Now, their plans are priced for things like gynecological exams for men and prostate exams for women
I don't understand this argument. How can these factors possibly cause the insurance to cost more? If they're impossible, which they are, then they cost nothing to underwrite.
No, that's not going to happen. This isn't 1930. Agriculture is a solved problem in the USA, with near zero marginal cost of production and almost no dependence on human labor.
Nothing short of total nuclear war is going to interrupt the flow of bread or circuses in America. You'll have to find some other trigger for your revolution.
If that's not libel, then the law has a bug, and needs to be fixed.
Regardless of the obscure legal technicalities, the facts are as follows: (1) Twitter is drawing a distinction between "safe" and "dangerous" sites; (2) Twitter is suggesting that the site in question is "dangerous," and (3) Twitter is causing the victim to suffer demonstrable losses as a direct result.
Twitter's act of drawing a distinction between "safe" and "dangerous" links should be what incurs the liability. They should not be able to wiggle out of it by using qualifiers like "potentially."
Everyone who has released software and had it marked by IE's SmartScreen filter with a lurid "Untrusted" warning dialog will understand this. Companies should not be allowed to do this without accountability.
But conservatives passed a law which banned that practice in the 1930s, although they prefer that most people remain ignorant about that, as most people still believe that closed-shops are still common.
Can you elaborate on that? My understanding is that there are still a lot of states without right-to-work laws. (Not trolling or arguing, just unsure what you're referring to.)
A physician who rejects the basic principles of modern biology is like an electrician who doesn't believe in Ohm's Law. I'm not going to hire them, and I'm damned sure not going to vote for them.
The HP Way died on a dark winter's day in 1999, when Bill Hewlett experienced a failure of willpower reminiscent of the fall of Isildur, and failed to drown Carly Fiorina in his swimming pool.
Please provide some reasoning why educational performance or intelligence cannot be meaningfully quantised in some way or another.
What exactly are you measuring? If the underlying model that you're using to map performance to performance metrics is wrong, then the resulting metrics are worthless at best.
This question hasn't been settled in the field of education. We can't even agree on what IQ is, or if there is any such thing.
You realize that the only reason you have a computer to moralize with, and an Internet to transmit your words of wisdom, is because of military applications. Right?
So whenever I read about things like this, my initial reaction is "what are they thinking?" followed by abject disgust for anyone involved in the project.
WTF? Turn in your (wo)man card. Like an overpowered sports car or a gun that shoots through schools, the outrageously excessive badassery of this thing has an appeal all its own.
For every smoking clanking roaring polluting autonomous quadruped you refuse to build, I'm going to build two.
Citation needed. Specifically, exactly where did this "million miles of driving" with no human intervention occur?
Navigating the traffic I just drove through, which included a construction zone with flagmen, police, and multiple unmarked lane shifts, would be classified as a hard AI problem. If the Google cars can handle that without human assistance, then I'm genuinely blown away.
Those experimental self-driving cars still have a human at the helm, paying close attention to everything that's going on. Rest assured that this is not a model for how those cars would actually be used by everyday drivers.
Agreed. There is simply no way that autonomous cars can safely be used on the same roads as human-operated ones. It just isn't going to happen. You might as well try to mix human-driven cars with 60 MPH horses.
A lot of interesting technical feats are about to become practical, but not implementable due to human factors. We'll have to eliminate human drivers at some point, whether we like it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought of this. Easy way to turn $80K into a few million, assuming you can borrow that much TSLA or buy enough call options.
Now, their plans are priced for things like gynecological exams for men and prostate exams for women
I don't understand this argument. How can these factors possibly cause the insurance to cost more? If they're impossible, which they are, then they cost nothing to underwrite.
No, that's not going to happen. This isn't 1930. Agriculture is a solved problem in the USA, with near zero marginal cost of production and almost no dependence on human labor.
Nothing short of total nuclear war is going to interrupt the flow of bread or circuses in America. You'll have to find some other trigger for your revolution.
