There is about a one in a million chance that Rackstraw (or any random person) was a black ops CIA operative. There is a one in 200 million chance of someone being DB Cooper. The odds that a person is BOTH DB Cooper and a black ops CIA operative is 1 in 200 trillion.
So he never existed (1 in 200 trillion odds in a population of under 5 billion means a 99.999% chance of a non-event)?
When doing stats on a population your realistic lower bound is 1 inpopulation-size and your realistic upper bound is population-size in population-size. Within that range your odds of finding a speciman matching your criteria are linear to the num when saying odds are num in $population-size. Once you go below that range your odds of finding a speciman matching that criteria grow exponentially towards zero (for above you start growing exponentially towards 1.0).
DB Cooper was an American or Canadian by all accounts - hence the lower bound for any random person being DB Cooper is 1 in 230 million (I think that was the combined population of 20yo to 60yo at the time). That number also includes being a black ops CIA operative because all of the black ops CIA operatives are part of that 230m population size.
In much the same way, the lower bound on the odds of DB Cooper being the sitting president of the US at the time is *also* 1 in 230m - the odds simply do not go below that.
...which makes it unfeasible because RAM prices are through the roof.
No, they aren't. The last I checked a single ASIC miner sells for around $3k. An extra $1k on that for 64GB of RAM is not going to make mining unfeasible, especially if the RAM contents during mining can be shared between all threads (AFAIK, they can).
A year of Office 365 doesn't even cost as much as 2 hours of may pay and I don’t even make a high-end salary at my work. Get a better job, poorfag.
I can afford lots of things. Doesn't mean that I have to buy them when there are cheaper alternatives; that extra money can go to things I actually care about.
I can afford the latest iPhone, but I have a four year old BB that does what I need it to do. I can afford a new car, but I have a 13 year old ford that drives where I need to go. I can afford a new xeon workstation, but my current 7 year old i5 is working just fine.
In much the same way, I can easily afford the MS Office license, but why would I buy an MS Office license? Putting Office on my computer does not in any way improve my computer or my computing experience.
Would you pay $99 for something that you get no benefit out of?
Requiring a lot of memory is enough to make a coin ASIC resistant.
No, it doesn't. One can simply design the ASIC to take desktop (or ECC) RAM chips. The only reason that ASIC miners don't have a lot of RAM right now is because they did not need a lot to mine bitcoin.
Changing the design of the existing ASICs to take 96GB of RAM each? Not a problem.
Who's ass did you pull those numbers from? Almost every flavor of ejuice is available with different amounts of nicotine.
Availability does not ensure popularity.
This study's survey showed only 1% of users using nicotine free e-liquid.
I'm looking at the full-text of that document. I think I see where you went wrong: What the paper says is "a 2015 review suggests that 1% of ejuice is nicotine-free", with the previous statement "Although some e juice is nicotine-free, surveys demonstrate that 97% of e cigarette users use products that contain nicotine."
Both those surveys were (ref3 and ref18) are available as full-text using a google search. Both surveys exclude non-smokers from the pool of ejuice users.
IOW, the 1%-3% figure you give is accurate for those who both smoke and vape. No surprise that smokers who also vape almost exclusivley use nicotine when vaping. Those who vape only (don't smke at all) comprise around 2/3 of all vapers (same article), and they did not present any figures for the nicotine content of the non-smokers vaping.
This is why your information is inconsistent with what the vapers are saying - your data covers those who smoke and vape while most of the vapers don't smoke.
Keep in mind that availability does not imply usage. Also, you forget those that mix their own flavors and strengths using a strong nicotine based e-juice combined with non-nicotine flavor bases.
Whoa there, Capt assumption - all the (20 or so) people I know who mix their own, myself included, don't put any nicotine in.
Not necessarily. It's not just e-liquid. The cost of vaporizers, tanks, mouth pieces, chargers and electricity isn't zero. And coils and batteries are considered consumables to be replaced.
I'd estimate that the average vaper probably spends twice as much as the e-liquid on the hobby. Some a lot more.
Your estimate is off by a pretty large factor. My $160/m smoke habit (from two years ago) is now a $20/m vape habit. Of all the people I know who switched from cigarettes to vaping (+-20 or so people) none of gone back to cigarettes.
In short, vaping is on track to costing the state quite a bundle on lost taxes.
Then how do you explain adults (which I'll define here as "at least 25 years old") who are smokers? Who are aware of the enormous preponderance of incontrovertible medical and scientific evidence that smoking is among the worst things you can do to your health, and smoke anyway?
