No not really. They have been leading up to it. With Smith regeneration thinking he was a girl with long hair, Missy regeneration from the master. That time lord the doctor shot regenerated in a back woman... BBC had been going a little too PC lately, a woman doctor isn't that surprising at all. There was also a lot of buzz about it on the fan sites also.
What normally gets me. Is when there is a UI control that for all purposes could be the standard one. But for some crazy reason, they rebuild it, so there is some action on the control that just isn't quite right. Say using a standard keyboard action will not work. This normally get me when a web site that has no reason to do do, will use Silverlight, flash or a Java Applet, vs just using the standard HTML controls.
For the most part I expect the BBC is just trying to get rid of the gender debate. No matter when they would replace the Doctor with a female version there will be controversy. So if they do it now, then they can get rid of the hurdle. If they found a talented actor and have good writers and directors, then things should be fine. Being that Capaldi wasn't that popular Doctor (I actually started to warm up with him this season) People are up for a change, back to a more vibrant Doctor.
Wow, you must have just been abducted by the Doctor from the 1960s. 2/3 of Med Students are female. I am normally more surprised when I see a male doctor then a female one.
The Doctor never really been that much of a sexual character where the doctor gender is what defined the character. Replacing the Mad Man with a box to the Crazy Lady with a Box, isn't that much of a difference.
However being after every new incarnation of Doctor Who the personality and sanity of Doctor who has been different. I would say Doctors 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 weren't so much mad men, perhaps at best eccentric, but that is due to the alien nature of the doctor.
Doctor Who normally has he budget to hire the Big Name actors for 3-4 seasons. Normally Doctor Who will make these lesser actors better known vs. trying to get a well known actor to boost the well known Doctor Who Brand.
I am guessing you haven't been watching Dr. Who or the BBC for the last decade?
For the most part BBC has been good writing characters who may be against the normal stereotype without being preachy about it. There may be some episodes say where the Doctor is in the past and the men in charge will not listen to her, just because the Doctor is a woman. But I expect for the most part I trust that the BBC will make the New Doctor believable like the other ones.
I would call it clever, but not smart. Normally after abuse of a system which is left open for reasons of trying to be nice. Will tightly close down to more of the Apple Store Model, where these things are checked more thoroughly and rejected.
What is the point of being rich if no one knows about it?
There is having enough money to live well, but after a point when you have too much money thus you gain the stress and problems of having too much money. There is no value in having a lot of money, having to deal with the stress of having all this money, and then getting treated like a normal guy.
I feel that a lot of Netflix series, well may be well written, seem to not have rewatchability factor to it. These are shows that I normally flag, as I watched it, I was glad I watched it, but after that I am not interested in seeing it again. For me I find this common with "Smart" Shows. While engaging, and may make you think, after you have thought about it, rewatching it again, just boring, because there isn't much new in a new view.
Some shows have the right amount of smart in it, that rewatching over and over means you can get different angles, but also not make watching it again a chore.
The real question is why aren't newer economic forces moving to these areas? A closed down factory, can be refurbished to a new factory, turned into offices, a warehouses, data center...
I don't get this hate towards people who live in Rural Areas? Living in Cities or the Burbs have problems of their own, High Crime, Noise, Zoning regulations, Housing prices, Gentrification, Pollution... If you were to force them to move to the cities, you are bringing on a world of pain. 1. They will not give up their Land without a fight. 2. They will be miserable living in the city, 3. They will influence the government with their own political beliefs.
The solution is to make sure that these rural areas are properly serviced and allowed to be a benefit to society. Then tying to flag them as useless hicks.
Well these remote towns are majority republican. They are well aware that Corporate Profits come before their own interests. If they can't get it on Amazon Prime, they will either need to pay more, or find alternated sources.
Amazon is one of the few.COM companies to survive the Tech Bubble of 2003. Their main advantage compared to the others is they had a business model that focused on bringing in money. Quite simply if they find people abusing the features of Prime, and they find it unprofitable. They are going to reduce services, raise the prices, or just cut off particular areas.
The United States has a High Population with a Low density. This means it is expensive to serve people, and they are a lot of people to serve expensively.
