well as the factual basis of dismissed counts. See United States v. Johnson, 823 F.2d 840, 842 (5th Cir.1987). Prior convictions overturned on appeal may be considered. See United States v. Butler, 680 F.2d 1055, 1056 (5th Cir.1982).
In the instant case, Juarez-Ortega is challenging the use by the sentencing judge of the facts surrounding his possession of a firearm even though he was acquitted of that offense. Those facts are not disputed as false or unreliable; rather, the appellant is arguing that the judge used those facts to impose on Juarez-Ortega the same sentence imposed on his codefendant.
The following colloquy occurred between the sentencing judge and defense counsel regarding the basis for Juarez-Ortega's sentence.
THE COURT: The jury could not have made — the jury could not have listened to the instructions. MR. BARROSO: Your Honor, — THE COURT: The testimony was so strong. The gun was even in the apartment. That's all they needed. There was no dispute of that fact. The mere fact that that gun was in the apartment, being used in association with — he didn't have to have it on his person. MR. BARROSO: They perhaps didn't believe it was being used in association with drug-related activity, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I'll tell you something: I have been disappointed in jury verdicts before, but that's one of the most important ones, because what it did, it set up a disparity in result between the two defendants. Your client was consistently selling cocaine from his apartment and using a firearm. The fact is that the officers came in and testified that it was in your client's waistband and described, had an officer on the stand, a man who is an ATF agent, who is capable and knows what a firearm looks like, telling them, "This is what I saw." There is no reason for him not to have seen that, since it's undisputed that the firearm was in the apartment and it's undisputed that the firearm was used in connection with drug sales and used [for] the purpose of protecting drug sales. And then here in number twelve, there is no doubt at all that the firearm was brought for him. It's all a pattern. This firearm was used. They had to absolutely disregard the testimony of a government agent for no reason — no reason. MR. BARROSO: Perhaps they considered the testimony of the other agent who testified that he couldn't be sure, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, you can take it up with an appellate court, because I've made my findings on the record. Do you have anything further you'd like to say? MR. BARROSO: No, your Honor, other than we would hope the court would follow the guidelines as set forth in the pre-sentence investigation, that being the guidelines of from twelve to eighteen months of determining the sentence of Mr. Ortega. THE COURT: All right. The court is going to disregard the guidelines in this case.
Juarez-Ortega argues that the sentencing action of the trial judge "in effect overrode the jury's determination of a fact issue with regard to the question of the firearm." This argument is without merit. Although the jury may have determined that the government had not proved all of the elements of the weapons offense beyond a reasonable doubt, such a determination does not necessarily preclude consideration of underlying facts of the offense at sentencing so long as those facts meet the reliability standard. The sentencing court was not relying on facts disclosed at trial to punish the defendant for the extraneous offense, but to justify the heavier penalties for the offenses for which he was convicted. See, e.g., United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1175 (5th Cir.1977).
The other aspect of Juarez-Ortega's argument, that receiving the same overall sentence as his codefendant after being convicted of fewer offenses was per se an abuse of discretion, is also without merit. It is within the sentencing court's discretion to treat codefendants differently. See, e.g., United States v. Wheeler, 802 F.2d 778, 783 (5th Cir.1986). A defendant convicted of fewer substantive counts may receive a heavier sentence if justified. See, e.g., United States v. Beecroft, 608 F.2d 753, 761-62 (9th Cir.1979). A defendant cannot rely on his co-defendant's sentence as a yardstick for his own. United States v. Castillo-Roman, 774 F.2d 1280, 1284 (5th Cir.1985).
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering evidence of Juarez-Ortega's possession of a handgun despite Juarez-Ortega's acquittal of the substantive firearm offense, the sentence imposed by the district court is
1000 Characters Remaining
User Comments
Cited Cases
• No Cases Found
Citing Cases
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
Forgot your password?
Comment: Live free or die (Score 2) 186
Banning cars could save more lives - Does that mean we should ban cars?
What effects would that have on the economic productivity of the country ? In turn, how much poverty will that create ? How many extra people will die as a result of not affording medical care ?
And this is a simple utilitarian exercise where you compare lives lost with lives lost. What about more complex dilemmas (see title of post) ? Should a nation never send troops in any conflict and accept any onerous terms the adversary imposes, for the sake of preserving all lives ? Should we ban all individual choice and responsibility, ban all sugary drinks, impose a state-controlled healthy diet ?
The notion that "lives can be saved" is not and cannot be used as the sole deciding argument on a societal issue. We are free individuals, we associate in a community seeking to improve our perceived welfare - one cannot treat the welfare as a goal in itself segregated from what we as individuals want.