No, it isn't. Overeating and lack of exercise are the number one killers of both smokers and non-smokers, not cigarettes.
Judging from what I saw at NRF in New York City earlier this week the answer is a definite no. Not only did the systems I saw fail to guess my facial emotion but they also decided that I was female. I'm a 53 your old man with short hair and a goatee. It kind of makes you wonder what kind of faces they used to program in what a female face would look like...
I don't think that we are far off but that conference tends to have some pretty decent cutting-edge systems to show off and we are clearly not there yet.
I started getting into ANN and ML recently, just as a hobby. My finding thus far is that the AI we are hearing so much about is nothing more than a sophisticated fuzzy pattern matcher. That's literally all it does: it "learns" by mapping patterns to a limited range of predetermined outputs. The path taken to determine what input should be mapped to what output is reinforced by feeding the machine millions of inputs (and providing the correct output to adjust the weights taken by the path).
It's sophisticated, computationally expensive, and hilariously nowhere near "intelligence". After seeing how these machines (the ANN) functions I'm pretty certain that we're nowhere close enough to intelligent machines. Sure, we can train a particular NN to beat humans at Go, but the first time we put it in front of another game (recognising pictures) it will lose. Give it enough time and error-correction and it will eventually win that too, but the problem is that there are so many "general" tasks that humans and other animals accomplish with much less training that the machine can never hope to keep up.
I can attest to that. My 180EUR phone is an 8-core, 3GB RAM, 64GB internal storage, pretty much vanilla Android 7 (updates provided), 4500mAh 3-days-on-one-charge-with-permanent-wifi-on battery, *actual* IP-68 ruggedness beast, that can connect to my wifi from down the street, survives being thrown against walls and put through entire washing machine cycles, has an outstanding build quality, does 2 SIM *plus* an SD card, is completely unbrickable (yes, including wrecking the bootloader so it won't turn on... you can upload new firmware anyway), has replacement batteries available on e-bay, and a complete disassembly and reassembly video on YouTube, *posted by the manufacturer*. Also it looks awesome, and not like a boring featureless slab/blade.
You literally get screwdrivers with he thing!
What phone is this? And do you have an Amazon link?
Did you miss the part about "guaranteed bad trips"? Judging from the picture I saw of the cat, it would cause extreme paranoid reactions, probably worse than is normally called clinically severe. The cat was backed up against the wall trying to flee from the mouse sitting in a cage looking puzzled. (Well, as near as I can tell how a mouse is feeling.)
I'd very much liek to see that picture (and maybe caption it). Do you have a link?
Erh... as a man you also can't make a woman have an abortion.
As a women you get to give up the baby and discharge all obligations that go with it, without requiring anyones permission to do so. As a man you cannot discharge your obligations to the fetus.
If that's not what you were talking about, then WTF IS the alternative to "forcing a man into parenthood" once he's made the decision to get a woman pregnant?
Are you seriously making the argument that a decision to have sex means that society can blithely tell a person "Sorry - you should have thought of that before having sex"?
Once again, gender is immaterial - if you're willing to say that people who have sex should stand by their decision to risk pregnancy then you're going to annoy a large number of people.
The only way your argument can work is if you bring gender into it - try making whatever argument you think you're making without referring to the gender of the parent-to-be.
The minute you toss out gender considerations the arguments for/against forced parenthood fall apart.
Do you believe that people should be forced into parenthood even if they do not want to be a parent?
Of course not.
Yet that IS what we do. All the rationalisation in the world doesn't change that fact. Take away the labels of "men" and "women" - gender is a social construct after all and the argument for one way or the other doesn't have a logical ending.
The only way the current argument for/against forced parenthood works is when we attach emotional value to one argument over the other.
In current society we argue both for and against forced parenthood, depending on who the social construct we are arguing is.
Do you believe that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion because he regrets his choice?
Why would I believe such a thing? If a person stands up and says "I don't want to be a parent of this 30-day old fetus", do we say "Okay, your are discharged from all parental obligations" or do we say "Sorry - you should have thought of that before having sex".
I'm actually not arguing any of that, I'm genuinely curious about the answer to the following question:
Should people be forced into parenthood against their consent?
There is no "It depends" with this sort of question - either you feel it is morally wrong to force people into parenthood against their wishes or you feel it is morally right to force people into parenthood against their wishes
Choosing the answer of "it depends on who the person is" implies an internally inconsistent set of morals and a high degree of either hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance.