While budgeting and purchasing it makes sense to treat it like your money. But when you buy with a credit card, the bank buys the product, and you owe the bank. So if your card is stolen and charges were put on it. You are not responsible but the bank needs to deal with the theft of their money. (Normally they have insurance) Now having to prove off those charges is annoying but it is possible. Vs having your cash lost where your money is gone for good.
Now a lot of time you may lose your cash without the typical robbery. Someone at the store could see you are distracted and skim off some change. You can lose your wallet/purse by many means. And someone can just take the cash out of it. Or you can just have cash fall out. Haven't you found a fiver on the ground before? Then those pennies that you put in the give a penny.
Cash is just not safe, other payment options at least have some safety features in them.
By increasing the number of MD's you can lower the total cost of health care. However Med Schools are Selective, not because being a Medical Doctor requires the Best of the Best, but because it keeps the population of Doctors low to keep their salaries high.
Having worked as a consultant across many industries. In general I have found they are more Layoffs in Unioned shops then with Non-Unioned shops.
Non-Unioned places it is much easier to Fire underpayments rather quickly. Leaving the employees they want to keep hired, and normally try harder to keep them there. While if it Unioned, every time they can renew a contract, The company will need to figure out how many people they can lay off. Or trade.
I have seen cases where 20 High Paid white collar jobs were terminated so they can bring in 50 Low paid labors. Because in terms of Union Dues that will bring in more money. Normally at a non-union company if they need the labors they will just hire them, and not think about the white collar jobs, because those jobs are an asset to the company. And not a bargaining chip.
Trying to Unionizing coders has a lot of challenges. 1. Coding is a safe job. White Collar jobs in general do not got a lot of support to be unionized. 2. Compared to these other unionized jobs, you are not normally getting walked on. Your job may suck, for the most part you are getting paid a middle class salary. 3. Most coders work for companies that don't specialize in coding. So if you are working for government, education, or some factories you will be under their union anyways. 4. Increased mobility of jobs. This is affecting unions across many sectors. Back in the old day if you grow up in a City, you spend your life in that city, you will not commute to the next city. So if your job treats you poorly. You are stuck. Today we can find jobs across the world, so the Union will not have much need for workers who can quit on a drop of a hat. 5. We are a threat to Unions. Existing unions are not big fans of our profession. Because by creating job efficiency, the company will not need to hire additional unionized workers. The Union will in short give us the short end of the stick, dropping 100 high paid IT workers to bring on 400 Low paid labors. 6. There is a huge range in skill set quality. Many unionized jobs are easily replaceable jobs. Some Entry Level coding jobs may be like this. But normally after people gain skills they tend to specialize, and become harder to replace.
I am not sure why this was modded funny. Code is its own explanation of an abstract Idea. When you are reading code, you are not worried about it sounding meaningful, but understanding on what it does.
Code isn't meant to be read out loud. It isn't a story, it is a set of instructions.
Many of the votes for Trump, were more votes against Clinton. They are not 100% okay with the bigotry, but that problem seems like less of an issue then the issues they saw in Clinton.
Often a lot of video game "AI" are actually cheats. With predefined actions when something appears. Eg A Goalkeeper would be inactive until the ball is so many pixels away. Then it will move to to try to intercept the ball. Normally this is designed so the human player has a chance on getting it past it. An AI Goal Keeper may choose to leave the confines of the box, and help with defense. Seeing trends in the offset a fast kicker, or one that uses a lot of lift, or can do a curve, tends to favor the left or right.... A lot more details to solve then just to make sure the ball doesn't past the goal.
We as people, are faced with tasks that we just cannot learn to do. Because of limitations in our perceptions, thing that we have no instincts to do or even bother trying to do. Or the fact we have specialized in a particular area, that trying to learn a new way would take too long to redo.
The point of AI isn't to create a human replacement. But a tool that can process information from a human world.
No the flood TV and Radio channels that shows how the other guy is so bad. For example. If a small group is against something that a lot of people like, they will twist it to make it seem like a much larger group in which this small group is a subset of.
So all conservatives are racist. And all liberals are atheists. All the rich and powerful are republicans. All the whining protesters are Democrats.
It creates an us vs them mantality, exaggerating the difference between people, where the difference isn't so great.
Slashdot Mirror
No not really. They have been leading up to it. With Smith regeneration thinking he was a girl with long hair, Missy regeneration from the master. That time lord the doctor shot regenerated in a back woman...