If that's not libel, then the law has a bug, and needs to be fixed.
Regardless of the obscure legal technicalities, the facts are as follows: (1) Twitter is drawing a distinction between "safe" and "dangerous" sites; (2) Twitter is suggesting that the site in question is "dangerous," and (3) Twitter is causing the victim to suffer demonstrable losses as a direct result.
Twitter's act of drawing a distinction between "safe" and "dangerous" links should be what incurs the liability. They should not be able to wiggle out of it by using qualifiers like "potentially."
Everyone who has released software and had it marked by IE's SmartScreen filter with a lurid "Untrusted" warning dialog will understand this. Companies should not be allowed to do this without accountability.
This is what /r/scholar on Reddit does.
But conservatives passed a law which banned that practice in the 1930s, although they prefer that most people remain ignorant about that, as most people still believe that closed-shops are still common.
Can you elaborate on that? My understanding is that there are still a lot of states without right-to-work laws. (Not trolling or arguing, just unsure what you're referring to.)
A physician who rejects the basic principles of modern biology is like an electrician who doesn't believe in Ohm's Law. I'm not going to hire them, and I'm damned sure not going to vote for them.
Pull the other one. It has a bell attached!
Sure it does. The phenomena have exactly the same psychological basis: if you're going for realism, a near miss is the worst way to fail.
After all, reality has a well-known negative bias.
The HP Way died on a dark winter's day in 1999, when Bill Hewlett experienced a failure of willpower reminiscent of the fall of Isildur, and failed to drown Carly Fiorina in his swimming pool.
Please provide some reasoning why educational performance or intelligence cannot be meaningfully quantised in some way or another.
What exactly are you measuring? If the underlying model that you're using to map performance to performance metrics is wrong, then the resulting metrics are worthless at best.
This question hasn't been settled in the field of education. We can't even agree on what IQ is, or if there is any such thing.
Athletic department on line 2. Coach says to put those goalposts right back where you found them, or there's going to be trouble.
That's done after a downconversion to baseband, though. Not at RF. Hence the use of a local oscillator.
Moot point, since no, it isn't going to interfere with any avionics.
You realize that the only reason you have a computer to moralize with, and an Internet to transmit your words of wisdom, is because of military applications. Right?
So whenever I read about things like this, my initial reaction is "what are they thinking?" followed by abject disgust for anyone involved in the project.
WTF? Turn in your (wo)man card. Like an overpowered sports car or a gun that shoots through schools, the outrageously excessive badassery of this thing has an appeal all its own.
For every smoking clanking roaring polluting autonomous quadruped you refuse to build, I'm going to build two.
Sorry, the asterisks should have been <i> tags. I was quoting the GP.
*Can't say that we've seen a tech boom here in Massachusetts*
Well, you had a confounding variable, in the form of the asinine "IT tax" that is now slated for repeal.
If he had guts, he'd take the job, and deal with the limpet mine that the Mossad plants on his car...
Citation needed. Specifically, exactly where did this "million miles of driving" with no human intervention occur?
Navigating the traffic I just drove through, which included a construction zone with flagmen, police, and multiple unmarked lane shifts, would be classified as a hard AI problem. If the Google cars can handle that without human assistance, then I'm genuinely blown away.
Google's fleet of self-driving cars have logged over a million miles driving on the same roads as human-operated cars.
Not without a very alert, cautious human ready to assume control at all times, they haven't.
Those experimental self-driving cars still have a human at the helm, paying close attention to everything that's going on. Rest assured that this is not a model for how those cars would actually be used by everyday drivers.
Agreed. There is simply no way that autonomous cars can safely be used on the same roads as human-operated ones. It just isn't going to happen. You might as well try to mix human-driven cars with 60 MPH horses.
A lot of interesting technical feats are about to become practical, but not implementable due to human factors. We'll have to eliminate human drivers at some point, whether we like it or not.
Exactly. I'd rather stay here, and live forever. Don't those morons know GTA5 just came out?
You sound concerned.