Agree 100%. Men should have to give consent every time they have sex. I'm firmly anti-rape.
I did not ask about consent to sex. I asked about consent to parenthood. Those are two different things. Once again I will ask (and please don't snip the context out):
I propose that a man's consent is required before he is made into an unwilling parent, just like a women has to consent to being a parent.
You insist on answering a different question: I did not ask "Should men be allowed to consent to sex", so stop answering that question. Let me rephrase my question so that there is no ambiguity:
Do you believe that people should be forced into parenthood even if they do not want to be a parent?
I propose that a man's consent is required before he is made into an unwilling parent
Are there a lot of incidents of men having their sperm stolen?
Actually, I only just noticed - why did you feel it necessary to snip my sentence in two? Is it because you only have a point if you remove context?
Let's not dance around the issue - the following sentence is a single atomic concept that you can either agree with, disagree with or remain totally neutral about:
I propose that a man's consent is required before he is made into an unwilling parent, just like a women has to consent to being a parent.
Are there a lot of incidents of men having their sperm stolen?
Are there a lot of incidents of women having sex and rejecting parenthood? Why would you think that men would not want to also have sex and reject parenthood?
As a society, we have this thing called adoption for irresponsible parents (it takes two) who get pregnant but are not equipped emotionally, mentally, financially, etc
No. As a society we have this thing called adoption[1] for irresponsible women who are not equipped emotionally, mentally or financially to be a parent. Irresponsible men can, and very often are, forced into parental obligations regardless of any (un)willingness on their part.
[1] You can substitute the word "abortion" and still that sentence will be correct.
Slashdot Mirror
There is about a one in a million chance that Rackstraw (or any random person) was a black ops CIA operative. There is a one in 200 million chance of someone being DB Cooper. The odds that a person is BOTH DB Cooper and a black ops CIA operative is 1 in 200 trillion.
So he never existed (1 in 200 trillion odds in a population of under 5 billion means a 99.999% chance of a non-event)?
When doing stats on a population your realistic lower bound is 1 inpopulation-size and your realistic upper bound is population-size in population-size. Within that range your odds of finding a speciman matching your criteria are linear to the num when saying odds are num in $population-size. Once you go below that range your odds of finding a speciman matching that criteria grow exponentially towards zero (for above you start growing exponentially towards 1.0).
DB Cooper was an American or Canadian by all accounts - hence the lower bound for any random person being DB Cooper is 1 in 230 million (I think that was the combined population of 20yo to 60yo at the time). That number also includes being a black ops CIA operative because all of the black ops CIA operatives are part of that 230m population size.
In much the same way, the lower bound on the odds of DB Cooper being the sitting president of the US at the time is *also* 1 in 230m - the odds simply do not go below that.
Violence. The perfect response to a non-violent protest.
Forcefully and physically blocking someone is violence.
What would he have done if someone forcefully and physically prevented him from performing his stunt?
...which makes it unfeasible because RAM prices are through the roof.
No, they aren't. The last I checked a single ASIC miner sells for around $3k. An extra $1k on that for 64GB of RAM is not going to make mining unfeasible, especially if the RAM contents during mining can be shared between all threads (AFAIK, they can).
A year of Office 365 doesn't even cost as much as 2 hours of may pay and I don’t even make a high-end salary at my work. Get a better job, poorfag.
I can afford lots of things. Doesn't mean that I have to buy them when there are cheaper alternatives; that extra money can go to things I actually care about.
I can afford the latest iPhone, but I have a four year old BB that does what I need it to do. I can afford a new car, but I have a 13 year old ford that drives where I need to go. I can afford a new xeon workstation, but my current 7 year old i5 is working just fine.
In much the same way, I can easily afford the MS Office license, but why would I buy an MS Office license? Putting Office on my computer does not in any way improve my computer or my computing experience.
Would you pay $99 for something that you get no benefit out of?
Requiring a lot of memory is enough to make a coin ASIC resistant.
No, it doesn't. One can simply design the ASIC to take desktop (or ECC) RAM chips. The only reason that ASIC miners don't have a lot of RAM right now is because they did not need a lot to mine bitcoin.
Changing the design of the existing ASICs to take 96GB of RAM each? Not a problem.
Who's ass did you pull those numbers from? Almost every flavor of ejuice is available with different amounts of nicotine.
Availability does not ensure popularity. This study's survey showed only 1% of users using nicotine free e-liquid.