BBC had been going a little too PC lately, a woman doctor isn't that surprising at all. There was also a lot of buzz about it on the fan sites also.
What normally gets me. Is when there is a UI control that for all purposes could be the standard one. But for some crazy reason, they rebuild it, so there is some action on the control that just isn't quite right. Say using a standard keyboard action will not work.
This normally get me when a web site that has no reason to do do, will use Silverlight, flash or a Java Applet, vs just using the standard HTML controls.
For the most part I expect the BBC is just trying to get rid of the gender debate. No matter when they would replace the Doctor with a female version there will be controversy. So if they do it now, then they can get rid of the hurdle. If they found a talented actor and have good writers and directors, then things should be fine.
Being that Capaldi wasn't that popular Doctor (I actually started to warm up with him this season) People are up for a change, back to a more vibrant Doctor.
Well it could be good if you don't let your bigotry get in the way.
Wow, you must have just been abducted by the Doctor from the 1960s.
2/3 of Med Students are female. I am normally more surprised when I see a male doctor then a female one.
Voyager had a lot of problems, Janeway as a woman Capitan, isn't that much of a big deal compared to the other problems.
The Doctor never really been that much of a sexual character where the doctor gender is what defined the character. Replacing the Mad Man with a box to the Crazy Lady with a Box, isn't that much of a difference.
However being after every new incarnation of Doctor Who the personality and sanity of Doctor who has been different. I would say Doctors 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 weren't so much mad men, perhaps at best eccentric, but that is due to the alien nature of the doctor.
Doctor Who normally has he budget to hire the Big Name actors for 3-4 seasons. Normally Doctor Who will make these lesser actors better known vs. trying to get a well known actor to boost the well known Doctor Who Brand.
I am guessing you haven't been watching Dr. Who or the BBC for the last decade?
For the most part BBC has been good writing characters who may be against the normal stereotype without being preachy about it. There may be some episodes say where the Doctor is in the past and the men in charge will not listen to her, just because the Doctor is a woman. But I expect for the most part I trust that the BBC will make the New Doctor believable like the other ones.
Because it is the BBC not Hollywood. And after these people become Stars on BBC, they get hired away by Hollywood, thus hard for them to get back.
Just look at Benedict Cumberbatch.
I would call it clever, but not smart. Normally after abuse of a system which is left open for reasons of trying to be nice. Will tightly close down to more of the Apple Store Model, where these things are checked more thoroughly and rejected.
What is the point of being rich if no one knows about it?
There is having enough money to live well, but after a point when you have too much money thus you gain the stress and problems of having too much money. There is no value in having a lot of money, having to deal with the stress of having all this money, and then getting treated like a normal guy.
I feel that a lot of Netflix series, well may be well written, seem to not have rewatchability factor to it. These are shows that I normally flag, as I watched it, I was glad I watched it, but after that I am not interested in seeing it again. For me I find this common with "Smart" Shows. While engaging, and may make you think, after you have thought about it, rewatching it again, just boring, because there isn't much new in a new view.
Some shows have the right amount of smart in it, that rewatching over and over means you can get different angles, but also not make watching it again a chore.
The real question is why aren't newer economic forces moving to these areas?
A closed down factory, can be refurbished to a new factory, turned into offices, a warehouses, data center...
I don't get this hate towards people who live in Rural Areas?
Living in Cities or the Burbs have problems of their own, High Crime, Noise, Zoning regulations, Housing prices, Gentrification, Pollution...
If you were to force them to move to the cities, you are bringing on a world of pain.
1. They will not give up their Land without a fight.
2. They will be miserable living in the city,
3. They will influence the government with their own political beliefs.
The solution is to make sure that these rural areas are properly serviced and allowed to be a benefit to society. Then tying to flag them as useless hicks.
Well these remote towns are majority republican. They are well aware that Corporate Profits come before their own interests. If they can't get it on Amazon Prime, they will either need to pay more, or find alternated sources.
Amazon is one of the few .COM companies to survive the Tech Bubble of 2003. Their main advantage compared to the others is they had a business model that focused on bringing in money. Quite simply if they find people abusing the features of Prime, and they find it unprofitable. They are going to reduce services, raise the prices, or just cut off particular areas.
The United States has a High Population with a Low density. This means it is expensive to serve people, and they are a lot of people to serve expensively.