Anything dumb your lawyer says can't be used against you (since he cannot be witness against his client) or against himself (since he's not the suspect). A really really dumb lawyer can be charged with conspiracy and end up next to the defendant but it's exceptionally rare and the burden of proof is monumental (mafia lawyers involved in the same operation with their client).
You, on the other hand, are already a suspect, the tiniest slip ('I didn't like him, but I did not kill him !') can send you to the gauntlet ('Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant despised the victim - by his own official testimony'). The greatest trick your lawyer has is that he isn't you.
Talking to the police while suspected of a crime is like performing brain surgery on yourself.
Comment: Re:Castle Doctrine Defense (Score 4, Insightful) 358
by Stellian (#47306067) Attached to: Florida Man Faces $48k Fine For Jamming Drivers' Cellphones
he was acting in self defense to prevent an idiot driving while on a cell phone from causing an accident
"The signal is bad around these parts... let's switch to message chat !"
This is a prime example of why we have societies, laws and regulations - in this case those designed to stop mobile phone usage. Going for an individual solution quickly devolves into mayhem: thousands of bystanders affected, emergency calls interrupted, and probably not a single accident prevented.
Comment: Re:HOPE to exploit it (Score 1) 106
by Stellian (#47280301) Attached to: Researchers Find "Achilles Heel" of Drug Resistant Bacteria
More importantly, is this something fundamental to how gram-negative bacteria develop, or is it simply the current solution evolution has produced ? It would be nice to develop biotechnology that takes evolution into account and is ready to predict a few moves ahead and minimize the probability of a helpful mutation.
It seems to me that from a computer security point of view, the human biological computer has low entropy keys and we are dealing with a massively parallel adversary that tries trillions of keys every second (billions of people infected with thousands of strains of bacteria). Meanwhile, our current "cyber defenses" (drugs) are rather crude pattern match filters that look for things like <script>, SELECT *, and other static characteristics of what we consider to flag an attacker. Luckily, biology has endowed us with a key switch defense algorithm that ensures a "rooted" system does not compromise the whole network; unluckily, the mechanism will also take unrecoverable systems offline.
Comment: Solutions to the wrong problems (Score 1) 396
by Stellian (#47247005) Attached to: "Super Bananas" May Save Millions of Lives In Africa
The "root cause" of malnutrition is societal dysfunction. We have more than enough food, energy, water, fertilizers or the potential to obtain them in every country on earth, enough to feed the world ten times over. Every person on earth prefers a balanced and diverse diet, if it's a available. When people starve or go sick it's because they are trapped in a low productivity economy, caused by corruption, war, mismanagement of public resources and usually enabled or instigated by some western power friendly to the local chieftain.
This is techie myopia at it's finest, from the "give laptops to the poor" or "internet balloons" to "vaccines via mosquitoes". We know how to make the internet work and we know how to deliver vaccines: just like we do it in the rich countries. Poor people don't need technical solutions designed to work in anarchy, they need societal reform and functional public services. While the intention behind these schemes is laudable, we should not believe for a moment they are more than bandaids in lieu of peace, democracy and working governments.
Comment: Re: This reminds me of a great Simpsons episode (Score 5, Informative) 625
by Stellian (#47228021) Attached to: EU's Top Court May Define Obesity As a Disability
Yet, the vast majority of obese people have perfectly working thyroids. This is not about recognizing that some medical conditions can derail your metabolism, which I believe no one is arguing, and should be covered by existing disability laws.
This is about treating all obese people, the vast majority of which are so because of their own choices, as disabled. Inability to control your own actions becomes a valid form of disability. It's a slippery slope because it legitimizes self harm and forces society to take responsibility. If obesity is a form of disability, so is tobacco or gaming dependence. And if treating obesity is not about making people eat less, then clearly treating dependence is not about smoking or gambling, we as a society should hold together and provide comfort: smoking places and breaks, subsidies for food when all the person's paycheck is lost in the casino, job protection when the addiction interferes with work performance, free medical coverage for resulting problems etc.
BTW, I write the above as a 220 pound man, who use to be as large as 260 pounds, and knows full well how hard it is for an obese person to control her appetite and weigh. But I fully understand it's MY body and MY choices, I'm fat because I love food, it's one of the great pleasures of my life and I wouldn't dream to blame nature or society for my fate.
Comment: Re:Yes, good idea. (Score 2) 322
by Stellian (#47191511) Attached to: Fixing China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions For Them