I'm looking at the full-text of that document. I think I see where you went wrong: What the paper says is "a 2015 review suggests that 1% of ejuice is nicotine-free", with the previous statement "Although some e juice is nicotine-free, surveys demonstrate that 97% of e cigarette users use products that contain nicotine."
Both those surveys were (ref3 and ref18) are available as full-text using a google search. Both surveys exclude non-smokers from the pool of ejuice users.
IOW, the 1%-3% figure you give is accurate for those who both smoke and vape. No surprise that smokers who also vape almost exclusivley use nicotine when vaping. Those who vape only (don't smke at all) comprise around 2/3 of all vapers (same article), and they did not present any figures for the nicotine content of the non-smokers vaping.
This is why your information is inconsistent with what the vapers are saying - your data covers those who smoke and vape while most of the vapers don't smoke.
Link provided in a different post.
I don't see it. If I find it I'll reply.
Keep in mind that availability does not imply usage. Also, you forget those that mix their own flavors and strengths using a strong nicotine based e-juice combined with non-nicotine flavor bases.
Whoa there, Capt assumption - all the (20 or so) people I know who mix their own, myself included, don't put any nicotine in.
Vaping is CHEAPER than smoking.
Not necessarily. It's not just e-liquid. The cost of vaporizers, tanks, mouth pieces, chargers and electricity isn't zero. And coils and batteries are considered consumables to be replaced.
I'd estimate that the average vaper probably spends twice as much as the e-liquid on the hobby. Some a lot more.
Your estimate is off by a pretty large factor. My $160/m smoke habit (from two years ago) is now a $20/m vape habit. Of all the people I know who switched from cigarettes to vaping (+-20 or so people) none of gone back to cigarettes.
In short, vaping is on track to costing the state quite a bundle on lost taxes.
Then how do you explain adults (which I'll define here as "at least 25 years old") who are smokers? Who are aware of the enormous preponderance of incontrovertible medical and scientific evidence that smoking is among the worst things you can do to your health, and smoke anyway?
No, it isn't. Overeating and lack of exercise are the number one killers of both smokers and non-smokers, not cigarettes.
Nicotine is optional in e-cigs. I know a lot of people that smoke the flavors without nicotine.
That seems doubtful. Only 1-3% of any e-liquid sold is without nicotine, so you knowing "a lot" of people who do that is statistically improbable.
Mind, some might say they only use nicotine free e-liquid in order to increase the chance of being allowed to do it.
Where'd you pull that from? The stores I see selling this have *all* of the flavours in a nicotine-free option.
"Violent video games don't promote violence"
"Sexist video games promote sexism"
Pick one.
Judging from what I saw at NRF in New York City earlier this week the answer is a definite no. Not only did the systems I saw fail to guess my facial emotion but they also decided that I was female. I'm a 53 your old man with short hair and a goatee. It kind of makes you wonder what kind of faces they used to program in what a female face would look like...
I don't think that we are far off but that conference tends to have some pretty decent cutting-edge systems to show off and we are clearly not there yet.
I started getting into ANN and ML recently, just as a hobby. My finding thus far is that the AI we are hearing so much about is nothing more than a sophisticated fuzzy pattern matcher. That's literally all it does: it "learns" by mapping patterns to a limited range of predetermined outputs. The path taken to determine what input should be mapped to what output is reinforced by feeding the machine millions of inputs (and providing the correct output to adjust the weights taken by the path).
It's sophisticated, computationally expensive, and hilariously nowhere near "intelligence". After seeing how these machines (the ANN) functions I'm pretty certain that we're nowhere close enough to intelligent machines. Sure, we can train a particular NN to beat humans at Go, but the first time we put it in front of another game (recognising pictures) it will lose. Give it enough time and error-correction and it will eventually win that too, but the problem is that there are so many "general" tasks that humans and other animals accomplish with much less training that the machine can never hope to keep up.
I can attest to that. My 180EUR phone is an 8-core, 3GB RAM, 64GB internal storage, pretty much vanilla Android 7 (updates provided), 4500mAh 3-days-on-one-charge-with-permanent-wifi-on battery, *actual* IP-68 ruggedness beast, that can connect to my wifi from down the street, survives being thrown against walls and put through entire washing machine cycles, has an outstanding build quality, does 2 SIM *plus* an SD card, is completely unbrickable (yes, including wrecking the bootloader so it won't turn on ... you can upload new firmware anyway), has replacement batteries available on e-bay, and a complete disassembly and reassembly video on YouTube, *posted by the manufacturer*. Also it looks awesome, and not like a boring featureless slab/blade.