While budgeting and purchasing it makes sense to treat it like your money. But when you buy with a credit card, the bank buys the product, and you owe the bank.
So if your card is stolen and charges were put on it. You are not responsible but the bank needs to deal with the theft of their money. (Normally they have insurance)
Now having to prove off those charges is annoying but it is possible. Vs having your cash lost where your money is gone for good.
Now a lot of time you may lose your cash without the typical robbery.
Someone at the store could see you are distracted and skim off some change.
You can lose your wallet/purse by many means. And someone can just take the cash out of it.
Or you can just have cash fall out. Haven't you found a fiver on the ground before?
Then those pennies that you put in the give a penny.
Cash is just not safe, other payment options at least have some safety features in them.
By increasing the number of MD's you can lower the total cost of health care.
However Med Schools are Selective, not because being a Medical Doctor requires the Best of the Best, but because it keeps the population of Doctors low to keep their salaries high.
Having worked as a consultant across many industries. In general I have found they are more Layoffs in Unioned shops then with Non-Unioned shops.
Non-Unioned places it is much easier to Fire underpayments rather quickly. Leaving the employees they want to keep hired, and normally try harder to keep them there. While if it Unioned, every time they can renew a contract, The company will need to figure out how many people they can lay off. Or trade.
I have seen cases where 20 High Paid white collar jobs were terminated so they can bring in 50 Low paid labors. Because in terms of Union Dues that will bring in more money. Normally at a non-union company if they need the labors they will just hire them, and not think about the white collar jobs, because those jobs are an asset to the company. And not a bargaining chip.
Vocational Jobs != Unioned jobs.
Trying to Unionizing coders has a lot of challenges.
1. Coding is a safe job. White Collar jobs in general do not got a lot of support to be unionized.
2. Compared to these other unionized jobs, you are not normally getting walked on. Your job may suck, for the most part you are getting paid a middle class salary.
3. Most coders work for companies that don't specialize in coding. So if you are working for government, education, or some factories you will be under their union anyways.
4. Increased mobility of jobs. This is affecting unions across many sectors. Back in the old day if you grow up in a City, you spend your life in that city, you will not commute to the next city. So if your job treats you poorly. You are stuck. Today we can find jobs across the world, so the Union will not have much need for workers who can quit on a drop of a hat.
5. We are a threat to Unions. Existing unions are not big fans of our profession. Because by creating job efficiency, the company will not need to hire additional unionized workers. The Union will in short give us the short end of the stick, dropping 100 high paid IT workers to bring on 400 Low paid labors.
6. There is a huge range in skill set quality. Many unionized jobs are easily replaceable jobs. Some Entry Level coding jobs may be like this. But normally after people gain skills they tend to specialize, and become harder to replace.
I am not sure why this was modded funny. Code is its own explanation of an abstract Idea. When you are reading code, you are not worried about it sounding meaningful, but understanding on what it does.
Code isn't meant to be read out loud. It isn't a story, it is a set of instructions.
Many of the votes for Trump, were more votes against Clinton. They are not 100% okay with the bigotry, but that problem seems like less of an issue then the issues they saw in Clinton.
Often a lot of video game "AI" are actually cheats.
With predefined actions when something appears.
Eg A Goalkeeper would be inactive until the ball is so many pixels away. Then it will move to to try to intercept the ball. Normally this is designed so the human player has a chance on getting it past it. An AI Goal Keeper may choose to leave the confines of the box, and help with defense. Seeing trends in the offset a fast kicker, or one that uses a lot of lift, or can do a curve, tends to favor the left or right.... A lot more details to solve then just to make sure the ball doesn't past the goal.
We as people, are faced with tasks that we just cannot learn to do. Because of limitations in our perceptions, thing that we have no instincts to do or even bother trying to do. Or the fact we have specialized in a particular area, that trying to learn a new way would take too long to redo.
The point of AI isn't to create a human replacement. But a tool that can process information from a human world.
No the flood TV and Radio channels that shows how the other guy is so bad.
For example. If a small group is against something that a lot of people like, they will twist it to make it seem like a much larger group in which this small group is a subset of.
So all conservatives are racist. And all liberals are atheists. All the rich and powerful are republicans. All the whining protesters are Democrats.
It creates an us vs them mantality, exaggerating the difference between people, where the difference isn't so great.