You literally get screwdrivers with he thing!
What phone is this? And do you have an Amazon link?
Did you miss the part about "guaranteed bad trips"? Judging from the picture I saw of the cat, it would cause extreme paranoid reactions, probably worse than is normally called clinically severe. The cat was backed up against the wall trying to flee from the mouse sitting in a cage looking puzzled. (Well, as near as I can tell how a mouse is feeling.)
I'd very much liek to see that picture (and maybe caption it). Do you have a link?
But for some freakish reason in the past year or two we had an influx of people who keep droning on with their bullshit agenda. >
Honestly, I miss Dr Bob and his subluxations. I think grub was the last sophisticated troll I've seen on the internet.
I suspect they now write the lyrics, the music, all of it -- and merely parade anyone out front to sing the trash.
What do you mean "now"? Remember Stock, Aitken and Waterman?
Erh... as a man you also can't make a woman have an abortion.
As a women you get to give up the baby and discharge all obligations that go with it, without requiring anyones permission to do so. As a man you cannot discharge your obligations to the fetus.
If that's not what you were talking about, then WTF IS the alternative to "forcing a man into parenthood" once he's made the decision to get a woman pregnant?
Are you seriously making the argument that a decision to have sex means that society can blithely tell a person "Sorry - you should have thought of that before having sex"?
Once again, gender is immaterial - if you're willing to say that people who have sex should stand by their decision to risk pregnancy then you're going to annoy a large number of people.
The only way your argument can work is if you bring gender into it - try making whatever argument you think you're making without referring to the gender of the parent-to-be.
The minute you toss out gender considerations the arguments for/against forced parenthood fall apart.
Do you believe that people should be forced into parenthood even if they do not want to be a parent?
Of course not.
Yet that IS what we do. All the rationalisation in the world doesn't change that fact. Take away the labels of "men" and "women" - gender is a social construct after all and the argument for one way or the other doesn't have a logical ending.
The only way the current argument for/against forced parenthood works is when we attach emotional value to one argument over the other.
In current society we argue both for and against forced parenthood, depending on who the social construct we are arguing is.
Do you believe that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion because he regrets his choice?
Why would I believe such a thing? If a person stands up and says "I don't want to be a parent of this 30-day old fetus", do we say "Okay, your are discharged from all parental obligations" or do we say "Sorry - you should have thought of that before having sex".
The gender of the person is immaterial.
Should people be forced into parenthood against their consent?
There is no "It depends" with this sort of question - either you feel it is morally wrong to force people into parenthood against their wishes or you feel it is morally right to force people into parenthood against their wishes
Choosing the answer of "it depends on who the person is" implies an internally inconsistent set of morals and a high degree of either hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance.
Agree 100%. Men should have to give consent every time they have sex. I'm firmly anti-rape.
I did not ask about consent to sex. I asked about consent to parenthood. Those are two different things. Once again I will ask (and please don't snip the context out):
I propose that a man's consent is required before he is made into an unwilling parent, just like a women has to consent to being a parent.
You insist on answering a different question: I did not ask "Should men be allowed to consent to sex", so stop answering that question. Let me rephrase my question so that there is no ambiguity:
Do you believe that people should be forced into parenthood even if they do not want to be a parent?
I propose that a man's consent is required before he is made into an unwilling parent
Are there a lot of incidents of men having their sperm stolen?
Actually, I only just noticed - why did you feel it necessary to snip my sentence in two? Is it because you only have a point if you remove context?
Let's not dance around the issue - the following sentence is a single atomic concept that you can either agree with, disagree with or remain totally neutral about:
I propose that a man's consent is required before he is made into an unwilling parent, just like a women has to consent to being a parent.
Do you agree, disagree or just don't care?
Are there a lot of incidents of men having their sperm stolen?
Are there a lot of incidents of women having sex and rejecting parenthood? Why would you think that men would not want to also have sex and reject parenthood?
Yes, let's be consistent about it.
Okay - I propose that a man's consent is required before he is made into an unwilling parent, just like a women has to consent to being a parent.
What? You didn't really want consistency? Then why ask for it?
As a society, we have this thing called adoption for irresponsible parents (it takes two) who get pregnant but are not equipped emotionally, mentally, financially, etc
No. As a society we have this thing called adoption[1] for irresponsible women who are not equipped emotionally, mentally or financially to be a parent. Irresponsible men can, and very often are, forced into parental obligations regardless of any (un)willingness on their part.
[1] You can substitute the word "abortion" and still that sentence will be correct.